Is there anything to prevent Cameron from reshuffling junior Tory ministers (i.e. leaving the Lib Dem side intact)?
Nothing at all. As PM he has total power to hire and fire who he wants. He even has the legal power to fire Clegg - but that would probably cause the collapse of the government.
Nothing at all. As PM he has total power to hire and fire who he wants. He even has the legal power to fire Clegg - but that would probably cause the collapse of the government.
The number of LibDem ministers was agreed when the coalition was formed.
Where does myth of Ken Clarke being on the left come from? I guess it must be because of his views on Europe because aside from that he was a Thatcherite and a keen privatiser. I don't ever recall him walking out of a Tory Cabinet in protest at any policies. Also when he was Health Secretary, he referred to ambulance drivers as 'glorified taxi drivers'. If Lansley said that, DS would explode with indignation and there'd be threads on it from now to doomsday. He was a good Chancellor but I find this deification of him from non-Tories to be quite strange.
I think it's largely because he's forever embarrassing his party by being honest.
They chose it because they knew it would take at least that long to clear up the economic mess that they inherited.
In that case, better to have 4 year intervals and let the public be the judge of that.
It's the thin end of the wedge when you reduce the interval between general elections due to the 'economic mess'. Which is what appears to have happened here in the UK.
When the coalition was formed in May 2010, I recall William Hague skipping up the press with gay abandon exclaiming that the next election would be 5 years away and that 55% of MPS would be needed to chose another election date.
Like you, Mr Hague said that was needed because the special times we lived. Or some nonsense or other.
In that case, better to have 4 year intervals and let the public be the judge of that.
It's the thin end of the wedge when you reduce the interval between general elections due to the 'economic mess'. Which is what appears to have happened here in the UK.
When the coalition was formed in May 2010, I recall William Hague skipping up the press with gay abandon exclaiming that the next election would be 5 years away and that 55% of MPS would be needed to chose another election date.
Like you, Mr Hague said that was needed because the special times we lived. Or some nonsense or other.
You are aware that 5 years was already the legal requirement before the new law? The only times governments called an election after 4 years was when they were ahead in the poll and keen to go to the electorate whilst that was still the case.
Going back in time, there were 5 years between elections in 2005 - 2010, 1992 - 1997, 1987 - 1992, 1974 - 1979 (well almost), 1959 - 1964 and 1945 - 1950.
Where does myth of Ken Clarke being on the left come from? I guess it must be because of his views on Europe because aside from that he was a Thatcherite and a keen privatiser. I don't ever recall him walking out of a Tory Cabinet in protest at any policies. Also when he was Health Secretary, he referred to ambulance drivers as 'glorified taxi drivers'. If Lansley said that, DS would explode with indignation and there'd be threads on it from now to doomsday. He was a good Chancellor but I find this deification of him from non-Tories to be quite strange.
No one said that he was on the 'Left' just the left of his party.
Comments
Nothing at all. As PM he has total power to hire and fire who he wants. He even has the legal power to fire Clegg - but that would probably cause the collapse of the government.
And this is why I genrally don't listen to ministers. Generally they've moved onto something else by time it's worth giving them any attention.
The number of LibDem ministers was agreed when the coalition was formed.
Nice answer.
It makes me laugh when some people still cannot accept the fact that the new law above is in affect! :rolleyes:
I think it's largely because he's forever embarrassing his party by being honest.
Why did they choose 5 year fixed term parliaments and not 4 years ?
Based on the previous frequency of general elections, this has the effect of reducing the occassions when we can chose our MPs.
When was the last time a PM has served a full 5 year term and then gone on to be re-elected. Voters get bored.
Cameron might the rue the day he chose 5 year fixed terms.
They chose it because they knew it would take at least that long to clear up the economic mess that they inherited.
In that case, better to have 4 year intervals and let the public be the judge of that.
It's the thin end of the wedge when you reduce the interval between general elections due to the 'economic mess'. Which is what appears to have happened here in the UK.
When the coalition was formed in May 2010, I recall William Hague skipping up the press with gay abandon exclaiming that the next election would be 5 years away and that 55% of MPS would be needed to chose another election date.
Like you, Mr Hague said that was needed because the special times we lived. Or some nonsense or other.
Why would any government (even with a majority) want to end 5 year fixed term parliaments ? The longer they stay in power, the better.
Willing to guess come the next election and party manifestos, no major party will repeal 5 year fixed term parliaments.
You are aware that 5 years was already the legal requirement before the new law? The only times governments called an election after 4 years was when they were ahead in the poll and keen to go to the electorate whilst that was still the case.
Going back in time, there were 5 years between elections in 2005 - 2010, 1992 - 1997, 1987 - 1992, 1974 - 1979 (well almost), 1959 - 1964 and 1945 - 1950.
No one said that he was on the 'Left' just the left of his party.