FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The real reason an election was called...
The real reason an election was called...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Channel 4 News reported on Tuesday evening that the CPS is considering prosecution against more than 24 individuals with regards to 2015 election expenses."
The CPS is due to make an announcement in May as to whether any of the 24 (all Conservative) MP's will face any criminal action. The Electoral Commission is running a parallel enquiry which could result in absolution or, on the contrary, order an election re-run.
Even if only half of these MP's have to fight their seat again it would put ther Governments majority at risk.
Has PM May been given the nod that the Electoral Commission and/or CPS are going to act and so called a snap election?
This story could get very, very messy in the run up to the election - especially if the CPS/EC do find against the Conservative MP's. Questions will be asked of PM May and what she knew and why did she make such a profound U-Turn on the election issue?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If these reports are true then Nigel Farage will be a shoe in to win Thanet South this time. "
Much as I hate to agree with you. you're probably right.
Frankly, I believe that all MP's under investigation should be barred from standing until they are either cleared or found guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If these reports are true then Nigel Farage will be a shoe in to win Thanet South this time.
Much as I hate to agree with you. you're probably right.
Frankly, I believe that all MP's under investigation should be barred from standing until they are either cleared or found guilty."
I'd argue against that, preferring an option of preventing an election until the investigation is complete (don't get me wrong, I welcome an election in June).
Why?
Well very simple really.
If an MP is found guilty as accused then yes, they should be barred from running, but what if they are innocent?
We have a long standing principle in law in this country that is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and it would be grossly unfair to punish someone who is innocent.
And what of their constituents?
An accused MP may be incredibly popular with their constituents, and be their preferred candidate, but due to suspicion would be prevented from contesting their seat.
Following the election, it transpires that they are innocent.
Do you then hold a bi-election so that the constituents can have the opportunity to elect the candidate they wanted in the first place? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If these reports are true then Nigel Farage will be a shoe in to win Thanet South this time.
Much as I hate to agree with you. you're probably right.
Frankly, I believe that all MP's under investigation should be barred from standing until they are either cleared or found guilty.
I'd argue against that, preferring an option of preventing an election until the investigation is complete (don't get me wrong, I welcome an election in June).
Why?
Well very simple really.
If an MP is found guilty as accused then yes, they should be barred from running, but what if they are innocent?
We have a long standing principle in law in this country that is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and it would be grossly unfair to punish someone who is innocent.
And what of their constituents?
An accused MP may be incredibly popular with their constituents, and be their preferred candidate, but due to suspicion would be prevented from contesting their seat.
Following the election, it transpires that they are innocent.
Do you then hold a bi-election so that the constituents can have the opportunity to elect the candidate they wanted in the first place?"
The problem exists in trying to get them (the guilty ones) out after being elected.
Although nothing to do with the current round of investigations into electoral malpractice take the case of Alistair Carmichael, Lid/Dem for Orkney and Shetland. This is a man that after the election in 2015 admitted that he had leaked an entirely fictitious story to the press claiming the Nicola Sturgeon had been in conversation with the French Ambassador in Scotland that stated she wanted to see David Cameron returned as PM.
He was subsequently taken to an election court in Edinburgh by his own constituents in an effort to unseat him. He not only admitted to the leak but admitted he had misled the cabinet office over his part in the leak. Despite all of this, he remains (though hopefully for not much longer) the MP for the constituency.
Very difficult to get a sitting MP removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think institutionalised election fraud should see enormous penalties for all parties engaged in systematically abusing elections.
As for the reasons this election has been called, it's possible that the ops assertion is valid.
I also think that peak-May and conservatives is potentially now, rather than after the proper further 3 years have lapsed. 3 further years of potential wage stagnation and inflation and the clear opportunity that few are better off after Brexit, would be thin ice for May. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I doubt it !
I honestly believe she is telling the truth as to why she has called an Rlection ! she wouldnt know the truth if it was to hit her in the face
"
Lol very true you can tell by the size of her nose  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
