Should there be a general election?

[heathgate]

Simple answer is NO. The PM has changed 24 times in the last 100 years - only 12 of those times were at a GE. The party that was voted in to form the government in 2015 is still in power regardless of who the PM is.

Exactly...... this call for an election is by the same people who called for a 2nd referendum.... simply because their skewed sense of entitlement leads them to refuse the possibility that they lost.... that someone would say no to them..... heaven forbid.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Boy Blue]

No way. The Libreals, Greens and the SNP only want one in the hope of sabotage leaving the EU.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I don't agree. I wouldn't say most people. You vote for your constituency MP, who could be a good candidate or a lousy candidate. There is tactical voting in marginals to get rid of lousy candidates. Not everyone votes on party lines.

Well I don't vote for my constituency MP, I vote for someone who I want to replace my MP. I know virtually nothing about this person, other than he will vote alongside the party I want to be in government.

All sitting MP's have a loyalty vote of some degree, and protest candidates often win, and dodgy MP's can get voted out against the political leanings of their district, but these are all exceptions, most people vote red or blue (or yellow or green or...) simply because of the colour of the rosette.

I was talking about most 'swing' voters, those whose vote matters most, and I believe most of them vote depending on who the party leader is.

 

[GT49er]

No way. The Libreals, Greens and the SNP only want one in the hope of sabotage leaving the EU.

You can add Labour to that list too! And a substantial number of Tory MPs............

 

[Boy Blue]

You can add Labour to that list too! And a substantial number of Tory MPs............

Just as well it won't happen isn't it.

 

[GT49er]

Just as well it won't happen isn't it.

Yep!

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I'm actually surprised at the response to my question. I fully expected there to be a majority of people saying that we should have a general election but most people are saying no. Not for the first time I'm surprised by NSC.

Personally I don't think we should have one but if I was Prime Minister I would be tempted. Fortunately for all concerned, I'm not.

 

[petemcp]

yes. parliament has to vote on article 50 anyway, let's end this nonsense now

 

[Blue3]

Yes the country has not voted for Mrs May as PM or her policies

 

[Boy Blue]

yes. parliament has to vote on article 50 anyway, let's end this nonsense now

No they don't. The government decides when article 50 is activated and they bloody best do as we're not living in some dictatorship like Anglia Merkel is imposing on Europe.

 

[beorhthelm]

No they don't. The government decides when article 50 is activated and they bloody best do as we're not living in some dictatorship like Anglia Merkel is imposing on Europe.

this is not the view of a number of legal and constitutional experts, though others disagree. the original act to join the EEC cannot be repealed by the government alone, so would need a new act to do so. so the government might be able technically to invoke Article 50 but not allowed to negotiate any terms of exit as the 1972 legislation holds. or something like that.

 

[pb21]

I personally do think there should be one. Not because we didn't directly elect May, more because there has been a fundamental vote in the referendum for how our country operates, but not a vote for how things should progress, May does not have a mandate for what happens next.

I also find it amusing the usual Brexit crowd saying we don't need one as we dont elect the PM and seemingly cant even begin to appreciate why this might be a concern or why it may be undemocratic!

These are the very same people who were getting their knickers in a twist and collectively spitting in the soup and shitting the bed over the 'un-elected' President of the European Commission etc, despite the President of the European Commission being in that position through very similar means, i.e. nominated and elected via democratically elected heads of state (like Dave) and MEPs (like Nige).

Despite the fact one person is in a position of relative power and the other not (although they are European), that has been a reason for this lot to take a loaded shotgun aim it at our gonads and pull the trigger. You couldn't make it up!

 

[Stato]

There does need to be an election in order to sort out the uncertainty around leaving the EU. May needs to get a cabinet in place, take a short while to establish her intended direction and then take her plans for Brexit to the electorate. The Lib Dems and SNP will stand on revoking the referendum decision, but Labour as a potential party of government would have to describe how they would approach leaving. The winner would have a mandate to invoke article 50 and begin negotiations.

Cameron has been utterly irresponsible in his arrogance over the referendum. The electorate was not asked whether it would prioritise staying in the single market over immigration control or vice versa. The Leave campaign suggested that both were possible, but this looks like being proven a lie. Unless someone has an informed mandate to enter into these negotiations, a good proportion of those who voted to Leave could be arguing that the majority did not get what it voted for whatever the outcome.

As a left wing remainer I am not arguing this either to oust the Tories or to cling on to the EU. The Labour Party is currently a basket case and will lose heavily. May will deliver Brexit, but will be able to do so with a proper democratic mandate. From a Labour point of view, it may be better to lose badly quickly and subsequently sort out the party rather than continue to squabble for four years and then lose badly.

 

[beorhthelm]

... there has been a fundamental vote in the referendum for how our country operates, but not a vote for how things should progress, May does not have a mandate for what happens next.

There does need to be an election in order to sort out the uncertainty around leaving the EU.

a general election doesn't clear up anything unless you rely on submarining EU policy under all other election issues. you'd just take the whole discussion backwards to demands to have a referendum on EU membership.

 

[BensGrandad]

No. This government were elected on a mandate to hold a definitive referendum on the EU. Thy have fulfilled that pledge, the British public has made its decision, and now the government is morally obliged to complete the work of removing us from the EU.
Then, in 2020, when there is no way back into the EU anyway, we can vote in a decent Labour government.

Not entirely correct they were voted in to have the refererendum but there is no obligation to carry out anything further from the result and could just use is as an indication of the nations views.

 

[biddles911]

There does need to be an election in order to sort out the uncertainty around leaving the EU. May needs to get a cabinet in place, take a short while to establish her intended direction and then take her plans for Brexit to the electorate. The Lib Dems and SNP will stand on revoking the referendum decision, but Labour as a potential party of government would have to describe how they would approach leaving. The winner would have a mandate to invoke article 50 and begin negotiations.

Cameron has been utterly irresponsible in his arrogance over the referendum. The electorate was not asked whether it would prioritise staying in the single market over immigration control or vice versa. The Leave campaign suggested that both were possible, but this looks like being proven a lie. Unless someone has an informed mandate to enter into these negotiations, a good proportion of those who voted to Leave could be arguing that the majority did not get what it voted for whatever the outcome.

As a left wing remainer I am not arguing this either to oust the Tories or to cling on to the EU. The Labour Party is currently a basket case and will lose heavily. May will deliver Brexit, but will be able to do so with a proper democratic mandate. From a Labour point of view, it may be better to lose badly quickly and subsequently sort out the party rather than continue to squabble for four years and then lose badly.

Don't know how any party could produce a detailed Brexit plan to present to the electorate at this point without both having no idea whether it's deliverable and, also, giving away your red lines to those negotiating on the other side?

It also means taking an educated (?) guess as to what Brexiteers really wanted anyway.

Better in my view for May to negotiate best-possible terms first and present these to the electorate.

Problem is I don't know where we'd go after that, if terms were rejected, as we'd already have invoked Article 50?

Bit of a Catch 22 really........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pb21]

Don't know how any party could produce a detailed Brexit plan to present to the electorate at this point without both having no idea whether it's deliverable and, also, giving away your red lines to those negotiating on the other side?

It also means taking an educated (?) guess as to what Brexiteers really wanted anyway.

Better in my view for May to negotiate best-possible terms first and present these to the electorate.

Problem is I don't know where we'd go after that, if terms were rejected, as we'd already have invoked Article 50?

Bit of a Catch 22 really........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course the exact details are unknown (or even a plan of action at this stage), they won’t be known for two years at the very least, more like 5+ years.

However the government in power will shape the outcome of those deals. That government should have mandate (i.e. have been elected on the basis of what they want to achieve) on which to base those negotiations IMO.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Don't know how any party could produce a detailed Brexit plan to present to the electorate at this point without both having no idea whether it's deliverable and, also, giving away your red lines to those negotiating on the other side?

It also means taking an educated (?) guess as to what Brexiteers really wanted anyway.

Better in my view for May to negotiate best-possible terms first and present these to the electorate.

Problem is I don't know where we'd go after that, if terms were rejected, as we'd already have invoked Article 50?

Bit of a Catch 22 really........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Catch 22 is a good analogy. I thought maybe it would be better to get the negotiations underway and then call a General Election so that voters can decide, which would effectively be another referendum. But the problem with this is it will take some time and if the Conservatives then don't win we'll have to start all over agin.

I think we need a dictator.

 

[petemcp]

invoking Article 50 requires primary legislation, which means a full parliament vote.

 

[Titanic]

invoking Article 50 requires primary legislation, which means a full parliament vote.

No it doesn't. There will be plenty of that as a result, but not to invoke it.