I thought I would start a thread for this one early.
My guess is an April election.
Anyone else think that Gordon Brown has just screwed any chance he had of winning by agreeing to the live TV debates?
General Election 2010
I think he's far more screwed by agreeing to hold an election. His best chance now is finding an excuse to impose martial law.
He screwed it by being a totally ineffective leader.
Poor Mr Brown, he tries hard.
Quote: bigfella @ December 21 2009, 9:16 PM GMTPoor Mr Brown, he tries hard.
He has created a great forum.
Quote: Badge @ December 21 2009, 9:17 PM GMTHe has created a great forum.
As a Blairite I tend to revel in Brown's misfortunes but not to the point of allowing a Tory government in.
Let's face it. He's screwed whatever he does so let's just hope that Cameron loses it one of the nights.
Gonna be interesting to see what Plaid and SNP make of it !
Didn't Mr Brown go off to town...?
Quote: bigfella @ December 21 2009, 8:59 PM GMTMy guess is an April election.
I don't think April is an option, because of the Budget timetable. Under Gordon's own rules, the Budget can't be less than three months after PBR, which was on 9th December, but any later than mid-April and there is a problem with tax increases preanounced to come into effect on 1st April- and some taxes, like income tax, actually have to be renewed annually. Even a truncated Finance Bill, that does just enough to keep the country solvent until after the election, will take a month or so to pass through the Committee stages and gain Royal Assent. So either Gordon squeezes an election in before the Budget, which effectively means no later than early March, or he goes for an early Budget and hangs on until May.
I like our system where we only hold elections on certain dates at regular intervals. I don't think I could handle elections on a more frequent schedule, it's bad enough that our campaigns last more than a year.
Quote: Timbo @ December 21 2009, 10:29 PM GMTI don't think April is an option, because of the Budget timetable. Under Gordon's own rules...
Say no more!
Quote: Oldrocker @ December 21 2009, 9:20 PM GMTAs a Blairite I tend to revel in Brown's misfortunes but not to the point of allowing a Tory government in.
You're getting charged top whack in future!
Quote: Aaron @ December 21 2009, 10:40 PM GMTYou're getting charged top whack in future!
Capitalist !
And proud.
Quote: DaButt @ December 21 2009, 10:33 PM GMTI like our system where we only hold elections on certain dates at regular intervals. I don't think I could handle elections on a more frequent schedule, it's bad enough that our campaigns last more than a year.
There are pluses and minuses to both systems. A major problem in the US fixed term system as I see it is, because everyone knows when the election will be, effective government becomes increasingly difficult in the second two years of a four year term. And almost nothing of substance can be achieved in the pre-election year.
Our election campaigns at least don't start (officially) until the election is announced some six weeks before polling day. That said, government is given a potentially significant advantage in being able to choose the timing of an election to suit the schedule for proposed legislation and tax changes etc.
One thing that always seems a bit odd in the US system is how, after such a long period of knowing who the presidential candidates are, there is a significant lag period between election day and the swearing in of the new President (and effectively the change of government). Surely, for example, the new Obama administration (or whoever is the incumbent) shouldn't have to wait three months to take over the administration. That doesn't seem either democratic or good for effective government.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 21 2009, 11:50 PM GMTA major problem in the US fixed term system as I see it is, because everyone knows when the election will be, effective government becomes increasingly difficult in the second two years of a four year term. And almost nothing of substance can be achieved in the pre-election year.
Actually, a president near the end of his term (especially if it's the second and therefore last term) can ram through legislation without worrying about how it might affect his chances of reelection.
One thing that always seems a bit odd in the US system is how, after such a long period of knowing who the presidential candidates are, there is a significant lag period between election day and the swearing in of the new President (and effectively the change of government). Surely, for example, the new Obama administration (or whoever is the incumbent) shouldn't have to wait three months to take over the administration.
It's 77 days between the election on November 4th and the inauguration on January 20th. There's a huge amount of work to be done in that time and I don't think anyone would be able to just step in and assume control the next day. The administrations work together to make the transition smooth and there are an incredible number of cabinet positions to fill, personnel to vet, briefings to prepare, etc. Hell, it would be next to impossible to move thousands of people thousands of miles into thousands of offices in just a few days.