Threat Of Major Scandal Prompted Conservatives early UK Election move Say UKIP Leaders

Leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have made astonishing claim that Prime Minister Teresa May's move to call an early General Election in June this year was done to preempt a series of by-elections that could be called following a police investigation into alleged electoral fraud. Accusing May and the Conservative government she leads of "putting party before country", UKIP front man Paul Nuttall appeared to suggest an electoral fraud scandal and the ensuing disqualification of sitting members of The House of Commons could rob the government of its slender majority in parliament.


Oops, that's Teresa May the porn star, not Teresa May the British politician

 

Mrs. May strongly denied she would call a snap election after being chosen, unopposed, as the Conservative leader following the resignation of David Cameron after he was humiliated when the country voted to leave the EU (Brexit). After parliament approved the invocation of the Article 50 Bill with a massive majority, with many of the unelected members of the House of Lords, along with a large section of Labour MPs, the Scottish Nationalists and Liberal Democrats along with a rebel faction in her own party promising they would prevent Brexit going ahead (in defiance of the democratic will,) The Prime minister today claimed she had “reluctantly” changed her mind.

Her U-turn also comes exactly a month after reports suggested Conservative Party figures were fearful of a series of by-elections that could be called after up to 20 of their MPs were alleged to have broken electoral law in the 2015 campaign, mostly in seats UKIP had a good chance of winning.

More than ten police forces have referred cases to the Crown Prosecution Service and lawyers are now considering whether to charge the MPs or their agents after a year long investigation.

“…The prospect of a slew of Tory-held by-elections caused by the seeming systematic breach of electoral law at the last election, predominantly in places where UKIP were pressing the Conservatives hard” could have influenced the decision to hold an election now, suggested Nuttall in a press statement.

Deputy UKIP leader Peter Whittle also said the decision was “utterly cynical”, adding: “But we’re having [a general election] now and my party is actually quite excited about it.” Speaking on the BBC’s Daily Politics, he said there was “no question” the Tories were acting in their own self-interest.

 

 

RELATED POSTS:

BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
The anti - UKIP squad and The Politics Of Hate

Comments

EXPAT Added Apr 19, 2017 - 3:48pm
Ian.
Thanks for the photo. The cleavage displayed should be titled Silicone Valley.
 
I believe that Mrs. May who was elected to lead Britain into the independence of Brexit, is becoming faint of heart at the thought of Scottish Nationalism.
 
Why else call for an election in so short a period? She either wants
re-assurance from the people or an excuse to back away from the mandate she was elected to facilitate. She is proving to be a bigger coward than David Cameron.
 
If the result is Haggis being washed down with  Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbierm the Sassenach can send the Muslims to Glasgow to clean up the barf!
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 19, 2017 - 4:22pm
Expat. Yes, if that Teresa May was our Prime Minister few people would be worrying about deflation when interest rates finally go up.
UKIP are flying a kite but there is something in their claim, there are investigations of electoral fraud in progress and the Tory majority is very thin. Also I heard from a Lib Dem House of Lords skiver I've known for many years that but for the stupendous numbers of postal votes for Remain in inner city areas the referendum majority would have been bigger so as various groups in parliament are sworn to stop Brexit at any cost, the option that May's move is what it says on the box, a cynical bid to get a safe majority, has to be considered.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
EXPAT Added Apr 19, 2017 - 4:45pm
Ian. America plays the same game! I am surprised UKIP hasn't blamed the Russians for hacking the referendum. Liberals are the same worldwide. When they lose, it is always because of fraud.
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 19, 2017 - 5:28pm
I know nothing about the electoral system outside the United States so will you do me a favor and explain the merits of politicians being able to decide when to hold an (snap) election?  Shouldn’t elections occur based on a pre-set date like they do in America?
Dino Manalis Added Apr 20, 2017 - 9:39am
Don't pick on her, May wants to be a modern day-Margaret Thatcher!
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 20, 2017 - 3:12pm
Ari, in the British system the Prime Minister has always had the right to call an election at any time. On this occasion it is ostensibly for the purpose of seeking a mandate to negotiate Britain's divorce from the EU (Brexit), but the true motive is probably more cynical than that.
The reason we stuck with this system is because the Prime Minister is not a president and has no power of veto (The Queen has but is not allowed to use it except in extreme circumstances). Mrs May was not elected but became leader of the largest party when David Cameron resigned, so she can use that as an excuse too although it would have been more credible had she called the election before she was sworn in.
Hope that helps you understand our contribution to the current global chaos.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 20, 2017 - 3:14pm
Dino, I think she wants to be the modern day Boudicca. Few people understand the extent of the EU's ambition to turn Europe's twenty - eight member states into a frederal superstate controlled by the bureaucracy.
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 21, 2017 - 6:17am
For whatever its worth, I think a system where the Prime Minister can call an election at any time is ridiculous.  Elections should come at set times on a calendar.  Even worse is that you’re stuck with a system like that, politicians should be able to change the law to their liking. *given a high enough amount of support. 
 
As to her reason for holding a snap election, you said she’s putting party before country, but that doesn’t make any sense to me.  If she believes her party will do more for the country than the party that opposes her, than by putting her party first she’s also putting her country first. 
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 21, 2017 - 10:41am
Ari, just backtrack a moment. I did not say that the Prime Minister was putting party before country, Paul Nuttall, leader of the UK Independence Party said that, I simply reported what he said. I actually don't have an opinion on that point, she acted according to the law as it stands now.
You seem to be arguing the same case as those people who are still trying to claim Hillary Clinton should be US President because she won the popular vote. The case is that love him or hate him, trump won according to the law as it stands now. End of story
There are flaws in all democratic systems, the fact that the Prime Minister can call elections at a politically advantageous to her/his party (both Conservative and Labour  Prime Ministers have done the same in the past) is not the biggest flaw we have in the British system.
Billy Roper Added Apr 21, 2017 - 10:55am
The UKIP Manchester Rabbi who burned the New Testament in protest for passover is indicative of how Zionist the organization is.
Thomas Napers Added Apr 22, 2017 - 5:49am
So what are the bigger flaws in your electoral system than the one that allows a prime minister to call a snap election?  Do you think our Electoral College system is flawed?
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 22, 2017 - 11:33am
Thomas, what are the main flaws in our electoral system? How much time do you have to spare? The biggest is our 'first past the post' selection. This was introduced for very good reasons almost two hundred years ago. Those reasons are not so good now, and with the solidifying of the party system we have developed too many 'safe' seats for either Labour or Conservative candidates.
The result of this is many people, myself included, who do not want to vote for either of the main parties but live in one of the 'safe seats' are effectively disenfranchised. Will that do for starters?
As for the electoral college, that too was introduced for good reasons a long time ago. I can see merit in the arguments of both those who want to scrap it and those who want to keep it. What I can't understand about it is why so many states apportion E. C. votes on a winner takes all basis? Surely they should be divided between candidates on a pro - rata basis. 
Doing that, however, would almost certainly open several new cans of worms.
Thomas Napers Added Apr 22, 2017 - 11:19pm
Obviously not all that many voters are disenfranchised, otherwise they would vote for someone other than Labour or Conservative candidates.  No matter what country one lives, it makes logical sense for there to be two main parties.  Any more than two and the two parties with the most similar ideology will split the vote, causing the other party to win. 
 
You raise an interesting point about our Electoral College system.  The reason most states award Electoral Votes on a winner-take-all basis is because they want their state to matter.  To the extent the winner doesn’t take all, there will be less competition to win the state and accordingly, the less the state will matter. 
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 23, 2017 - 9:19am
Thomas, first prize for stating the obvious, if a majority of voters in a constituency wanted to vote liberal or green then that party would win. When I refer to safe seats however, I mean those with a built in majority for one or other main party. For many years this resulted in the liberals, with about ten per cent of the vote ending up with between five and ten seats in a 600+ seat parliament.
There are other flaws but from your remarks I guess you are not interested in discussing them objectively. What does state governments "wanting their states to matter" have to do with Democracy. Do the votes of all the Republicans in California and New York, or all the Democrats on Texas or Illinois not matter?
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 23, 2017 - 10:33pm
I’m not sure why you’d infer that I believe Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.  I’m ecstatic over the outcome of the election and think the Electoral College system is a great way to determine POTUS.  At the very least, it’s a far better system then the popular vote. 
 
My comment to you has more to do with fixing an obviously flawed system. Our system may have flaws to some but they aren’t major.  By your own admission, your system is riddled with flaws and those flaws should be fixed.  Of course the law of the land should be respected, but that doesn’t mean the law can’t be fixed for the next election. 
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 24, 2017 - 9:54am
Ari, if you think your electoral system does not have major flaws you must be living in Bizarro world. At least in Britain a billionaire could not buy the job of Prime Minister.
Shane Laing Added Apr 24, 2017 - 10:22am
I believe the Prime Minister made a smart move.  The Conservatives are well ahead in the polls and if more tories are elected it helps her to get her brexit deal through the commons much easier. As for the Liberal leader spouting that he wants the UK to have the same benefits as being a fully paid up member of the EU when we leave, simply isn't going to happen.  The EU have said so.  Everybody should vote a safe seat is only safe if people vote.  Bermondsey was a safe seat for Simon Hughes come the election he lost because of the Lib Dems going back on the tuition fees promise, saying that most of the Lib Dems lost their seats.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 24, 2017 - 3:49pm
Shane, politically it is a smart move for the reasons you say and while it may seem cynical to some for a Prime Minister in UK (or other nations with similar systems) to call an early election to gain advantage, the ability to seek a new mandate has to exist for several good reasons, if the government loses a confidence vote for example.
What some people in this thread don't understand (and don't want to understand) is that unlike the USA, where the presidency and congress are separate, in the British system the Prime Minister is the leader of the assembly.

Recent Articles by Writers Ian Thorpe follows.