ok, i know it's not poetry but ...

[butters]

am i the only poet here, brit or otherwise, who thinks that the new coalition Con/DemLib has no right to announce out of the blue that instead of the four yearly guaranteed elections they've made it 5 yearly? without asking us, the voters?

you know, it's not often i do get politically interested much at all, but this is taking the absolute piss!

 

[bronzeage]

am i the only poet here, brit or otherwise, who thinks that the new coalition Con/DemLib has no right to announce out of the blue that instead of the four yearly guaranteed elections they've made it 5 yearly? without asking us, the voters?

you know, it's not often i do get politically interested much at all, but this is taking the absolute piss!

Do you mean 5 elections a year, or an election every 5 years?

Speaking strictly as a poet, I think Britain would be better off if the executive were elected in a regularly scheduled election and served a set term.

On this side of the Atlantic, the last time we were dissatisfied with Parliament, we through all the tea in the harbor, didn't shoot until we could see the whites of their eyes and then asked the French for help.

For all the criticism our Constitution absorbs, it is currently the oldest standing, unchanged form of government on the planet.

What the fuck does "taking the piss" mean?

 

[Lady_Fiona]

One election every 5 years....it was every 4 but they waved a magic wand and suddenly its 5 with no consultation to anyone except themselves.

If we threw our tea in the harbour the country would grind to a halt...British with no tea? Unthinkable

Taking the piss.....taking the rise, the michael, the proverbial, going beyond a joke.

 

[butters]

how embarrassing it would seem that 5 is accepted as max term, even though there are far more 4 terms served than 5'ers and some as few as a year or so between them.

still sticks in my craw, though, that they feel they can say when the next one is - 5 years time. we'll have to see about that *nods*

if they prove too unpopular, the british voters will let them know

 

[bronzeage]

how embarrassing it would seem that 5 is accepted as max term, even though there are far more 4 terms served than 5'ers and some as few as a year or so between them.

still sticks in my craw, though, that they feel they can say when the next one is - 5 years time. we'll have to see about that *nods*

if they prove too unpopular, the british voters will let them know

How did it come to pass that the elected get to decide when the next election will be held? Could they set the next election for 10 years away?

 

[butters]

How did it come to pass that the elected get to decide when the next election will be held? Could they set the next election for 10 years away?

i have no idea!

well if they can suddenly announce that 5 years is mandate now, then who knows? maybe they get away with it as that's a max term any gov't can serve without a gen e. i'm thinking they can't say 10 but who knows?

just listening to it now, on tv, it seems there's an option for opposition to call for a gen e before the 5 years are up but they have to have 55% of the votes in the house to pull that off. stats reveal that's nigh impossible for them to achieve, so if the coalition breaks down we'll have a minority conservative gov't in power.

 

[bronzeage]

i have no idea!

well if they can suddenly announce that 5 years is mandate now, then who knows? maybe they get away with it as that's a max term any gov't can serve without a gen e. i'm thinking they can't say 10 but who knows?

just listening to it now, on tv, it seems there's an option for opposition to call for a gen e before the 5 years are up but they have to have 55% of the votes in the house to pull that off. stats reveal that's nigh impossible for them to achieve, so if the coalition breaks down we'll have a minority conservative gov't in power.

This sounds like a very strange problem to an American. Our elections are mandated by the Constitution. The time and the term are set.

There is running debate over on the GB, over whether the UK has a Constitution, or not. Some Brits claim there is one, but the Americans do not think it is quite the same thing.

There are problems with having a set of rules that are very difficult to change. The part that says the government cannot search our house without a good reason also means they cannot listen to our phone calls or read our email. Some people find this to be inconvenient, but they have to live with it.

There is also this weird part about guns. No one is exactly sure what it means, but it allows us to keep a gun for no better reason than we believe someone else has one, too.

Other than that, our Constitution is remarkably good at keeping things stable. Even with our set elections and terms, there was a time a few years back when we had a President and Vice President in office, neither of which had been elected to the job. It was amazing to see it in action.

 

[Epmd607]

Shout out to the Magna Carta Clause 29 as oldest living legal document!

 

[bronzeage]

Shout out to the Magna Carta Clause 29 as oldest living legal document!

I'll give the Magna Carta its due, but how much does it contribute to solving your current government difficulties?

I've read an English translation and did not see anything about elections or terms of office.

 

[champagne1982]

Does British Parliament need to be dissolved before an election is called? We do it so that the nation is without a government in power that could (obstensibly) influence the Rules. In Canuckistan, we call on QEII's representative to perform the act of dissolution and to grant permission that an election be called.

No one representative body can change laws without the entire legislative body voting and agreeing to make it so... (I think).

Anyway, if 5 years is too long for a Prime Minister... What's goin' on with HRH? She should require a review of rule and then serve a maximum term at the end of which an ascendant must be named and the coronation party organization begun. It would be good to have a crowning in my age of majority -- aka a reason to get drunk.

 

[Tzara]

am i the only poet here, brit or otherwise, who thinks that the new coalition Con/DemLib has no right to announce out of the blue that instead of the four yearly guaranteed elections they've made it 5 yearly? without asking us, the voters?

you know, it's not often i do get politically interested much at all, but this is taking the absolute piss!

I, being American, have no real understanding of the British governmental system and how y'all run your elections. But from what I've read, I think the thing that is odd about what Cameron announced is that he has fixed the date of the next election to be five years from now (May 2015), apparently as a condescension to the Lib Dems, who want fixed electoral periods. This five year thing isn't new--the last UK general election (according to Wikipedia) was in May 2005, so Labour hadn't called one for five years.

My bet is, though, that if the Tories think they can call an election before then and get a clear majority in Commons, they'll do it, despite what they're saying right now. It's how you use the power to call an election to your party's advantage.

Expediency is the one true principle in politics.

 

[Tzara]

For all the criticism our Constitution absorbs, it is currently the oldest standing, unchanged form of government on the planet.

I found this statement very hard to believe, but after thinking about that a bit, I'm not sure it isn't true. They key word, of course, is "unchanged."

Like what the fuck does that mean?

The Chrysanthemum Throne in Japan, for example, has existed (depending on what one buys as truth) since 660 BC--a fair sight longer than the upstart USA, which if one requires the constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as a formational document, kind of starts in 1789, unless you want to add the addition of the Bill of Rights (1791), or any of the subsequent seventeen amendments to the basic document, the most recent of which (the 27th) was ratified in 1992.

So you can't just say "the constitution" and be done with it. The US Constitution, fully formed, is less than twenty years old.

And probably will be amended again.

 

[bronzeage]

I found this statement very hard to believe, but after thinking about that a bit, I'm not sure it isn't true. They key word, of course, is "unchanged."

Like what the fuck does that mean?

The Chrysanthemum Throne in Japan, for example, has existed (depending on what one buys as truth) since 660 BC--a fair sight longer than the upstart USA, which if one requires the constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as a formational document, kind of starts in 1789, unless you want to add the addition of the Bill of Rights (1791), or any of the subsequent seventeen amendments to the basic document, the most recent of which (the 27th) was ratified in 1992.

So you can't just say "the constitution" and be done with it. The US Constitution, fully formed, is less than twenty years old.

And probably will be amended again.

We reserve the right to make changes as needed. The method of change is provided by the Constitution.

The Japanese government of today does not resemble the Chrysanthemum Throne anymore than the current UK government pays any attention to what the Queen wants.

Since 1789, we have had a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court. This is our government, very much as it was originally proposed. It has proven to be a very durable, yet flexible form of government.

Maybe you can answer the question. Who does have the power to determine the length of a term of office in Parliament?

 

[Angeline]

am i the only poet here, brit or otherwise, who thinks that the new coalition Con/DemLib has no right to announce out of the blue that instead of the four yearly guaranteed elections they've made it 5 yearly? without asking us, the voters?

you know, it's not often i do get politically interested much at all, but this is taking the absolute piss!

Well I can't really relate, but I bet it feels a lot like being an American citizen and watching the US Supreme Court decide it can elect a president.

 

[Tzara]

We reserve the right to make changes as needed. The method of change is provided by the Constitution.

The Japanese government of today does not resemble the Chrysanthemum Throne anymore than the current UK government pays any attention to what the Queen wants.

Since 1789, we have had a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court. This is our government, very much as it was originally proposed. It has proven to be a very durable, yet flexible form of government.

Maybe you can answer the question. Who does have the power to determine the length of a term of office in Parliament?

Not being someone particularly versed in the statutory ins and outs of the UK government, I fear that no, I can't definitively tell you like, well, anything about their government.

Wikipedia (yeah, I know, scholarly resource) says that the party in power needs to call an election every five years.

'Bout all I know about it, technically, even if it's wrong.

Yes, we have a President, Congress, Supreme Court, Well designed institutions. But we also, over the years have changed our collective minds as to who actually is a citizen, who can vote, and how we elect representatives.

Now, those might not be major changes in our government from your standpoint, but they are significant changes akin, in some ways, to the waning power of the Throne in England.

My point, I think, was something like governments change--all governments change, over time. The USA, by implication, no exception.

Are you upset by that? I apologize if you are--I wasn't trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that there are a lot of "old" governmental traditions.

Hey. The House of Grimaldi has run Monaco since 1297.

Does that count as "oldest standing form of government on the planet?"



Yes, I am teasing you.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

I already disgraced myself on the G.B by confusing "hung parliament" with "coalition" so I'm keeping quiet from now on.

 

[Tzara]

I already disgraced myself on the G.B by confusing "hung parliament" with "coalition" so I'm keeping quiet from now on.

I suppose if I said I was a really hung parliament that we would not be able to forge a "stable" coalition?

Bad, bad joke. I know. :smilie!:

 

[bronzeage]

Not being someone particularly versed in the statutory ins and outs of the UK government, I fear that no, I can't definitively tell you like, well, anything about their government.

Wikipedia (yeah, I know, scholarly resource) says that the party in power needs to call an election every five years.

'Bout all I know about it, technically, even if it's wrong.

Yes, we have a President, Congress, Supreme Court, Well designed institutions. But we also, over the years have changed our collective minds as to who actually is a citizen, who can vote, and how we elect representatives.

Now, those might not be major changes in our government from your standpoint, but they are significant changes akin, in some ways, to the waning power of the Throne in England.

My point, I think, was something like governments change--all governments change, over time. The USA, by implication, no exception.

Are you upset by that? I apologize if you are--I wasn't trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that there are a lot of "old" governmental traditions.

Hey. The House of Grimaldi has run Monaco since 1297.

Does that count as "oldest standing form of government on the planet?"



Yes, I am teasing you.

I think Iceland predates the Grimaldies, and Iceland is a type of democracy.

My original point was the US Constitution does not let elected officials decide when the next election will be held. No one has been able to point a similar document for the UK.

 

[EroticOrogeny]

What about the papacy? Can trace back to St. Peter.
Obviously has changed since then, and whether its really a nation is questionable.

 

[Tzara]

I think Iceland predates the Grimaldies, and Iceland is a type of democracy.

I had thought about Iceland, but they were part of the Norwegian monarchy for some of that time, and the Althing has not met continually since it was founded in 930.

For that matter, I assume that Monaco was occupied by the Nazis, but I'm not sure.

My original point was the US Constitution does not let elected officials decide when the next election will be held. No one has been able to point a similar document for the UK.

According to this page at the Library of Congress, the Septennial Act of 1715 amended by the Parliament Act of 1911 sets the maximum term between general elections as five years (see footnote 2).

I think it is common for parliamentary systems to allow the government (i.e., the party in control) to call an election, within certain time limits.

 

[bronzeage]

I had thought about Iceland, but they were part of the Norwegian monarchy for some of that time, and the Althing has not met continually since it was founded in 930.

For that matter, I assume that Monaco was occupied by the Nazis, but I'm not sure.
According to this page at the Library of Congress, the Septennial Act of 1715 amended by the Parliament Act of 1911 sets the maximum term between general elections as five years (see footnote 2).

I think it is common for parliamentary systems to allow the government (i.e., the party in control) to call an election, within certain time limits.

That is the nature of a Parliamentary system. It would be possible for the UK Parliament to amend the Septennial Act of 1715 and never hold another election.

 

[Tzara]

That is the nature of a Parliamentary system. It would be possible for the UK Parliament to amend the Septennial Act of 1715 and never hold another election.

Well, there may be some other statutes that would also need to be changed, and I think the monarch can dissolve parliament by fiat, at least technically, but certainly there would be some way to alter British law to get rid of elections.

I guess I don't see what you're getting at, though. The same is true of the USA--we could amend the constitution to get rid of elections, or change their frequency, or term length, etc. We've already modified electoral processes a number of times. The 12th, 17th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, and 26th amendments all deal with electoral processes, and the 25th deals with, among other things, temporary removal of the president.

Would it be easier to pass legislation to abolish elections in the UK? Maybe, I guess, but I don't know what all would be involved in it. I doubt that it is quite so simple as hey, let's pass a law getting rid of elections.

 

[butters]

my brain hurts

 

[bronzeage]

Well, there may be some other statutes that would also need to be changed, and I think the monarch can dissolve parliament by fiat, at least technically, but certainly there would be some way to alter British law to get rid of elections.

I guess I don't see what you're getting at, though. The same is true of the USA--we could amend the constitution to get rid of elections, or change their frequency, or term length, etc. We've already modified electoral processes a number of times. The 12th, 17th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, and 26th amendments all deal with electoral processes, and the 25th deals with, among other things, temporary removal of the president.

Would it be easier to pass legislation to abolish elections in the UK? Maybe, I guess, but I don't know what all would be involved in it. I doubt that it is quite so simple as hey, let's pass a law getting rid of elections.

The point I make is that Congress does not have power to set the dates of their own election. The also do not have power to amend the Constitution. The amendment process is specified by the Constitution.

It is true, "we could amend the constitution", but in this case, it is we the people, not the "royal we" or the "Congressional we."

When the US became independent of the UK, some form of government had to be used. The first attempt was a failure. If the Articles of Confederation had been allowed to stay in effect, North America would likely have become a patchwork of nation states. The people of the day saw the need for a unified national government. They could have chosen a Parliamentary Government on the British model, but chose a much different path.

Whether the UK Parliament would or would not abolish elections is not the question. It seems they have the power to do so, if they ever chose to do so. This is the critical point. It seems for the UK, Parliament is the ultimate voice of the law. In the US, it is the Constitution.

 

[CharleyH]

am i the only poet here, brit or otherwise, who thinks that the new coalition Con/DemLib has no right to announce out of the blue that instead of the four yearly guaranteed elections they've made it 5 yearly? without asking us, the voters?

you know, it's not often i do get politically interested much at all, but this is taking the absolute piss!

The only thing I know is that if it means that the pound plummets and I can actually tour the whole of GB, all the better!

Sorry, I'm a travel whore and I have no opinion, otherwise.