A question for those with detailed knowledge of #UKpolitics and the laws surrounding #parliament in general:
If the UK were to become involved in a #war or major #conflict, could parliament suspend a #GeneralElection indefinitely?
It seems from Grant Shapps' rhetoric that the #government is more focused upon preparing for war than avoiding it, and I certainly wouldn't put this tactic past the #Conservatives given their healthy parliamentary majority and record to date.
@adrianfry I've wondered for a long time what tactic the government might use to delay/cancel the next election. Literally nothing would surprise me, whether it is legal or not.
Middle East in conflict has been pretty much a constant, sadly, since WW2.
If China invades Taiwan it will have global consequences but UK will have a marginal role.
The one thing that could trigger WW3 would be Putin invading a NATO country. He is unlikely to do so unless Trump gets back in power, then all bets are off.
@adrianfry
The last election before WWII was 1935. Elections were then suspended by the Prolongation of Parliament Act 1940. There had been no election for a decade when the 1945 election took place.
And of course we had a national government when the leader of the opposition was effectively deputy PM. Hence there were no mainstream choices in an election.
Sensible at the time and if, again, we were in a formal state of war requiring the state to impose a war economy. But a danger if the power was misused. A simple house majority would be terrible. A consensus of mainstream parties would be good. But how do you put that into immutable law?
Shows the tragedy of Boris destroying the 'good chsp' theory of government. His successors have only amplified the problem.
@stuart@adrianfry
Labour only agreed to join a national government with Churchill at the head of it because he was opposed to Nazi Germany. Was he a "good chap"? I'm not sure the miners of Tonypandy would have agreed.
@TanAn@stuart@adrianfry
Churchill was an elitist, sexist, racist bastard. But the good chaps theory of government doesn't mean they are nice people, it means they do what they believe is best for the country, and can be trusted to stick to the principles of their piers.
You conflate Hennessey's 'good chaps' with nice people and/or nice policies. I don't and I don't think Hennessey did either.
Quite the opposite. When bad governments do bad things they still voluntary stick to constitutional rules both spoken and unspoken. Moreover accept without argument the outcome of democratic elections. Churchill did that.
The fact that we our now discussing this is symptomatic of our descent towards a dystopian country.
"The “good chaps” theory of government was coined by political historian Peter Hennessy, and refers to the idea that people in positions of power will abide by an understanding of good behavior in public life — rather than needing clear rules to police them."
Individual PMs' policies may be good or bad but they adhere to the unwritten constitution that has held our system of government together for generations. That was until Boris blatantly broke it and it has yet to be mended.
As to Churchill - a great wartime PM and a poor peacetime PM is my reading of history and by my parents and grandparents.
Add comment