Snap general election

[Ric.ror]

I thought the rules had been changed and all terms were now fixed at 5 years
So that would rule out a snap general election as mentioned in the posts below would n't it?
Also if all terms are fixed what happens if say the government loses a vote and a no confidence vote

[HowardKennitby]

As far as I know governments can still call elections whenever they like. 5 years is the maximum term of a government.

[Old_Geezer]

There is regular talk about it from those who want polices to be dictated by a known end point, but I am unaware this has been enacted.

I suspect the no-confidence might be retained if the system was changed, to allow an early cut off ?

[sandyRoe]

There was some discussion about fixed term parliaments. But what government would introduce it? They might find themselves forced to hold an election in the middle of a political scandal.

[ichkeria]

No governments can't call an election out of convenience but a vote of (no) confidence can still be called - I think there has to be a certain % over 50 against to force an election. I don't remember if it's actually been passed or not. I think it has.

[Gromit]

Ichkeria
Are you sure about that. Margaret Thatcher called an election A year early in 1983. I don't think the rules have changed since then.

If the coalition broke up and the Conservatives tried to go it alone as the largest pary but kept losing the votes then surely an election could be called.

[Gromit]

For the second time today, I have been completely wrong. The fixed term parliament act was passed and is now law.

http://services.parli...dtermparliaments.html

[HowardKennitby]

I missed that as well.

[ABerrant]

I did address this fact early on in the other thread...

http://www.theanswerb...8.html#answer-7111514

[sandyRoe]

I missed that too.

[Old_Geezer]

Didn't we all, or most of us. Sneaked that one past then.

[ichkeria]

Ah yes it's the motion calling for an election that needs a two thirds majority. A vote of no confidence just needs a straight majority

[MoonRocker]

The law has been changed but I can’t see it making any difference whatsoever. The government can still have an election any time it likes under the 2 thirds rule. The opposition will always want an election so the law is pretty well pointless.

[ABerrant]

Moonrocker - Governments only ever called early elections when the polls indicated that they would probably win that election; they didn't call for an election when they were bound to lose.

How can an incumbent government now instigate a snap election when advantageous to them if it can only occur with a sizeable proportion of the oppostion in agreement (i.e. when the polls are against the opposition winning)? Only a foolish opposition votes for an election they will probably lose.

[LazyGun]

MR - the change in the system to fixed term parliaments, with some provisions for an early election offer a completely different scenario than before.

Prior to the law being enacted, it was within the Governments gift to declare an election, presumably when the polls favoured them. So the incumbent always had an advantage. The only way the opposition could force an early general election was by forcing through a vote of no confidence.

Now, should a government wish to take advantage of favourable polls, they have to call a vote, and get that vote through, given plenty of warning about when an election could occur.

Thats a big diference.....

[MoonRocker]

have you ever heard the leader of the opposition say they don't want an election? QED!