Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Chris Waugh,
16 times in over 200 years since the Bill Of Rights, which isn't that many. There hasn't been one since 1992. 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures is a big hurdle.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
I can't think of many countries that have changed their term length in modern history.
The UK has moved to fixed terms which is effectively an increase (because governments usually called elections tactically 6-18 months before they were due). Labour and others wanted to move to a four-year fixed term, but this was defeated.
The US it's so hard to make a constitutional amendment that it would never happen.
I've never heard of any pressure for change in Australia.I think in general where a country has a written constitution, the term length is entrenched and would only change as part of a general constitutional reform.
-
It is however true that a UK government (Thatcher, weirdly) did something, albeit temporary, about property inflation (limiting tax relief on mortgage interest, and did it with a delay, such that the property market was effectively undermined).
Maybe if they'd had an election in the next year, they wouldn't have done this.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
Per this report the term has been increased once by parliament (in 1934, to four years, and repealed by the next parliament). It's also been extended three times on a one-off basis. There have been two referenda since these became required to change the term, and in both cases the measure was defeated by a substantial majority.
-
I've worked out why Shearer and the other timeservers want it though. It'll mean that each Labour leader will get four years salary rather three before they lose an election and have to resign.
-
Britain had three year maximum parliaments from 1641 to 1716 and then a seven year maximum until 1911 (although the 1910 parliament was prolonged until 1918 because of WW1). In the mid-19th century, the Chartists advocated for annual general elections.
-
Hard News: The Next Act, in reply to Yamis,
For somebody that has a mic in their face hours a day, going out live you've gotta give them a bit of slack.
Cn I just give a big Happy Birthday to Radio Active breakfast host Redbird Jnr, who manages a three hour show every morning (albeit with music) and has never had a single burst of racist Tourettes,
-
I'd agree. The only thing that could be said for parliament forcing four year terms on an unwilling populace is that it would increase levels of discontent with established politicians.
Interestingly, the United States has no constitutional provision to defer elections, and held presidential elections in 1944 during WW2 and (amidst much more disruption and obviously without the participation of the southern states) in 1864.
In the UK, it is seen as the duty of the opposition to agitate for an early election throughout the life of the government, especially if that government is in a tenuous position. The Wilson/Callaghan government of 1974-9 endured several np-confidence motions before finally losing and being forced into an early election (albeit only six months before their five years was up).
-
I went for a drive through the Wairarapa to look for more land to colonise.
Do many peoples anywhere do things to celebrate a national day - as opposed to just taking advantage of the day off? The UK doesn't have one at all, no Queen's Birthday or Remembrance Day. I think that's healthy, particularly in the light of their lack of history worthy of a celebration.
-
battlers against the system:
Alison Annan, Christine Rankin, John Banks, Jim Sprott, Lesley Martin, Nick SmithSays it all really. Wealthy criminals*, battling against a system that tries to hold them to account.
*One or two might not be all that wealthy, or have a conviction, but when you take the union of the two, that's the case, with a substantial overlap.