4 ms·

That's basically the idea of fixed-term elections. The problem is that when the current government can choose the timing of the elections, it invariably choose

That's basically the idea of fixed-term elections. The problem is that when the current government can choose the timing of the elections, it invariably chooses a date that holds some sort of advantage to it. Therefore, the date of the elections is set in advance and can only be changed by a super-majority, depriving the ruling party this advantage.

makomk 7y ago
That's not how the Fixed Term Parliament Act has worked in practice, though. It let Theresa May schedule an early election because she liked the look of the polls and wanted to increase her majority just fine. What it has done is allowed the House of Commons to keep around a government which has genuinely lost the confidence of the House, to the point that they've lost every single vote since Boris took office, because kicking them out will lead to an election the government will likely win. This is not how Parliament is meant to work. The entire system is built around the idea that the government should have the confidence of the House and that the mechanism for holding them accountable is to kick them out if necessary. The FTPA wasn't meant to change this, but unfortunately I don't think anyone thought through the game-theoretical consequences of the mechanisms it created. We've basically ended up with a situation where instead of the ruling party manipulating the timing of elections, we have a majority of MPs manipulating the timing of the next general election in order to ensure the current government - who they do not support - is at the maximum disadvantage. (As others have said, the next election will almost certainly happen long before its fixed schedule.)
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Yes. The fixed term parliaments act needs repealing in my view. Quite a few people at the time thought the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a bad idea. For example, here’s an article from 2010 citing some of those opposed to it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/fixed-term-parliaments-explained https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/fixed-term-...
- michaelt 7y ago
  Let's be honest here: If parliament had voted for an early election, a no-deal Brexit would have been inevitable. Boris would have simply delayed dissolving parliament so the Oct 31 deadline passed while parliament was dissolved. To do so would have been legal and rational. The opposition would have had to be dumb to fall for that.
  - makomk 7y ago
    That would've been both politically and legally risky. Folks would undoubtedly challenge it on a multitude of legal grounds, some of which could well succeed, and also the general consensus seems to be that Boris' best shot at winning the election is to schedule it before Oct 31 so he can turn it into a vote on no-deal Brexit and scoop up the Brexit Party voter base.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      If Boris's main policy is the delivery of a no-deal brexit, and he had a choice to face an election without delivering it, or shortly after successfully delivering it, you think he'd prefer the former? I mean, I'd prefer to face election as the victorious conquering hero. Unless I thought everything would go to shit the day after no deal.
growlist 7y ago
Problem is that parliament is a. stalled and b. acting in defiance of a democratic vote and c. deliberately blocking the only logical resolution (i.e. a General Election) that does not represent an intentional subversion of democracy.
- stordoff 7y ago
  Voting for an election without an extension would almost certainly mean a no deal Brexit. _That_ is a subversion of democracy - the election is somewhat pointless if it happens after the major decision of the time has been taken.
  - growlist 7y ago
    No, because what the Remain side are trying to engineer in defiance of the public vote is BRINO.

makomk 7y ago

That's not how the Fixed Term Parliament Act has worked in practice, though. It let Theresa May schedule an early election because she liked the look of the polls and wanted to increase her majority just fine. What it has done is allowed the House of Commons to keep around a government which has genuinely lost the confidence of the House, to the point that they've lost every single vote since Boris took office, because kicking them out will lead to an election the government will likely win. This is not how Parliament is meant to work. The entire system is built around the idea that the government should have the confidence of the House and that the mechanism for holding them accountable is to kick them out if necessary. The FTPA wasn't meant to change this, but unfortunately I don't think anyone thought through the game-theoretical consequences of the mechanisms it created. We've basically ended up with a situation where instead of the ruling party manipulating the timing of elections, we have a majority of MPs manipulating the timing of the next general election in order to ensure the current government - who they do not support - is at the maximum disadvantage. (As others have said, the next election will almost certainly happen long before its fixed schedule.)

tomatocracy 7y ago
Yes. The fixed term parliaments act needs repealing in my view. Quite a few people at the time thought the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a bad idea. For example, here’s an article from 2010 citing some of those opposed to it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/fixed-term-parliaments-explained https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/fixed-term-...
michaelt 7y ago
Let's be honest here: If parliament had voted for an early election, a no-deal Brexit would have been inevitable. Boris would have simply delayed dissolving parliament so the Oct 31 deadline passed while parliament was dissolved. To do so would have been legal and rational. The opposition would have had to be dumb to fall for that.
- makomk 7y ago
  That would've been both politically and legally risky. Folks would undoubtedly challenge it on a multitude of legal grounds, some of which could well succeed, and also the general consensus seems to be that Boris' best shot at winning the election is to schedule it before Oct 31 so he can turn it into a vote on no-deal Brexit and scoop up the Brexit Party voter base.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    If Boris's main policy is the delivery of a no-deal brexit, and he had a choice to face an election without delivering it, or shortly after successfully delivering it, you think he'd prefer the former? I mean, I'd prefer to face election as the victorious conquering hero. Unless I thought everything would go to shit the day after no deal.

growlist 7y ago

Problem is that parliament is a. stalled and b. acting in defiance of a democratic vote and c. deliberately blocking the only logical resolution (i.e. a General Election) that does not represent an intentional subversion of democracy.

stordoff 7y ago
Voting for an election without an extension would almost certainly mean a no deal Brexit. _That_ is a subversion of democracy - the election is somewhat pointless if it happens after the major decision of the time has been taken.
- growlist 7y ago
  No, because what the Remain side are trying to engineer in defiance of the public vote is BRINO.