SHOULD KING CHARLES DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND CALL A GENERAL ELECTION

LABOUR ARE NOT FIT TO RUN THIS COUNTRY , THEY ARE CRUEL , THEY DO NOT CARE AND KING CHARLES HAS THE POWER TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND CALL A GENERAL ELECTION .
SAVE THE UK NOW
SHOULD KING CHARLES DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND CALL A GENERAL ELECTION 13 votes
Comments
-
NO HE SHOULD NOT
I've voted no, because we are a democracy. Having an unelected person decide the people we elected to run the country should be "sacked" would be undemocratic.
1 -
We are definitely through the looking glass now…
1 -
YES HE SHOULD
I don't think we are a democracy , I think we are seeing democracy as an illusion . They place in power who they wish and not who is voted in, when you consider turn out it isn't like they even had a majority , and when you consider the people , allegedly vote in who they think could run the country and the party can turn on that person and choose on that person its a joke .
1 -
I love the government I had weeks of stress and worry and next year I will have all my benefits taken away. I will be voting for them again once I can obtain a postal address following my pending eviction because I have nothing to live off and in to much pain to work more.
1 -
NO HE SHOULD NOT
It may well only be an illusion of democracy.
For me, though, even that illusion, with checks and balances, is preferable to what's going on in, say. the US, North Korea, Russia etc., where everyone's lives are entirely at the mercy on one man's whims.
I guess we'll need to agree to disagree. 🙂
PS I've loathed Labour since Tony Blair became PM. I used to call them Tory-lite. I've dropped the 'lite' element of that description since Starmer snatched the wheel. To me, they are now Red Tories.
1 -
NO HE SHOULD NOT
No because at the moment, the alternativealternatives are far worse, Reform are leading opinion polls, and likely to be the next government, which is a very scary thought.
0 -
NO HE SHOULD NOT
I am going with the no, because it's a democracy option as well.
Democracy does also mean being able to change something through voting. But there are established rules for how this is done.
Let me be clear, in two decades of voting in every single election (local and national) I have never ever voted for the party that has been in power. I have never seen any meaningful political change come from my votes. I also voted remain in the Brexit referendum and have still suffered from the fallout of that policy. But I remember vividly throughout that how Farage and company went on and on about how it was a 'democratic process' and that a revote would be against democracy. We'd decided as a nation on Brexit, so be it.Farage was one of the first to talk about a fresh election to reject the Labour win and that hypocrisy jarred with me. As a nation, Labour were elected in. Did I vote for them? No. But that doesn't mean that their being elected is invalid.
So no. If you start messing around with our democracy because you disagree with one party's values, however obnoxious, then you open up the country to something far more terrifying. And especially given that the real push for a fresh election is coming on social media etc from those who argued passionately that democracy meant accepting the result of a vote, even if you did not agree with it.
Now, should we reform our democracy in time for the next election, with discussions on things like proportional representation - that's another discussion completely. I'm not satisfied with how our democracy works, but cannot support any attempts to undermine it.0 -
NO HE SHOULD NOT
We have a form of hybrid first past the post and proportional representation here in Scotland.
I like it because everyone's views are represented - there are no massive/super majorities and smaller parties have (or can have) influence if they band together on specific issues.
Labour lost their stranglehold in Scotland when me moved from the solely first past the post system, yet they are still able to band together with the other unionist parties to block proposed legislation.
To me, thats better/more collaborative than one party being the only winner.
I think England wiil NEVER adopt any version of PR for Westminster, even something like the hybrid version in Scotland, because it would allow people proper representation and they're desperately wedded to the winner takes all mindset.
Even the Lib Dems went silent on PR (and student loans/fees) when they had a brief taste of power in coalition with the Tories. There's far too much comfort in the two-party system for them to relinquish power to the electorate across the UK/NI, imo.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 14.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7K Coffee lounge
- 81 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 100 Announcements and information
- 23.2K Talk about life
- 5.5K Everyday life
- 267 Current affairs
- 2.3K Families and carers
- 853 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 498 Money and bills
- 3.5K Housing and independent living
- 993 Transport and travel
- 683 Relationships
- 72 Sex and intimacy
- 1.4K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 857 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 915 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 37.9K Talk about your benefits
- 5.8K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.2K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 7.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income