Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 12:33:15 GMT
If anyone has experience of bursitis in the outer hip area could they pm me please?
|
|
jimjam
Member
Posts: 1,642
Member is Online
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 3, 2024 12:50:04 GMT
PJW, Like you I think MRP is not as accurate as some would have it but the idea of more seats falling than UNS suggests when swings are large is just maths.
If Tory support drops 25% from 44% to 33% and this is even then in seats where they have more support they will lose more votes as a %age.
If they won a seat with 40% they will be at 30% but if 56% they drop to 42%, bringing it in to play more than UNS suggests.
Of course Labour's extra vote share is lower using the proportionate approach in seats where they are further behind but as the base is lower the %age impact is less.
For me the hardest thing to account for is if the many new Tory MPs have gained any meaningful incumbency bonus which in some seats will be double with the former (Labour MP) usually having some personal vote built up greater than the PPC will receive.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 3, 2024 12:54:48 GMT
Not surprised that you find watching an animal hurt itself amusing. Only you would be churlish enough to draw that conclusion. Too bad eh. Being a squirrel I'm sure it dusted itself off and bounced back. They won't.
|
|
wb61
Member
Posts: 1,107
Member is Online
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 3, 2024 12:56:02 GMT
Not surprised that you find watching an animal hurt itself amusing. Only you would be churlish enough to draw that conclusion. Too bad eh. Not the only one I am afraid, I thought it completely cruel image, it sickened me.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 13:38:17 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 14:17:27 GMT
We really dont. We need that number to keep down the wages of care sector workers. So the rich employing care workers, can stay rich. We need the number to provide care for the likes of my 92 year old mum with Alzheimer’s and Vascular Dementia. She is on pension credit so not rich. It is the poor who need the care. We need a government willing to run a state funded care service and pay a fair wage for skilled care work. The private sector needs to be removed from care. The thing is, there are a certain number of jobs to do, so its how do we allocate worker resources. Is caring for the elderly more important than banking, because if so we need to take people off banking, and put them on care work. Bankers are supposed to make disproportionately more towards GDP than care workers, so what tradeoff do we choose between looking after the old... and making money for the rich?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 14:22:58 GMT
I did some back of an envelope calculations that showed that the native population (say those here since before WWII) would be outnumbered by 2050. In many cities they already are. So Rishi Sunak (born in Southampton in 1980) is by your reckoning not part of the native population given that his ancestors were not present in the UK before WWII - that despite being the Prime Minister. Boris Johnson was born in New York in 1964 and until he gave it up in 2016 had dual UK/US citizenship. Is he part of the the 'native population'? Does it matter that his paternal grandfather was Osman Kemal, son of Ali Kemal Bey, an Ottoman minister or that he also has German ancestry? I think you may find that your concept of 'native population', given the highly mixed ancestry of these Isles, is going to prove difficult to pin down. To give another example - are the many people of Irish heritage living in Britain part of the 'native population' or not? For many people, the whole point of brexit was to preserve the ethnic identity of the UK. To end immigration. Yet here we are with Turkish Johnson and Indian Sunak ramping up immigration. Who seriously thinks this is going to go down well with those promised an end to immigration?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 14:32:51 GMT
In village idiot news leader of refuk Richard Tice rules out standing down in any seats to assist the Tories.So jib will have some one to vote for.
Apparently according to Tice the Tories and Labour are 'two sides of same socialist coin'.
Who knew!
Frog faced hate gimp Farage is no where to be seen presumably awaiting the call from Conservative lie central to return to save the party.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 3, 2024 14:47:38 GMT
PJW, Like you I think MRP is not as accurate as some would have it but the idea of more seats falling than UNS suggests when swings are large is just maths. If Tory support drops 25% from 44% to 33% and this is even then in seats where they have more support they will lose more votes as a %age. If they won a seat with 40% they will be at 30% but if 56% they drop to 42%, bringing it in to play more than UNS suggests. Of course Labour's extra vote share is lower using the proportionate approach in seats where they are further behind but as the base is lower the %age impact is less. For me the hardest thing to account for is if the many new Tory MPs have gained any meaningful incumbency bonus which in some seats will be double with the former (Labour MP) usually having some personal vote built up greater than the PPC will receive. The most interesting part was Kellner's categorical statement: "Historically, swings between Labour and Conservative have never behaved like that. Of course, individual seats vary; but in election after election, swings in safe seats have been much the same as in marginal seats." I'm pretty sure that isn't what happened in 1997, with the swing statistically lower in Labour held seats and closer Tory held marginals than it was in safe Tory seats and you would think Peter Kellner knows that. So his determination to claim the opposite seems strange.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 14:52:52 GMT
In relation to your other 'issue' of continually feeling compelled to draw inappropriate comparisons between the action of the nazi's and what most people would describe as mainstream political events, Thing is, the Nazis were a mainstream popular political party elected to office whose views were not terribly different to those of other parties in similar countries, like the UK. Certainly not different in most respects. Looked at from 70 years on they seem rather out of step with society now, but looked at from 30 years further ago, there was a massive war in europe, and the entire world was far, far more careless of human life. The US civil war- about legal use of slaves by society- was similarly 70 years or so before the nazi era, as we are after it. Persecution and indeed extermination of jews was a popular passtime in europe (including the UK) for centuries. England on the whole was just as keen to take jewish refugees then as it is to take boat people now. No one now seems to take seriously that these people might be fleeing sudden death back home, any more than they took jewish refugees seriously in 1935.
The big lie about nazis is the misinterpreted Godwins law, arguing they are always raised to make a point at the end of an argument. This obscures the true lesson, that Germany then was not so different to Brexit England.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 14:58:47 GMT
Informative and stark graph highlighting real terms pay growth in the UK. Wages are at the same level as 2006 Also shows how well people did under t h e Labour Government I have always seen this quoted as AVERAGE wages, with the persistant footnote, that actually the better off half did much better in retaining or restoring income than the worse off half. In other words, the richer half are better off than 2006, the poorer half worse off. Which is kinda the outcome you might have hoped for if you were a political party disporportionately supported by the better off.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 3, 2024 15:11:45 GMT
We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too. I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen. To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop. Surely "hate" will be down to what degree you personally have been affected by a particular politician? Plenty of people who are justified in not stepping back from "hate". Sticking to "democratically elected" if you were a Windrush victim or affected by the bedroom tax or an EU citizen struggling with the paperwork to remain then surely you have a very valid reason to hate the PM of the time? Ditto Trump and Le Pen if you feel that their rhetoric has caused a dangerous "hostile environment" for you or Biden who has been arming Israel who have (probably in some cases) used those weapons to kill your family. Most of us on here pretty much "hate" Netanyahu who is democratically elected to the degree of wanting him dead if it were to make a difference with the only proviso being that it would probably be counter productive. On a lighter note Carshalton fans have sung to Kingstonian fans that "we hate Sutton more than you" but how do they match the Sutton v Kingstonian game where 4 players were sent off, 6 others booked and where the referee had to take the players off to "cool down" for 5 minutes when players were just kicking at anything that moved in the opposing colours and ignoring the ball? There are degrees of hate clearly :-)
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 15:13:58 GMT
PJW, Like you I think MRP is not as accurate as some would have it but the idea of more seats falling than UNS suggests when swings are large is just maths. If Tory support drops 25% from 44% to 33% and this is even then in seats where they have more support they will lose more votes as a %age. If they won a seat with 40% they will be at 30% but if 56% they drop to 42%, bringing it in to play more than UNS suggests. Of course Labour's extra vote share is lower using the proportionate approach in seats where they are further behind but as the base is lower the %age impact is less. For me the hardest thing to account for is if the many new Tory MPs have gained any meaningful incumbency bonus which in some seats will be double with the former (Labour MP) usually having some personal vote built up greater than the PPC will receive. The most interesting part was Kellner's categorical statement: "Historically, swings between Labour and Conservative have never behaved like that. Of course, individual seats vary; but in election after election, swings in safe seats have been much the same as in marginal seats." I'm pretty sure that isn't what happened in 1997, with the swing statistically lower in Labour held seats and closer Tory held marginals than it was in safe Tory seats and you would think Peter Kellner knows that. So his determination to claim the opposite seems strange. I rather disagree with Kellner here. In 2019 we saw some massive pro-Tory swings in seats which traditionally were safe for Labour. In the just 2.5 years which passed between the June 2017 GE and the December 2019 GE Bassetlaw recorded a swing to the Tories in excess of 18%, Grimsby a swing of over 14% and Sedgefield showed a swing above 10%. Clearly there were factors at work which contributed significantly to such results - Brexit - Corbyn - and Johnson. None will be relevant this year, and it will not surprise me to see mega pro- Labour swings in such areas in compensation for what occurred in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 3, 2024 15:14:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 15:24:27 GMT
That seems a pointless waste of time.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 15:29:30 GMT
graham The sooner we can get rid of the Tories the better. "People are fed up with waiting for promised hospitals that are never built, an end to sewage being dumped in our rivers and real action on the cost of living. It shouldn’t be up to Rishi Sunak to cling on for another 12 months, desperately hoping for something to turn up and causing even more damage as he tries to keep his fractured party behind him" ED What's your problem with that?
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 15:31:43 GMT
When you are the third party in English politics, stunts are about the only way to get noticed. No more 'Blue Walls' to knock down after by-election victories. I do think that taking away from the Prime Minister the power to call a General Election whenever they like is a good one (I suppose we should be thankful that Boris didn't also introduce a seven-year limit at the same time (see the Septennial Act of 1715)). I'm all for Westminster having fixed terms, just like every other democratic body we elect.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 15:35:20 GMT
A small glimmer of hope "UK use of gas and coal for electricity at lowest since 1957, figures show The first Uk nuclear power started 1956. Before that, wouldnt almost all of our electric power have come from coal? Wikipedia says energy usage (ie total not just electricity) was 40% oil and 57% coal in 1965. They also say electricity consumption in 1957 about 80 TWH, compared to about 350 TWH now. so x4? That might disguise other important uses of fossil fuels such as for heating, transport. Wikipedia seem to think that 80% of energy usage is still from oil and gas. I suspect quoting a figure simply for electricity, is rather exaggerating the improvement, because oil and gas are used for a lot more than just generating electricity. The wiki graph suggests that over the time period, most of what we have done is just to replace coal with gas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_mix_of_UK.svgAnother graph has total co2 output, which peaked around 600 million tonnes for 1960-2010. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_emissions_UK.svg Usage has been falling from about 2000 to maybe 300 million tonnes, or back to levels about 1900. Of course this does not take into account eg our ceasing to make steel and many other goods in the UK despite still using them, so this energy release is still on our behalf but happening abroad. Nor that coal releases more co2 than gas per unit energy delivered, so the switch to gas probably accounts for most of the saving.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 15:51:15 GMT
graham The sooner we can get rid of the Tories the better. "People are fed up with waiting for promised hospitals that are never built, an end to sewage being dumped in our rivers and real action on the cost of living. It shouldn’t be up to Rishi Sunak to cling on for another 12 months, desperately hoping for something to turn up and causing even more damage as he tries to keep his fractured party behind him" ED What's your problem with that? The point is that this will make absolutely no difference at all. There is no possibility of the FTPA being resurrected. Moreover, Labour would not support the idea.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 15:56:35 GMT
When you are the third party in English politics, stunts are about the only way to get noticed. No more 'Blue Walls' to knock down after by-election victories. I do think that taking away from the Prime Minister the power to call a General Election whenever they like is a good one (I suppose we should be thankful that Boris didn't also introduce a seven-year limit at the same time (see the Septennial Act of 1715)). I'm all for Westminster having fixed terms, just like every other democratic body we elect. There are arguments on both sides - and the experience of the 2017 - 2019 Parliament led many to revise their opinions on the issue. It is also worth pointing out that the calling of the December 2019 election would have shortened the current Parliament to less than 4 years and 5 months - rather than 5 years - had the FTPA not been repealed.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 16:03:47 GMT
Ian Dunt in the i newspaper on why the Tories keep making the same mistake of trying to placate Farage. The difficulty the Conservatives have is practical. In the outer wilderness of opposition, with no MP and no prospect of ever getting one, Tice and Farage can suggest all sorts of mad things. But it doesn’t matter, because they’ll never have to implement them. The Conservatives do not have that advantage. They constantly move to Reform’s position but then look weak when they find they are impossible. One by one, Tory leaders all make the same mistake. They could face down the extreme right position Farage represents – challenge it, refute it, distance themselves from it, show themselves to represent a more sophisticated form of right-wing thought. But they do not. They submit to it. They validate it. They replicate it. And every time, it eats them alive. They simply will not learn. Farage inflicts as much damage on the Tory party as he does the country. And it will not stop, until they elect a leader with the principles to stand up to him. And yet that seems a very distant prospect indeed.Thinking of the last time that the Tories went out on one of their right-wing binges, it took them three lost elections (1997, 2001 and 2005) and three losing leaders (Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard) before they finally saw sense and made "hug-a-hoodie" Cameron leader - and even that return to sanity didn't last.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 16:05:29 GMT
Just came across an interesting slant on the criticism of small party memberships having disproportionate influence on governments.
In Germany, the Coalition Government has just been sustained ( saved) by a 52% vote of FDP members voting in favour of staying in it. Under the Free Democrat's Party rules 598 members were able to force the vote in which 40% of the members took part.Thus 26000 people representing a party with a 5% national VI have determined the continuation of a government , 57% * of whose electorate want an early Bundestag Election .
* Insa Poll for Bild.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 3, 2024 16:08:56 GMT
We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too. I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen. To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop. Surely "hate" will be down to what degree you personally have been affected by a particular politician? Plenty of people who are justified in not stepping back from "hate". Sticking to "democratically elected" if you were a Windrush victim or affected by the bedroom tax or an EU citizen struggling with the paperwork to remain then surely you have a very valid reason to hate the PM of the time? Ditto Trump and Le Pen if you feel that their rhetoric has caused a dangerous "hostile environment" for you or Biden who has been arming Israel who have (probably in some cases) used those weapons to kill your family. Most of us on here pretty much "hate" Netanyahu who is democratically elected to the degree of wanting him dead if it were to make a difference with the only proviso being that it would probably be counter productive. On a lighter note Carshalton fans have sung to Kingstonian fans that "we hate Sutton more than you" but how do they match the Sutton v Kingstonian game where 4 players were sent off, 6 others booked and where the referee had to take the players off to "cool down" for 5 minutes when players were just kicking at anything that moved in the opposing colours and ignoring the ball? There are degrees of hate clearly :-) Eh?? I loathe and detest this sort of talk, I really really do. 🤣👍 Now, when it comes to football, you and I know how many beans make five. You've got one over me with Wigan turnstile operators in terms of real street cred but I've been there and done it with Third Division football in the early 70s.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 16:15:06 GMT
When you are the third party in English politics, stunts are about the only way to get noticed. No more 'Blue Walls' to knock down after by-election victories. I do think that taking away from the Prime Minister the power to call a General Election whenever they like is a good one (I suppose we should be thankful that Boris didn't also introduce a seven-year limit at the same time (see the Septennial Act of 1715)). I'm all for Westminster having fixed terms, just like every other democratic body we elect. There are arguments on both sides - and the experience of the 2017 - 2019 Parliament led many to revise their opinions on the issue. It is also worth pointing out that the calling of the December 2019 election would have shortened the current Parliament to 4 years and 5 months - rather than 5 years - had the FTPA not been repealed. The ease with which Johnson was able to by-pass the FTPA by simply declaring that there would be a General Election in December 2019 on a mere simple majority in Parliament; the SNP's support for the Tories would have been sufficient even if everyone else had voted against it, illustrates that the protections in the FTPA were too weak. The FPTA fixed the General Election date as the First Thursday in May in the fifth year after the last election so, in principle a Parliament could be as short as 4 years and one month if the previous election had been in April. This a a feature not a bug.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 16:20:59 GMT
There are arguments on both sides - and the experience of the 2017 - 2019 Parliament led many to revise their opinions on the issue. It is also worth pointing out that the calling of the December 2019 election would have shortened the current Parliament to 4 years and 5 months - rather than 5 years - had the FTPA not been repealed. The ease with which Johnson was able to by-pass the FTPA by simply declaring that there would be a General Election in December 2019 on a mere simple majority in Parliament; the SNP's support for the Tories would have been sufficient even if everyone else had voted against it, illustrates that the protections in the FTPA were too weak. The FPTA fixed the General Election date as the First Thursday in May in the fifth year after the last election so, in principle a Parliament could be as short as 4 years and one month if the previous election had been in April. This a a feature not a bug. To be fair . December 2019 was not Johnson's preferred election date. He had wanted an October election , but the two attempts he made to call it were blocked by the terms of the FTPA. Then towards the end of October the LDs and SNP opened the door for a December poll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 16:34:31 GMT
Yes. Shipping costs & oil price spiking. Alternative routes =+10 days Just imagine the risk to Europe if the USA wasn't leading this small defence coalition * :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prosperity_Guardian *Denmark has just announced deployment of a frigate
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 3, 2024 16:43:43 GMT
PJW, Like you I think MRP is not as accurate as some would have it but the idea of more seats falling than UNS suggests when swings are large is just maths. If Tory support drops 25% from 44% to 33% and this is even then in seats where they have more support they will lose more votes as a %age. If they won a seat with 40% they will be at 30% but if 56% they drop to 42%, bringing it in to play more than UNS suggests. Of course Labour's extra vote share is lower using the proportionate approach in seats where they are further behind but as the base is lower the %age impact is less. For me the hardest thing to account for is if the many new Tory MPs have gained any meaningful incumbency bonus which in some seats will be double with the former (Labour MP) usually having some personal vote built up greater than the PPC will receive. The most interesting part was Kellner's categorical statement: "Historically, swings between Labour and Conservative have never behaved like that. Of course, individual seats vary; but in election after election, swings in safe seats have been much the same as in marginal seats." I'm pretty sure that isn't what happened in 1997, with the swing statistically lower in Labour held seats and closer Tory held marginals than it was in safe Tory seats and you would think Peter Kellner knows that. So his determination to claim the opposite seems strange. Yes, the swings in 1997 were indeed higher in Con-held seats, and lower in safe Labour seats. The swings, compared to 1992 were: Safe Con 13.5% Middle Con 13.0% Marginal Con 12.3% Marginal Lab 11.8% Middle Lab 9.8% Safe Lab 7.9% See page 14 of 18 www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1318.pdfThe other point that Kellner seems unwilling to acknowledge is the factor of Govrnment recovery. Current MRPs reflect polling which puts Labour around 16-17% ahead. However, the normal fall in the polling lead for an opposition from this point is around 4-7 points. Given that the MRPs are showing Labour gaining around '15 seats per 1% swing' from Con since 2019, it is reasonable to expect the Labour seat tally to be reduced by 30-50 from the recent MRPs which currently give them 400-430 seats. So the 'majority' may well fall by 60-100. But this pattern is a normal feature of polling as we approach a General Election, not a failing of MRP.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 16:48:38 GMT
The most interesting part was Kellner's categorical statement: "Historically, swings between Labour and Conservative have never behaved like that. Of course, individual seats vary; but in election after election, swings in safe seats have been much the same as in marginal seats." I'm pretty sure that isn't what happened in 1997, with the swing statistically lower in Labour held seats and closer Tory held marginals than it was in safe Tory seats and you would think Peter Kellner knows that. So his determination to claim the opposite seems strange. Yes, the swings in 1997 were indeed higher in Con-held seats, and lower in safe Labour seats. The swings, compared to 1992 were: Safe Con 13.5% Middle Con 13.0% Marginal Con 12.3% Marginal Lab 11.8% Middle Lab 9.8% Safe Lab 7.9% See page 14 of 18 www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1318.pdfThe other point that Kellner seems unwilling to acknowledge is the factor of Govrnment recovery. Current MRPs reflect polling which puts Labour around 16-17% ahead. However, the normal fall in the polling lead for an opposition from this point is around 4-7 points. Given that the MRPs are showing Labour gaining around '15 seats per 1% swing' from Con since 2019, it is reasonable to expect the Labour seat tally to be reduced by 30-50 from the recent MRPs which currently give them 400-430 seats. So the 'majority' may well fall by 60-100. But this pattern is a normal feature of polling as we approach a General Election, not a failing of MRP. Government recovery was not seen in the final part of the 1974 - 79 Parliament. Labour would have performed better at an election held at any time in 1978 than actually occurred on May 3rd 1979.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 16:49:05 GMT
Ian Dunt in the i newspaper on why the Tories keep making the same mistake of trying to placate Farage. They simply will not learn. Farage inflicts as much damage on the Tory party as he does the country. And it will not stop, until they elect a leader with the principles to stand up to him. And yet that seems a very distant prospect indeed.Thinking of the last time that the Tories went out on one of their right-wing binges, it took them three lost elections (1997, 2001 and 2005) and three losing leaders (Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard) before they finally saw sense and made "hug-a-hoodie" Cameron leader - and even that return to sanity didn't last. This is all besides the point. Back in 2005 con lost. They needed a cause to help them win in 2010, it was euroscepticism and that grew into brexit. It won them 14 years in power whereas without the right wing loons they would have lost to Brown. It simply wasnt a mistake for them to adopt euroscepticism and those right fanatics, because it got them as long a term in power as they could reasonably hope for. Destroying state services is not in itself very appealing to voters despite being core conservative policy.
Yes, sure, brexit wasnt the only thing they did, and adopting cameron as the acceptable face of the party was also part of what they needed to do.
But the electoral system almost obligated them to find votes where they could.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 3, 2024 17:15:48 GMT
The ease with which Johnson was able to by-pass the FTPA by simply declaring that there would be a General Election in December 2019 on a mere simple majority in Parliament; the SNP's support for the Tories would have been sufficient even if everyone else had voted against it, illustrates that the protections in the FTPA were too weak. The FPTA fixed the General Election date as the First Thursday in May in the fifth year after the last election so, in principle a Parliament could be as short as 4 years and one month if the previous election had been in April. This a a feature not a bug. However, all it takes to halt parliament is a majority of 1 against you. So this was really only reflecting the reality of the situation. It affirmed parliaments power to dissolve itself or refuse to be dissolved on the usual terms, a majority of 1.
|
|