Schwarzenegger Says Obama Likely to Get Re-Elected

Am I evil? Yes, I am! - Metallica c. 1984

BecMacFeegle wrote:

We don't elect Prime Ministers. The party chooses its own leader.

Heh. In theory. Our former Prime Minister was not elected by his party -he just took over when Tony Blair left - because no one would run against him. The Labour Part is, after all, full of spineless conniving jellyfish.

It would seem you view Labour in somewhat less than glowing terms.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

At the moment, elections can be held whenever the exisiting government decides to call one but he period between each election must not exceed five years.

Ask him what he means by 'at the moment', wuhahaha! I am Eeevil! If you do - he will have to explain the other part of the parliamentary reforms that the Conservatives want to introduce - regarding the percentages required to dissolve parliament. Hehehe. Evil.

Okay Matt... out with it... what reforms are these your sweet wife alludes to?

Sch-war-zen-egger wanted to be governor of California because he thought it would be easy...in his mind, he would be having parties with actors.
Instead, he got wildfires, earthquakes, budget issues, and other nasties to deal with.
He then said "this isn't what I signed up for"

As for what else you guys are talking about, I used to to think it was decent to replace one party with the other party. But all you're really doing is replacing a politician with a politician.

Well, you live out there, don't you? You should know.

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:Ask him what he means by 'at the moment', wuhahaha! I am Eeevil! If you do - he will have to explain the other part of the parliamentary reforms that the Conservatives want to introduce - regarding the percentages required to dissolve parliament. Hehehe. Evil.

Okay Matt... out with it... what reforms are these your sweet wife alludes to?

Set five year terms for Parliaments for starters whereas at the moment it can be at any time the current PM fancies. Any attempt to dissolve Parliament prior to that period should require a much higher percentage of MPs to agree. At the moment it is, I think, about 55%. They want to raise that threshold to 66% as it is in many other European countries and the rules for dissolving the Assemblies for Wales and Scotland.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:Ask him what he means by 'at the moment', wuhahaha! I am Eeevil! If you do - he will have to explain the other part of the parliamentary reforms that the Conservatives want to introduce - regarding the percentages required to dissolve parliament. Hehehe. Evil.

Okay Matt... out with it... what reforms are these your sweet wife alludes to?

Set five year terms for Parliaments for starters whereas at the moment it can be at any time the current PM fancies. Any attempt to dissolve Parliament prior to that period should require a much higher percentage of MPs to agree. At the moment it is, I think, about 55%. They want to raise that threshold to 66% as it is in many other European countries and the rules for dissolving the Assemblies for Wales and Scotland.

So the PM can just dismiss the entire Parliament out of hand at any time as long as he has 55% of that body in agreement with him/her? That's interesting. Has that happened all that often in recent history (last 100 years or so)?

What are the advantages to set terms for Parliament, or are there any? And could one realistically get 66% of the MP's to agree on something like dissolving a given Parliament?

Can you imagine Obama dissolving Congress after Nov. 2 because he didn't like the GOP majority?

TexasBlue wrote:Can you imagine Obama dissolving Congress after Nov. 2 because he didn't like the GOP majority?

Well, truth be told, he couldn't even get a 51% majority to get Obamacare through and had to resort to games with the rules to jam it through. I seriously doubt he could get 55% of even THIS congress to agree to dissolve itself.

LMAO!

dblboggie wrote:So the PM can just dismiss the entire Parliament out of hand at any time as long as he has 55% of that body in agreement with him/her?

No. He/She must have 55% backing in order to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. It is not formally dissolved until the Queen agrees. Same for when a new government is formed at the end of the election result. That is why David Cameron had to go straight to Buckingham Palace in order to be asked the important question of whether he was ready and able to establish a government.

dblboggie wrote:That's interesting. Has that happened all that often in recent history (last 100 years or so)?

Parliament is dissolved at every election. But what I think you mean is whether many elections have occurred before the 5 year limit and the answer is: yes, quite often. Once Parliament is dissolved, there is effectively no government. All that means is that no further legislation will be put through but the current Cabinet carry on in the government jobs in most other capacities.

dblboggie wrote:What are the advantages to set terms for Parliament, or are there any?

I am struggling to see one personally keeping in mind that conceivably, Parliaments could still be dissolved in a time of crisis (of course that is more likely to happen in a hung Parliament anyway). Of course, under the current system the advantage is mostly in the hands of the current government. But that is a double edged sword. In the 12 months before the 5 year limit a PM might ask himself/herself "Could I get a suitable majority if I call an election now or could I wait another year and hope for a growth of support?" The danger in that of course is that your popularity could plummet.

dblboggie wrote:And could one realistically get 66% of the MP's to agree on something like dissolving a given Parliament?

When the five years is up, that is a moot point anyway. But yes, it is doable. A government in power might think to call an election now rather than a year down the line could mean a good majority now. But if the two main parties are neck and neck now, do you risk calling an election now and force a hung Parliament or hope that a year from now you might experience a surge in popularity.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Can you imagine Obama dissolving Congress after Nov. 2 because he didn't like the GOP majority?

Well, truth be told, he couldn't even get a 51% majority to get Obamacare through and had to resort to games with the rules to jam it through. I seriously doubt he could get 55% of even THIS congress to agree to dissolve itself.

But here that would mean a General Election. He would/could lose his job so he wouldn't necessarily do it.