• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Possibility of a UK general election in the near future

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,923
Reaction score
1,738
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Theres a lot of talk in the media about the possibility of general election in the UK after Cameron is replaced (for instance this is used as a reason for the aparent urgency of ousting Jeremy Corbyn). But I wonder why this assumption is made and what historical precedence there is for this. Thatcher and Blair both resigned midterm and niether of their replacements felt the need to hold elections soon after coming to power. So why would it be any different this time? At a streach I can see Boris Johnson holding and election if he feels he is still on a roll but aside from that I don´t see it happening. Why is this assumption so omnipresent?
 
Because this has shaken the British political climate, and a vote may be called in order to regain the mandate of the people.
 
There is a huge "anyone but Boris" movement going on and history suggests the person who brings the PM down will not hold power. Certainly Heseltine stood up to and defeated Thatcher but did not take power - that went to major. I don't see the Conservatives voting for Johnson anymore even though he felt this was his best chance.

As for Labour, the party at large resoundingly voted for Corbyn and realistically - they were as unenthused by the cause of Remain as he was. Corbyn is probably closer to the feelings of those Labour voters who don't want the status quo in Europe to go on.

The Parliamentary party may stand against Corbyn but the party at large want him. Similarly the vast majority of MPs did not want Brexit but the public has voted for it - makes it interesting as the public are now represented by a minority of MPs and that will make debates and governing very difficult.
 
Theres a lot of talk in the media about the possibility of general election in the UK after Cameron is replaced (for instance this is used as a reason for the aparent urgency of ousting Jeremy Corbyn). But I wonder why this assumption is made and what historical precedence there is for this. Thatcher and Blair both resigned midterm and niether of their replacements felt the need to hold elections soon after coming to power. So why would it be any different this time? At a streach I can see Boris Johnson holding and election if he feels he is still on a roll but aside from that I don´t see it happening. Why is this assumption so omnipresent?

The idea is probably that whoever is in 10 Downing Street and navigate the county's relationship with the EU as well probably help reform the EU should have a personal strong mandate. Though Johnson is certainly a substantial politician and probably quite well qualified to run the negotiations, he is presently perceived as too much attached to Brexit and half the voters dislike that position. In a campaign the public could be brought around to waiting to see if the EU changes enough to remain in. In varying degrees this is the case with all the political faces.
 
There is a huge "anyone but Boris" movement going on and history suggests the person who brings the PM down will not hold power. Certainly Heseltine stood up to and defeated Thatcher but did not take power - that went to major. I don't see the Conservatives voting for Johnson anymore even though he felt this was his best chance.

As for Labour, the party at large resoundingly voted for Corbyn and realistically - they were as unenthused by the cause of Remain as he was. Corbyn is probably closer to the feelings of those Labour voters who don't want the status quo in Europe to go on.

The Parliamentary party may stand against Corbyn but the party at large want him. Similarly the vast majority of MPs did not want Brexit but the public has voted for it - makes it interesting as the public are now represented by a minority of MPs and that will make debates and governing very difficult.

Which formulates a good argument against triggering article 50 right there.
 
~ probably help reform the EU should have a personal strong mandate ~

What "strong mandate" does losing Scotland and Northern Ireland give anyone? I can imagine negotiations where any table thumping would be met with derision when that person tried saying "I carry the mandate of the British people..."

Which formulates a good argument against triggering article 50 right there.

You are absolutely correct but that delay will mean more big business leaving due to uncertainty.
 
There is a huge "anyone but Boris" movement going on and history suggests the person who brings the PM down will not hold power. Certainly Heseltine stood up to and defeated Thatcher but did not take power - that went to major. I don't see the Conservatives voting for Johnson anymore even though he felt this was his best chance.

As for Labour, the party at large resoundingly voted for Corbyn and realistically - they were as unenthused by the cause of Remain as he was. Corbyn is probably closer to the feelings of those Labour voters who don't want the status quo in Europe to go on.

The Parliamentary party may stand against Corbyn but the party at large want him. Similarly the vast majority of MPs did not want Brexit but the public has voted for it - makes it interesting as the public are now represented by a minority of MPs and that will make debates and governing very difficult.

But again historically that would be a reason to elect a new leader within the Conservative party not to have a new general election. John Major didn´t have an election untill two years after he became PM.

I think (and hope) Boris has a pretty decent chance of winning given that he is far more carismatic then everyone else and its liked (if not agreed with) across the board. Certainly for the pro-buissness wing of the party someone reasonably cosmopolitan and open to trade and immigration would be preferable to someone like Theresa May (and Lord help us if she is the person negotiating our exit)
 
What "strong mandate" does losing Scotland and Northern Ireland give anyone? I can imagine negotiations where any table thumping would be met with derision when that person tried saying "I carry the mandate of the British people

You are absolutely correct but that delay will mean more big business leaving due to uncertainty.

The beliefs of the Scots and northern Irish not withstanding, they are part of a larger society that did vote to leave

I'm still waiting to see if there's even a legal basis for them just to seceededirectly into the European Union

And if the remaining EU states will even admit two small countries that will have no functional economy and need to be heavily subsidized, especially considering two f the better economies in Europe (France and Holland) apparently seem to want their own secession referendums. Do the Scots actually believe Berlin will carry their weight if London, Paris, and Amsterdamare off the table?
 
The most pressing (better said most immediate need) that I perceive, is that somebody eventually will have to go to Brussels and negotiate the conditions that accompany the Brexit (not the Brexit itself, that'll be clear cut).

Now it's been already pointed out at length in a variety of threads here that the Brexit move was run on a ticket offering utopian solutions which don't have a hope of standing up to reality.

Alone the pipe dreams of immigration from (within) the EU being off the table altogether with Brexit and future mutually beneficial trade arising without incurring any additional costs (fees) to Britain were lies in the breath they were offered already.

Its' not the way things are going to happen so what compromises may whoever goes to Brussels agree to?

If the will of the people were to be represented in the manner that they were duped to believe voting out would constitute, the only mandated position (by default) could be that of "we want things to continue as before, f... any counter demands on fees and f...what you lot want regarding free movement".

Guess what the answer to that would be (hint: it'll start with an "f" as well).

Since anyone remotely possessed of some intelligence will recognize this, there'll either need to be a negotiator sent that has some idea of what compromises can be discussed, or one might as well not bother negotiating anything and just invoke article 50, telling the EU to go eff itself in the process.

But where's the people's mandate for any conceivable compromise, its nature and its content, that might be a result of mutual concessions in Brussels?

There is no plan.

A little technicality that was conveniently kept from them until now.

No wonder Cameron washed his hands off the whole mess at the first opportunity, he probably wants to die of old age rather than prematurely at the hands of some street lunatic who heard voices telling him that traitors must be nulled.
 
Last edited:
The beliefs of the Scots and northern Irish not withstanding, they are part of a larger society that did vote to leave

I'm still waiting to see if there's even a legal basis for them just to seceededirectly into the European Union

And if the remaining EU states will even admit two small countries that will have no functional economy and need to be heavily subsidized, especially considering two f the better economies in Europe (France and Holland) apparently seem to want their own secession referendums. Do the Scots actually believe Berlin will carry their weight if London, Paris, and Amsterdamare off the table?
Alone Spain won't consent to any of the aforesaid entering the EU.
Dangerous precedent alone when looking at Basques, Catalunyans and others.
 
But again historically that would be a reason to elect a new leader within the Conservative party not to have a new general election. John Major didn´t have an election untill two years after he became PM.

My point was nothing to do with general elections or I am misunderstanding why you quote me to say that?

~ I think (and hope) Boris has a pretty decent chance of winning given that he is far more carismatic then everyone else and its liked (if not agreed with) across the board. Certainly for the pro-buissness wing of the party someone reasonably cosmopolitan and open to trade and immigration would be preferable to someone like Theresa May (and Lord help us if she is the person negotiating our exit)

This bit I can address ~ I am firmly of the belief Boris will be seen as the one who brought a Conservative PM down, he did the dirty work just as Heseltine did for Thatcher in the 80's and he was replaced by Mr Gray. I liked Boris too but I lost a lot of respect for him during the referendum: the country has bought several huge lies and we will all be paying quite a while for his political ambition.

The beliefs of the Scots and northern Irish not withstanding, they are part of a larger society that did vote to leave

I'm still waiting to see if there's even a legal basis for them just to seceededirectly into the European Union

And if the remaining EU states will even admit two small countries that will have no functional economy and need to be heavily subsidized, especially considering two f the better economies in Europe (France and Holland) apparently seem to want their own secession referendums. Do the Scots actually believe Berlin will carry their weight if London, Paris, and Amsterdamare off the table?

What Sturgeon sees in Article 50 is that it is vastly open to interpretation and she feels she can use it to her purpose. Northern Ireland won't go yet - half of the region had Exit counties whereas Scotland universally wants to remain.

I understand the reasoning that several states would worry about their secessionist areas but Spain etc want to stay in so there is little risk of dragging Catalonia out with a Spanish Exit. The comparisons all changed on Thursday night.
 
The most pressing (better said most immediate need) that I perceive, is that somebody eventually will have to go to Brussels and negotiate the conditions that accompany the Brexit (not the Brexit itself, that'll be clear cut).

Now it's been already pointed out at length in a variety of threads here that the Brexit move was run on a ticket offering utopian solutions which don't have a hope of standing up to reality.

Alone the pipe dreams of immigration from (within) the EU being off the table altogether with Brexit and future mutually beneficial trade arising without incurring any additional costs (fees) to Britain were lies in the breath they were offered already.

Its' not the way things are going to happen so what compromises may whoever goes to Brussels agree to?

If the will of the people were to be represented in the manner that they were duped to believe voting out would constitute, the only mandated position (by default) could be that of "we want things to continue as before, f... any counter demands on fees and f...what you lot want regarding free movement".

Guess what the answer to that would be (hint: it'll start with an "f" as well).

Since anyone remotely possessed of some intelligence will recognize this, there'll either need to be a negotiator sent that has some idea of what compromises can be discussed, or one might as well not bother negotiating anything and just invoke article 50, telling the EU to go eff itself in the process.

But where's the people's mandate for any conceivable compromise, its nature and its content, that might be a result of mutual concessions in Brussels?

There is no plan.

A little technicality that was conveniently kept from them until now.

No wonder Cameron washed his hands off the whole mess at the first opportunity, he probably wants to die of old age rather than prematurely at the hands of some street lunatic who heard voices telling him that traitors must be nulled.

Brexit have run themselves into a dark corner haven't they?

"Big Busines" and "the city" were bywords for what was wrong with the UK but if Brexit keep sneering, the big exporters and global companies will just take their business elsewhere. The French are pushing very hard for the city's "European passport" to be removed and that guarantees wholesale flight of a lot of traders to Paris or Frankfurt.

Whoever becomes the leader of the new government will someday face the ire of voters who felt they had said goodbye to free immigration across our borders by EU workers.

We are in a ridiculous situation here.
 
~....I understand the reasoning that several states would worry about their secessionist areas but Spain etc want to stay in so there is little risk of dragging Catalonia out with a Spanish Exit.
I'm not so sure of that
The comparisons all changed on Thursday night.
certainly for England (as I'll call/name until more clarity is found) but not for Spain.
 
I'm not so sure of that ~

Spain isn't likely to exit? That's what I was getting at i.e. the situation where Catalonia would say "why are we being dragged out?" if Spain was exiting the EU. Spain's situation is less and less likely to mirror the UK's situation anymore.
 
~..................."Big Busines" and "the city" were bywords for what was wrong with the UK but if Brexit keep sneering, the big exporters and global companies will just take their business elsewhere. The French are pushing very hard for the city's "European passport" to be removed and that guarantees wholesale flight of a lot of traders to Paris or Frankfurt.
Oh they're all already there and have been. It's just a question of making their subsidiary offices HQ now. People in finance move to where the job takes them, people wanting Britain to be as it was in time of the empire have to stay home.
We are in a ridiculous situation here.
and it's a self inflicted one.

Where I clearly agree on the lies fed to dupe people, the whole thing is a telling refutation of one poster's absolutely childish belief in the wisdom of the masses. Two brains being better than one and many better than two can work in many ways. Like for instance two fools constituting double stupidity and many fools an abundance of the same.
 
Spain isn't likely to exit? That's what I was getting at i.e. the situation where Catalonia would say "why are we being dragged out?" if Spain was exiting the EU. Spain's situation is less and less likely to mirror the UK's situation anymore.
I think we were and still are on different tacks here, kind of talking past each other.

Catalunya wants independence and wants EU membership in the same breath. Since Madrid's refusal to hte first bit, the second issue doesn't arise. But if Scotland were to leave UK and to apply for EU membership in the same breath, Madrid would veto their entry into EU alone on that setting the dangerous precedent of encouraging Catalunya to (once again) pursue its ambitions of leaving Spain.

because in Barcelona they'd be saying "well if Scotland is not only allowed but also rewarded, the EU must support our ambitions for independence as well".

Hope that clears up what I meant to convey.

P.S. The majority of Spaniards (still) see the EU as something positive, Spain has noo intention of leaving it.
 
~ and it's a self inflicted one.

Where I clearly agree on the lies fed to dupe people, the whole thing is a telling refutation of one poster's absolutely childish belief in the wisdom of the masses. Two brains being better than one and many better than two can work in many ways. Like for instance two fools constituting double stupidity and many fools an abundance of the same.

I'll recycle a recent but very appropriate cartoon.

EU.jpg
 
It's likely because of the universal assessment that Brown made a huge mistake by not going to the country when he took over. Hamstrung his entire administration. The new Tory leader would want to strike while Labour is in as much disarray as they are.
 
What "strong mandate" does losing Scotland and Northern Ireland give anyone? I can imagine negotiations where any table thumping would be met with derision when that person tried saying "I carry the mandate of the British people..."



You are absolutely correct but that delay will mean more big business leaving due to uncertainty.

I doubt that latter assumption as well as Scotland exiting before the smoke settles. In the meantime people will have thought it through and see the game structure of the long term negotiations.
 
I think we were and still are on different tacks here, kind of talking past each other.

Catalunya wants independence and wants EU membership in the same breath. Since Madrid's refusal to hte first bit, the second issue doesn't arise. But if Scotland were to leave UK and to apply for EU membership in the same breath, Madrid would veto their entry into EU alone on that setting the dangerous precedent of encouraging Catalunya to (once again) pursue its ambitions of leaving Spain.

because in Barcelona they'd be saying "well if Scotland is not only allowed but also rewarded, the EU must support our ambitions for independence as well".

Hope that clears up what I meant to convey.

P.S. The majority of Spaniards (still) see the EU as something positive, Spain has noo intention of leaving it.

You have listed 1 crucial factor that is a problem within the EU.
1 country can deny entry- 1 country can deny the extension of sanctions on Russia.
1 country can stop a foreign policy decision.
1 country can open the flood gates on migrants and then ask the rest of the EU to take their fair share, and from what i read today, if they do not, then financial sanctions are imposed.
Yet it was 1 country that opened the gates.
 
~,,,,,,...........1 country can open the flood gates on migrants and then ask the rest of the EU to take their fair share, and from what i read today, if they do not, then financial sanctions are imposed.
Yet it was 1 country that opened the gates.
Omitting a pertinent factor:

No one country can impose financial sanctions but one country can veto them.
 
A new election probably won't address the UK's current lack of leadership, especially if one of the leading demagogues behind Brexit takes office. Parliament could, however, by rejecting the referendum outcome.

David Cameron serves as Prime Minister, but in title only. In the face of a narrow 51.9%-48.9% outcome in favor of exiting the European Union on a non-binding referendum, he all but panicked. In his state, what was actually a very narrow margin appeared to be an insurmountable mandate. As a result, he declared that the govenment must be bound by the outcome. That is his opinion and it might be his preference. It is not fact. The referendum was non-binding from the start.

That Brexit would provide very little economic, political, or social gains--there would very likely be a large net loss for the UK and Europe--was not part of the Prime Minister's calculations. Even the British Pound's having fallen to just under $1.32 on the foreign exchange markets--a level last seen when the Dow Jones Industrials was below 1600 and the Soviet Union still menaced the world stage--there was no indication of stirring leadership capacity within the Prime Minister. He appeared locked in a Zombie-like trance, marching the UK to Brexit.

On the Labour Front, a similar leadership void prevailed. A hapless and unprepared Jerry Corbyn was confronted with a "no confidence" vote following his anemic effort to oppose the Brexit campaign.

Meanwhile, the demagogues who had exploited this leadership vacuum, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, were now desperately running away from the Brexit campaign's central promise of an enormous £350 million per week withdrawal "dividend." What had been misrepresented as the defining argument for withdrawing from the European Union had evaporated. One could expect a similar outcome across the Atlantic were the candidate who promised, "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," ever elected. That's what demagogues do. They make exagerrated promises, tie them to the needs and aspirations of the voters, then abandon them once they achieve their ultimate goals (Brexit for Farage and power for Johnson, as he is positioning himself to become Prime Minister)

Sad as this tale is, a bad ending is still completely avoidable. It depends only on Parliament's recognizing that the referendum was non-binding, produced an outcome that is damaging to the UK's interests, and may have produced that outcome on account of the deceptive practices of its proponents. Parliament should reject the result of the referendum and bring an end to the UK's needless crisis.
 
Well... This is what you call a cluster****. Labour party in utter shambles.
 
A new election probably won't address the UK's current lack of leadership, especially if one of the leading demagogues behind Brexit takes office. Parliament could, however, by rejecting the referendum outcome.

David Cameron serves as Prime Minister, but in title only. In the face of a narrow 51.9%-48.9% outcome in favor of exiting the European Union on a non-binding referendum, he all but panicked. In his state, what was actually a very narrow margin appeared to be an insurmountable mandate. As a result, he declared that the govenment must be bound by the outcome. That is his opinion and it might be his preference. It is not fact. The referendum was non-binding from the start.

That Brexit would provide very little economic, political, or social gains--there would very likely be a large net loss for the UK and Europe--was not part of the Prime Minister's calculations. Even the British Pound's having fallen to just under $1.32 on the foreign exchange markets--a level last seen when the Dow Jones Industrials was below 1600 and the Soviet Union still menaced the world stage--there was no indication of stirring leadership capacity within the Prime Minister. He appeared locked in a Zombie-like trance, marching the UK to Brexit.

On the Labour Front, a similar leadership void prevailed. A hapless and unprepared Jerry Corbyn was confronted with a "no confidence" vote following his anemic effort to oppose the Brexit campaign.

Meanwhile, the demagogues who had exploited this leadership vacuum, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, were now desperately running away from the Brexit campaign's central promise of an enormous £350 million per week withdrawal "dividend." What had been misrepresented as the defining argument for withdrawing from the European Union had evaporated. One could expect a similar outcome across the Atlantic were the candidate who promised, "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," ever elected. That's what demagogues do. They make exagerrated promises, tie them to the needs and aspirations of the voters, then abandon them once they achieve their ultimate goals (Brexit for Farage and power for Johnson, as he is positioning himself to become Prime Minister)

Sad as this tale is, a bad ending is still completely avoidable. It depends only on Parliament's recognizing that the referendum was non-binding, produced an outcome that is damaging to the UK's interests, and may have produced that outcome on account of the deceptive practices of its proponents. Parliament should reject the result of the referendum and bring an end to the UK's needless crisis.

Whilst I totally agree with you, we have in Britain a total lack of commitment to a European project. Cameron would have vted for Brexit had he not been PM, and that's the opinion of his political guru until recently.

Corbyn may have voted for Brexit, according to his disloyal shadow cabinet member. And we all know where Boris and Farage were. No one in any of the parties that matter is arguing for parliament to set aside the referendum result. It's a shame because I agree with you that that is exactly what should happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom