Could UKIP win the next election?

1111213141517»

Comments

  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ...the people of the UK had very little hand in electing..

    How much 'hand'. Please quantify ?


    ..other 'democratic' countries
    .....

    Why have you put the word democratic in speech marks ?

    ..in many cases 'democracy' gets paid lip service and little else.

    Define and explain with examples an instance of 'lip service' ?
    Please quantify who much else in your phrase 'little else' ?
    ..
    When there is a question over political activity and/or corruption in any country there is no way that a British political party or an independent can organise and counter that on the hustings.

    Are you proposing that British politcal parties should have the right to meddle in the affairs other countries. If so, which parties and which countries please ?

    ..
    If we say that appointees by our representatives is a satisfactory way to run the EU then there is little argument against our own House of Lords.

    Now were are starting to get somewhere.

    I have no objection to the EU commissions based on appointments. And I have no objection to the House of Lords being similarly based on appointments. These similarity of the EU and UK appointsments to these two bodies seems reasonable to me.
    ..
    Every MP in the Commons is directly accountable to his electorate at a minimum once every 5 years.

    And who decides how long MPs should be represent themselves to the electorate ? MPS. Yes, our own parliament chooses who long it should last. Witness how British MPs voted to decide the date of the next general election. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/fixedtermparliaments.html

    Your arguments are variously unquantified and blusterous.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh dear you are late to the ball.

    Just realised. :blush:
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    And who decides how long MPs should be represent themselves to the electorate ? MPS. Yes, our own parliament chooses who long it should last. Witness how British MPs voted to decide the date of the next general election. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/fixedtermparliaments.html

    Your arguments are variously unquantified and blusterous.

    The MPs are representatives, directly, of the electorate. The next election date is fixed to save the uncertainty but as always it could be brought forward at any time by a vote of no confidence in the Government. The Government always has to maintain the consensual majority of Parliament.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The next election date is fixed to ...

    ...delay going to the electorate.

    Otherwise, the term would have been fixed at four years.

    Between 1945 and 2010, general elections have occurred every 3.82. Now the current government have decided that elections should be fixed at every 5 years (factoring in the consequence of a confidence vote).

    Coupled with the original Coalition plan to have the 55% Commons threshold to trigger elections and the Coalition's decision to abandon the sunet clause so binding future parliaments to the 5 year interval general election, and this another instance of governing politicians medding to suit themselves. And similarly David Cameron plans to hold an EU referendum because its suit his own interest.

    The decision by the government to fix British general elections at every 5 years, will reduce the frequencies of the Commons elections. And were the people consulted about this 5 year fix term ? No ? Because we're all too busy looking at stories about the EU. It's foreign body and we want a referendum on that because that's what we "reckon".
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    ...delay going to the electorate.

    Otherwise, the term would have been fixed at four years.

    Between 1945 and 2010, general elections have occurred every 3.82. Now the current government have decided that elections should be fixed at every 5 years (factoring in the consequence of a confidence vote).

    Coupled with the original Coalition plan to have the 55% Commons threshold to trigger elections and the Coalition's decision to abandon the sunet clause so binding future parliaments to the 5 year interval general election, and this another instance of governing politicians medding to suit themselves. And similarly David Cameron plans to hold an EU referendum because its suit his own interest.

    The decision by the government to fix British general elections at every 5 years, will reduce the frequencies of the Commons elections. And were the people consulted about this 5 year fix term ? No ? Because we're all too busy looking at stories about the EU. It's foreign body and we want a referendum on that because that's what we "reckon".

    The UK Parliament term was always five years, it was at the whim of the PM to make it shorter as he saw fit. I must admit I had not realised there was a 2 month extension if required. The fixed term was in the LibDem manifesto and the Labour manifesto so no surprise that it appeared in the coalition agreement because realistically it was what most of the electorate voted for, not always the case I know.

    I am not so sure that 'meddling' is the right term, we entrust them with power to work in our interest and we do have the power to remove them in total at election time and if the mood of the country is so then a no confidence vote would no doubt bring it earlier.
    That power does not exist within the EU. The Parliament is a five year term and the Commission are detached upwards from the electorate.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    I have no objection to the EU commissions based on appointments. And I have no objection to the House of Lords being similarly based on appointments. These similarity of the EU and UK appointsments to these two bodies seems reasonable to me.



    The thing is the EU Commission is based on appointments and has significantly more power than our Lords. Our Lords refine and delay legislation, the Commission actually make the Legislation for approval by Parliament. Almost a reversal of roles.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »


    Are you proposing that British politcal parties should have the right to meddle in the affairs other countries. If so, which parties and which countries please ?




    Why should they not if the result of a foreign election has an effect on what happens in the EU, we do call that democracy. If we take my previous example of Italy and Berlusconi which represents a situation democratically that would not be countenanced in the UK there is no way a British electorate can influence that situation. This is the conundrum of the EU. Its electorate are wholly detached from much of the legislature and from many of representatives who make the decisions within all three Institutions of EU Government.
    I do not wish to have electoral representation in other countries nor do I wish other countries to have electoral representation here but it is difficult to correct the problems of accountability and corruption within the Bureaucratic edifice that is the EU without it.
    Do you think that democracy is at work fairly in all member states of the EU?
Sign In or Register to comment.