nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,377
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 1, 2023 14:23:02 GMT
Announcing a date well before the Prime Minister has to removes one of the key advantages he has at his disposal, that of surprise. Although few elections are genuine snap elections, the exact date is often debated. Even if he announced in January the election would be on 2 May, he makes it a 20-week campaign. Although it would be a 'soft campaign' on paper, opposition election teams would immediately move into election footing, diverting resources, cancelling annual leave etc. It would stop all the trickle funding on advertising, which would be spread out to be suddenly congested. In 1992 the Tory strategists spoke of a 'long campaign'(though not actually announcing the 9th April date) as they believed they could outlast Labour in terms of money and wear them down
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,061
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 1, 2023 17:20:54 GMT
One recent example from a Westminster system of a Prime Minister announcing a general election date ahead of time was Julia Gillard announcing the date of the 2013 federal election a whole year in advance. She was ousted as party leader with a couple of months to go, and then Labor lost heavily regardless so it's fair to say that strategy didn't work out for her or her party. Not sure if Sunak was taking notes on Commonwealth politics at the time, but somebody at Tory HQ will have been. David Cameron announced the date of the 2015 general election five years in advance, and went on it win it. Indeed he did. Although by this point it's now clear that the FTPA was just a bit of glue specifically there to hold the coalition together (and Cameron could still have chosen to go early before that was even passed, if he thought he had a chance of winning). There's also the factor that it felt like that Parliament had exhausted its term (seriously, just look at the flimsy agenda for the final session) even though I presume the following general election could've taken place as late as July 2015, constitutionally speaking?
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by graham on Aug 1, 2023 18:13:00 GMT
David Cameron announced the date of the 2015 general election five years in advance, and went on it win it. Indeed he did. Although by this point it's now clear that the FTPA was just a bit of glue specifically there to hold the coalition together (and Cameron could still have chosen to go early before that was even passed, if he thought he had a chance of winning). There's also the factor that it felt like that Parliament had exhausted its term (seriously, just look at the flimsy agenda for the final session) even though I presume the following general election could've taken place as late as July 2015, constitutionally speaking? I don't quite see how Cameron could have called an election prior to the passing of the FTPA. Had he tried that, Clegg and the LDs could have entered into an arrangement with Milliband and formed a Rainbow Coalition including the smaller parties. As long as an alternative Government was available in the existing House of Commons a Dissolution was unlikely to be granted.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,579
|
Post by bsjmcr on Aug 1, 2023 18:55:39 GMT
Announcing a date well before the Prime Minister has to removes one of the key advantages he has at his disposal, that of surprise. Although few elections are genuine snap elections, the exact date is often debated. Even if he announced in January the election would be on 2 May, he makes it a 20-week campaign. Although it would be a 'soft campaign' on paper, opposition election teams would immediately move into election footing, diverting resources, cancelling annual leave etc. It would stop all the trickle funding on advertising, which would be spread out to be suddenly congested. Not sure if Sunak was taking notes on Commonwealth politics at the time, but somebody at Tory HQ will have been. I don't think he's been taking notes on any kind of politics at all. Same goes for Starmer. I think an issue that not many people talk about is that both PM and LOTO were 'only' first elected in 2015, and just a year before Brexit. Not a huge amount of parliamentary experience, and it shows. By contrast, Blair/Brown were first elected in 1983. Yes, I know there are those who were elected eons ago and haven't seemingly achieved anything of note, and Truss isn't exactly selling the class of 2010 either, but there has to be a balance. I know there is a counter-argument that people also don't want a 'career' politician who has almost only ever worked in and around Westminster/politics (a criticism some apply to Burnham), but I feel our two leaders, who may well have had significant other career experience in their respective industries, haven't had enough experience in a non-Brexit parliament either to really know the cut and thrust of politics, depending too much on dubious polls or advisors.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 1, 2023 19:04:27 GMT
It depends on what you want. I want a Conservative leader who has deeply held principles that coincide with mine. Not a PR-driven banker. I want a Labour leader who won't drop the ball, will triangulate for electoral reasons and run out of political steam after five years.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,377
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 1, 2023 19:34:57 GMT
It depends on what you want. I want a Conservative leader who has deeply held principles that coincide with mine. Not a PR-driven banker. I want a Labour leader who won't drop the ball, will triangulate for electoral reasons and run out of political steam after five years. Liked as it made me smile as a lot of your posts do(last line in particular)
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,377
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 1, 2023 19:38:57 GMT
David Cameron announced the date of the 2015 general election five years in advance, and went on it win it. Indeed he did. Although by this point it's now clear that the FTPA was just a bit of glue specifically there to hold the coalition together (and Cameron could still have chosen to go early before that was even passed, if he thought he had a chance of winning). There's also the factor that it felt like that Parliament had exhausted its term (seriously, just look at the flimsy agenda for the final session) even though I presume the following general election could've taken place as late as July 2015, constitutionally speaking? Without the FTPA i think it would have been June 2015 and with May 2015 as the Act said the first thursday in may in the 5th calendar year after the last one unless there was an early election (such as May got in 2017) and it was before May ten it would be the first thursday in May in the 4th calendar year after
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,061
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 2, 2023 0:26:50 GMT
Indeed he did. Although by this point it's now clear that the FTPA was just a bit of glue specifically there to hold the coalition together (and Cameron could still have chosen to go early before that was even passed, if he thought he had a chance of winning). There's also the factor that it felt like that Parliament had exhausted its term (seriously, just look at the flimsy agenda for the final session) even though I presume the following general election could've taken place as late as July 2015, constitutionally speaking? I don't quite see how Cameron could have called an election prior to the passing of the FTPA. Had he tried that, Clegg and the LDs could have entered into an arrangement with Milliband and formed a Rainbow Coalition including the smaller parties. As long as an alternative Government was available in the existing House of Commons a Dissolution was unlikely to be granted. Yes, fair point. Though the parliamentary arithmetic of such an arrangement wouldn't have been any less unfavourable than they had been in May 2010. Hadn't even thought if Red Ed would have been more or less palatable to the smaller parties than Brown was. Indeed he did. Although by this point it's now clear that the FTPA was just a bit of glue specifically there to hold the coalition together (and Cameron could still have chosen to go early before that was even passed, if he thought he had a chance of winning). There's also the factor that it felt like that Parliament had exhausted its term (seriously, just look at the flimsy agenda for the final session) even though I presume the following general election could've taken place as late as July 2015, constitutionally speaking? Without the FTPA i think it would have been June 2015 and with May 2015 as the Act said the first thursday in may in the 5th calendar year after the last one unless there was an early election (such as May got in 2017) and it was before May ten it would be the first thursday in May in the 4th calendar year after I was thinking that the 2010-15 Parliament first met in mid-May, so would've run out exactly 5 years later, and with the longest possible permitted* election campaign might've just seen the actual polling date creep into July. But your timetable is probably correct. * Although of course the government could simply have passed a law saying that official election campaigns can last for months as opposed to weeks, just like the Canadian Tories did in that very same year of 2015. Again, our own politicians really need to pay more attention to developments in His Majesty's other Realms. Unfortunately too many either navel-gaze or are obsessed with the United States as their only known example of an anglophone place where elections happen.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 2, 2023 7:36:47 GMT
Announcing a date well before the Prime Minister has to removes one of the key advantages he has at his disposal, that of surprise. Although few elections are genuine snap elections, the exact date is often debated. Even if he announced in January the election would be on 2 May, he makes it a 20-week campaign. Although it would be a 'soft campaign' on paper, opposition election teams would immediately move into election footing, diverting resources, cancelling annual leave etc. It would stop all the trickle funding on advertising, which would be spread out to be suddenly congested. If Rishi Sunak wants to preserve his party's activist base and rebuild after what promises to be a dire general election defeat, it makes sense to hold the election on May 2nd, 2024, as the increased turnout will likely save many of the Tory councillors' seats GE turnout will help them hold against Greens and Lib Dems where the relevant party isn't targeting the Parliamentary seat. But will probably make it harder to hold most of their Labour-facing seats. So I'm not entirely convinced that putting the two together will save them council seats.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 2, 2023 9:29:31 GMT
There was also Francis Noel-Baker who, if my memory is correct, was known in his latter years as MP for Swindon as 'the member for Athens Central' because he spent most of his time in Greece. I spent six weeks in Swindon campaigning for Chris Layton at the 1969 by-election after Noel-Baker finally resigned. Julian Ridsdale had a reputation amongst his constituents for spending more time in Japan than in Harwich.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,469
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 2, 2023 10:36:13 GMT
If Rishi Sunak wants to preserve his party's activist base and rebuild after what promises to be a dire general election defeat, it makes sense to hold the election on May 2nd, 2024, as the increased turnout will likely save many of the Tory councillors' seats GE turnout will help them hold against Greens and Lib Dems where the relevant party isn't targeting the Parliamentary seat. But will probably make it harder to hold most of their Labour-facing seats. So I'm not entirely convinced that putting the two together will save them council seats. The predecent in 1997 suggests it would help them slightly at council level, even if they have a bad GE defeat. But equally one maybe shouldn't overstate it, and I doubt if Sunak will let that be his sole consideration when pondering election timing.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 2, 2023 11:06:56 GMT
|
|
Terry Weldon
Lib Dem
Councilor, Waverley BC and Haslemere TC. Lifelong liberal, in S Africa and now UK
Posts: 307
|
Post by Terry Weldon on Aug 5, 2023 12:20:30 GMT
From FT: Chris Bryant: "...it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire .... must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”. Local councillors risk being kicked out after 6 months' non-attendance. Why not the same for MPs? www.ft.com/content/5e1438cf-4623-4045-af7c-a47b28b3790d?sharetype=blocked
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by graham on Aug 5, 2023 13:25:09 GMT
From FT: Chris Bryant: "...it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire .... must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”. Local councillors risk being kicked out after 6 months' non-attendance. Why not the same for MPs? www.ft.com/content/5e1438cf-4623-4045-af7c-a47b28b3790d?sharetype=blockedI may be wrong about this but I am not aware that MPs have to 'sign in' as such. If so, how can it be proved that she has not appeared in the building?
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 5, 2023 13:30:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 5, 2023 13:31:44 GMT
From FT: Chris Bryant: "...it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire .... must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”. Local councillors risk being kicked out after 6 months' non-attendance. Why not the same for MPs? www.ft.com/content/5e1438cf-4623-4045-af7c-a47b28b3790d?sharetype=blockedI may be wrong about this but I am not aware that MPs have to 'sign in' as such. If so, how can it be proved that she has not appeared in the building? I'm not sure banning someone from turning up because they've not turned up is a particularly smart deterrent.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by graham on Aug 5, 2023 13:34:13 GMT
Such Data is clearly controversial and of recent origin. I am sure it would not have been in operation in the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 5, 2023 14:28:10 GMT
I may be wrong about this but I am not aware that MPs have to 'sign in' as such. If so, how can it be proved that she has not appeared in the building? I'm not sure banning someone from turning up because they've not turned up is a particularly smart deterrent. She will go in her own sweet time, whenever that may be, and nothing is going to shift her in the interim.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 5, 2023 14:59:33 GMT
Such Data is clearly controversial and of recent origin. I am sure it would not have been in operation in the 1980s. But we’re not talking about the 1980s we’re talking about the last 12 months. A motion staying that Nadine Dorries has brought this house into disrepute by virtue of non attendance - would I’m sure be supported by people on all sides - quite how that feeds into a 10+ day suspension I don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 5, 2023 15:05:58 GMT
How would this motion stand credibly without doing the same to the Sinn Fein MPs?
|
|