It’s not as if that’s when we have Thanksgiving 
There may be some disgruntlement in Scotland, as schools there will already be out and families will be off to their holidays. The parties will have to push people to get postal votes.
[We seem to have two threads on the election - should they be combined?]
Yes, imho.
What are laws regarding how often an election should be called?
I recall in a Churchill deciding they should call one when WWII was almost over.
Has varied, but basically at least every five years (suspended for the duration of both world wars - the 1945 election happened because Labour wanted to leave the wartime coalition government, which I believe Churchill wanted to continue at least until the Japanese war was over).
Can be called as often as the PM deems it advisable. Sometimes we have had two in a year.
Under current law, it must be at least every five years: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/
I vaguely remember that that the UK had moved to a fixed schedule for holding elections several years ago. Did I make that up?
No - we did pass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act which did exactly what it says.
We then repealed it without it ever having caused a scheduled election.
I cannot, at the moment, precisely recall the reasons for either of these occurrences.
It was enacted by the coalition government at the start of their term as the LibDems (the third party who allowed David Cameron to take office) wanted to guarantee their position in government and not have the Prime Minister end the arrangement, or use it as a bargaining chip against them, half way through the term. The law was actually in place in the lead up to the 2017 election and two-thirds of the house did indeed have to pass a motion to hold that election (Corbyn hilariously believed that Labour would win so their his MPs voted in favour).
The act was dissolved because around Brexit we had a gridlock and the Prime Minister could not resolve the split in his own party by going to the electorate. It was also not advantageous to the ruling party so the Conservative’s were happy to dissolve the law when they had a large majority.
Was this anything like the similar legislation in Canada a few years ago, where the Conservative government passed an act which set a fixed federal election date every four years, but in which the very first paragraph in effect recognized that the rest of the act was unconstitutional and of no legal effect?
No, since in the UK Parliament is sovereign and can do or undo whatever a majority of the House of Commons think the voters will allow them to get away with. Both the Fixed Term Act and its replacement/repeal were done with a view to the governing parties’ expectations of the next election.
Well, fixed elections don’t really work well in a Westminster parliament, as Canada’s is. If Parliament rests on confidence in the House, and that confidence is lost two years into a party’s mandate, well, we’re not waiting another two years for an election. We’re having one now. Similarly, since the Constitution allows for up to five years in a mandate, a government can blow off the fixed election law, and ride its mandate out.
Kind of like the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1962. Only applicable to federal legislation, contained a Notwithstanding Clause, and is ultimately toothless; especially since the Charter overrides it.
In general I like and support the premise of a term of some sort of compulsory service (not necessarily military, but something that requires young people to engage with their country of residence on some level), but it has to be thought out, organized, and well coordinated. This proposal … isn’t.
Is there anything to this beyond election noise, one of what will doubtless be many, many attempts to distract the voters from how badly the Tories have cocked up literally everything?
Hopefully, your kooks on that issue aren’t as bad as our kooks who want to stand at the border and open fire because its “treason and tyranny” that a family walks across a border that no one really gave a damn about until the Republicans blamed all the ills of society on them
No.
They are. Thankfully, we don’t have such easy access to guns.
Setting aside the likelihood of the Tories still being in a position to put the idea into practice, a similar suggestion in Parliament a few days ago was shot down by one of the Defence ministers, and this one has been rubbished by former generals and admirals (and a former Defence Secretary, but that was Michael Portillo).
This national service nonsense is so sudden (at least seen from outside), is it possible that Rishi is just desperately cribbing ideas off Yes, Prime Minister?
Chronologically the next episode would be The Ministerial Broadcast, eyes out for the PM on TV in front of high-energy yellow wallpaper.
As an American, this feels like a stunt to appeal to boomers grousing that “kids these days” spend all their time lying in bed and eating avocado toast.
So, based on that chart, it looks like Labor is almost certainly going to be the largest party, but that they probably won’t be able to get a full majority by themselves, and will need to form a coalition. And further, a coalition with any one of Reform UK, Lib Dem, or Green would probably be enough. What coalition are they most likely to form? Would it probably be a coalition with just one of those, or would one expect them to join with multiple other parties to get a larger majority?
Sounds like a paraphrase of M. Bison’s quote: “For you, the day that you broke away from the most powerful empire in the world was the most important day of your history. But for us, it was Thursday.”
(oh, and just to be sure: “Tory” is a synonym for “Conservative party”, right?)
Reform and the Greens are unlikely to get more than 1 seat between them so any alliance would be extremely negligible. First Past the Post system means the Lib Dems also will not have as many seats as the vote percentage. If the Greens keep their seat Labour would be happy for the support, but certainly would not accept any from Reform, should they get one.
The current betting suggests that a Labour majority is heavily odds on.
Yes Tory=Conservative