GK>>> Why not? The Tories lately had elections over and over until they GK>>> liked the result.
DR>> Sorry, I don't understand that. What elections are you referring to? DR>> I know of no elections apart from the general election.
GK> That is indeed what I was referring to:
GK> 2019 extra election initiated by Boris Joahnston to get Brexit done GK> 2017 extra election initiated by Theresa May to get Brexit done GK> 2016 referendum on Brexit initiated by David Cameron GK> 2015 regular election with David Cameron promising to have a Brexit referendum
GK> So the general elections in 2017 and 2019 were somewhat artificial, GK> only initiated to get a better result to accomplish something that was GK> polled in a non-binding referendum before.
GK> What was wrong about the result in 2015? The elections in 2017 and 2019 GK> were exactly what you referred to before as voting until a desired GK> result comes along.
I'm not sure I need to reply to this as you are ignoring the reason for these elections, reasons with which I am sure you are familiar, so are you arguing just for the sake of it? In that case I don't need to answer.
Nevertheless, and this I'm sure you realise:
When I said about having further polls until one gets the result one want desires, I was referring to referenda.
The general elections we had in 2015 and 2010, and indeed in 2010, returned a result in which either no party had an overall majority, or the majority was so thin that it would be difficult to pass legislation if there were the slightest hostility to the bills (i.e. members of the governing party voting against the bills that the government brought before them thus robbing the government of their majority). This was the situation in 2010 when David Cameron's Tory party had to have a coalition with the LibDems to ensure they would be able to pass their bills. Now we in the UK (and by "we" I don't mean me personally) don't like coalitions (and is also why "we" don't like the idea of proportional representation) because it results in both parties having to give way to the other. I think that leads to stronger government but "we" think that leads to weak government.
Ok so far? Now when DC had an election in 2015 there was still a thin majority but he promised a referendum on Brexit. To his surprise the referendum resulted in a vote to leave the EU. He resigned as he felt he had lost credibility with the British people, having said that he wasn't in favour of Brexit, and Theresa May became prime minister. Because of the thin majority, both in the House of Commons and for Brexit, she felt that it was going to be difficult to negotiate a deal that would command the assent of the Commons. And so, because the Tories were riding high in the opinion polls at the time, she felt that another election would give her the majority that would enable her to proceed with Brexit.
She was wrong! The Tory majority was even thinner and so she had to do a deal, not a formal coalition, with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, And so she struggled on for three years until she had put the deal for Brexit that she had negotiated before the Commons three times and three times it had failed to get through. In other words, the government was no longer able to govern.
Now this brings me to the point about having polls until one gets the result one wants. General elections are nothing to do with getting a wanted result, they are all to do with electing a government that can actually govern, and I'm sure you realise this. It was nothing to do with Brexit, it was all about getting a working government.
Now you may say, "Of course it was to all to do with Brexit." I say to you that, yes, Brexit featured strongly in the fact that we had an election, *but it wasn't the reason for the election*. The reason, let me repeat lest you should have missed it, was all to do with getting a government with a workable majority so that the country could get out of the shambles into which it had descended.
GK> Instead, one could also have re-done the referendum a couple of times, GK> but "surprisingly" the powers that be didn't want to go that way... GK> because they had an aim to reach, and just needed to construct a way to GK> get there.
Now, that is a surprising statement from someone who is not only intelligent, but also au fait with politics in a democratic country. The government was tasked with carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum. Why should we have to have another referendum just because we couldn't get the bills passed in parliament because of the weakness of the government. Boris Johnson was right in what he did (though I freely admit that I personally *did* want another referendum in the hope and belief that the result would have been different) by calling for an election which would give him a big enough majority to be able to "get things done" (to misquote him). It was a gamble because, although the Tories were riding high in the polls, when it comes to an election things can turn out very differently, as Theresa May found to her cost.
What if, at the 2019 election, there was yet another hung parliament? What would have happened then? Answer: I don't know. And I'm not going to get into the position of saying that "we should do this" or "we should do that", or even saying "we should have done this" or "we should have done that" because it's very easy to snipe from the sidelines, especially when we're not in command of all the facts, or if we have a particular axe to grind. Government, especially someone else's government, is infinitely more complicated than we shall ever know. If I knew of a better way of doing things I should have stood myself for parliament many years ago!
A Happy New Year to the lot of you! And I'm sure we'll still be friends even if the Brits will soon be foreigners!! :-)
David
-- Formerly ICHTHUS (Reading) UK (1987-2007 R.I.P.) (2:292/854.110)
