From my albeit sketchy knowledge of it I think the Act has 2 ways in which an election can be called early.

1 is through a Vote of No Confidence by the House of Commons in the same way it always has.

The other is where 2/3rds of the House of Commons directly calls for an early general Election. So there wouldn't have to be a vote of No Confidence but there'd have to be 2/3rds of the House wanting an Early General Election.

I suppose the first way is how a minority govt could be (potentially) booted out and the 2nd way is for a sitting govt to call for another election early.

If a government was effectively unable to pass legislation and put forward a motion for an early general election, could any Leader of the Opposition not support that motion? Turn down the opportunity of an election? They'd have blokes dressed as chickens following them about everywhere.

Apparently in other countries that have fixed term parliaments its not unusual for governments to table a motion of no confidence in itself and then abstain to make sure its passed.

Spot on. All the Act did really was take the power to call a General Election out of the sole hands of the PM and into the hands of the government. So the PM would at least have to have the approval of his own party in calling an early election, the other parties as you say would all HAVE to vote for an election.

A government can still be kicked out by a straight majority vote of No Confidence.

Having said that there's no way the SNP would vote against Labour in a No Confidence vote. It'd be suicide for the SNP. Nor would UKIP & the DUP vote against the Tories if the Tories were the main party in government.

That's only if they believe that FPTP has a future, the only party still clinging to that concept is the tory party.

Labour have spent near 20 years ignoring Scotland, it'll take more than five for any confidence to return

If Milliband becomes PM, what are the chances of him taking steps towards electoral reform? Plenty of stuff on devolution, decentralisation, reducing the voting age in Labour's manifesto. Nothing on FPTP or alternative voting systems.

No party has a mandate for changing the voting system as in 2011 we had a referendum and it was rejected. Pretty high turnout of 41% of which 62% voted to keep FPTP. A pity but even the Lib Dems won't got for it in the next parliament.

In other news the economy grew less than expected in the 1st 1/4 of this year continuing a trend:

Q1 2014 0.9%
Q2 2014 0.8%
Q3 2014 0.7%
Q4 2014 0.6%
Q1 2015 0.3%

Cameron's reaction? It is a risk to let Labour in to run the economy! On those figures !!!!

The LimpDems got suckered into that referendum, that's why they refused to back boundary changes.

Instead of offering AV asd the only alternative to FPTP, the question should have been: "Do you want to see an aternative to to FPTP?". If the answer had then been "yes", an electoral college should have been set up to debate the various alternatives of PR and a short-list offered to the public in a 2nd referendum.

Far from being dead, I think it is very much on the agenda again and given we've had recent experience of coalition government, I doubt it would be too difficult a sell this time around

It depends if people see PR as a system that [ialways[/i leads to a coalition government as I get the impression the vast majority don't think much of the coalition experience, even the Tories who benefited the most.

I think it would be a harder sell than ever to most of the electorate. The ones who would favour it would be those who would like to vote for the smaller parties without it being a wasted vote but they themselves are in a minority.

Apart from a major disaster (war etc), can you envisage a time in the future when one party will gain a workable majority?

Concensus government works in most European countries, there's no reason it couldn't be effectively sold to the UK electorate

As long as there is no written constitution, it will never happen. An executive only responsible to itself will ensure that as will the unelected, unaccountable power mongers of the aristocracy and big business.

Until parliament is answerable to the electorate and an independent body then the current situation will just continue to the detriment of all but to the huge benefit of the few.

The government is responsible to and answerable to parliament. We have a written constitution. It's called the law.

Labour are allowing the Tories to get away with their BS about how well the economy is doing. As my stockbroker wrote (these guys are not noted for their left-wing credentials!):
- People don't feel better off because they are not. GDP growth is on the back of a rapidly increasing immigrant population and GDP per capita is down
- they promised to extinguish the deficit in 5 years but have only halved it
- our deficit exceeds the criteria for EU membership
- we apparently now have the dubious honour of being the lowest wage economy in Europe outside Greece and Portugal.

If that's an economic miracle and long-term plan I'd hate to see what their idea of incompetent mismanagement is.

I would be more inclined to think we have the largest "wage " disparity in the EU and probably could the USA a run for it's money

on this one.

The fact that people vote to be ripped off is something truly bizarre yet come the election they will vote with their idiot heads on.

We live in interesting times.

Thank you for posting the figures that proved your ridiculous statement that 'the economy is not going to grow before the next election' a couple of years ago absolutely miles out. Clueless.

Starting to look like a Tory majority. Cameron outperformed Miliband on QT tonight and they had already taken a 5% poll lead. They are also concentrating their efforts just on the marginal they need. Can also see some major allegation / scandal; being leaked against Labour in the day(s) just before polling day.

Relatively speaking, Miliband got torn a new one tonight. I had expected Cameron to get the hardest time but he was pretty impressive. By far the best performer of the three, his answers were concise and as good as any politician has given in this campaign. Lots of straight answers avoided despite the best efforts of the audience - as is par for the course for any politician - but he did better than the others.

Miliband simply couldn't defend Labour's track record or their plans to borrow, and to deny they overspent up to 2010 was simply astounding. The audience was surprisingly hostile, he struggled to cope and it was only in his last 10 minutes he recovered a little ground. The phrase 'all mouth and no trousers' sprang to mind several times - a far cry from earlier debates when he largely basked in the knowledge the minor parties around him will need to come begging.

Clegg was his usual affable but slightly desperate self. I'm starting to wonder if he knows something we don't - that a Tory or Labour majority would see him back in a coalition, with all sides apparently ruling out an SNP deal. Could we even end up with another Tory-Lib Dem coalition?

The EU referendum is too big a stumbling block

At last a post by AJW that proves what most already thought about his economic understanding, and probably everything else.

As I am still waiting answers to reasonable questions it appears that the quote above is the answer.

Clueless.

I rest my case.

Kettle and pot comes to mind here!!

I agree, you and AJW are identical.

Not this old fanny again?

In 1997 Labour inherited debt that was far higher than we had pre-2008 financial crisis.

Similarly, this government has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. In fact this coalition government has borrowed more than ANY previous government. And just like the previous tory administration, the money was borrowed to fund welfare and tax breaks for the rich. A price worth paying?

In 1997 Labour inherited an NHS on the brink of collapse, with patients warehoused in corridors. This bunch have gone one better, patients don't even make the corridor, they're being warehoused in ambulances in the car parks. Give them another five years and we'll all be dying at home.

It was a similar situation in education. Overcrowded classes being taught in "temporary" classrooms or decrepit buildings. A situation that the tories are taking us back to in only five years.

Looks like you've really swallowed the tory rhetoric

Please can you let us all have a definitive time frame on this so I know when to join Bupa. Only you said the NHS was dead in 2013 and it's still around so I am starting to think you might, just might, be scaremongering again.



Swallowed the facts you mean.

The Tories don't deal in facts, only propaganda.

You can't afford it, not just you but any individual who wishes to insure themselves and ALL of their family against unlimited health claims with no cost limits, for life.

Indeed there is no such plan available.

Private health care is for employers to purchase in bulk as a "perk" and offer as part of an employee contract like it is in the USA, either that or for certain public employees who's work involves risk of physical injury (police used to have it) - its not for individuals to purchase themselves, if you don't believe me then go online and get some quotes, be prepared to feel bottom raped by them though.

Ah, here we go, the usual tripe.

Pre 2008? You and the usual apologists trying to erase the depression that Balls, Brown and Wallace presided over, tell that to the million who lost their jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich? I'm not rich and I've never been better off.

I'd rather die at home than at Midstaffs. Still, you want to privatise the NHS, you keep forgetting about this little fact, as you whine on and on and on. Just why did you vote to sell off the NHS to Tory "chums"? Try answering without, "i'm spineless".

And yet schools are being built all over, and were in the terrible 80's, I know, I went to one of them. You should have tried it.