I have had a good read about the 55% rule before putting pen to paper, or two fingers to keyboard, because I wanted to know what I was talking about before commenting.
There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding this proposal, some of it genuine, some of it malicious and partisan. Labour ex-ministers have a vested interest in painting the Government's (still feels funny writing that word in relation to us) plans as a stitch up.
We first need to understand that a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister and the dissolution of parliament are different things. Up until now one always led to another but the game has now changed because of the coalition.
This is the important bit. A vote of no confidence in the PM still only needs 50% +1 vote to be successful, just like before. If that happens the PM has to stand down. If parliament (not the PM or government but parliament as a body) wants to dissolve parliament it needs a 55% agreement, this stops a PM who has say 52% of the MPs whipping a no confidence vote to short-cut the fixed term parliament system, like in Germany.
Losing a no confidence vote will bring down the government but not end the parliament, it will give someone else the opportunity to form a coalition government with a different set of parties. If no-one can form a government the House as a whole will vote to dissolve, go to the country and have an election.
It all makes sense to me, the only point that is unclear is why 55% rather than a 2/3 majority?
The big lesson that I take from this is that the David Cameron is going to have to be clear when explaining what it is he plans to do. The 55% plan makes sense when you look at it but they failure to explain it properly before hand has created an almost instant backlash the could and should have been avoided.
No 10 issues 'loon slur' denial
35 minutes ago
Posts
4 comments:
the whole confusion is started with 55% numebr (which coincides with the current majority of lib-con coalition)
I would think a number like 2/3 or 75% makes a reasonable and logical sense.
You say
Losing a no confidence vote will bring down the government but not end the parliament, it will give someone else the opportunity to form a coalition government with a different set of parties. If no-one can form a government the House as a whole will vote to dissolve, go to the country and have an election.
But how do you know the House will vote to dissolve? The effect (whether intentional or not) of the 55% rule is to allow the Conservative party a veto on any election. That's at the heart of the opposition.
I suggest you do more reading, James!
Fixed term parliaments – good. 55% for a dissolution vote – a constitutional outrage, not new politics at all. The point of fixed term parliaments is to remove the PM’s ability to fix the date of the General Election. It is not to do with stability, or the maths of the arrangement between the current coalition partners. The latter can inform the debate, as an example – but the changes that are to be made must function over an indefinite number of parliaments, and must not be made with the stability of the current coalition in mind. People will understandably see that as a power grab.
There has to be allowance that within the fixed-term, a majority may no longer be found and a new election called. This is not the only possible result of a government no longer commanding a majority – but it is nevertheless possible, and at this stage would look to be the most likely outcome of the Con/Lib Dem coalition breaking up, unless we have a grand coalition between Con and Lab or members of all three major parties.
Nevertheless, a vote of no confidence in the government should continue to mean that the government cannot command a majority in the Commons.
How many of those in favour of 55% would be happy today if the Labour Party were in coalition with the Lib Dems with a similar majority to that of the present government?
Also, should not a constitutional change of this nature be subject to all-party agreement?
Also I do not recall this being mentioned during the election campaign. Again, I ask Tories especially, what would you think of this if it was a Lab/Lib Dem coalition, newly installed, suggesting this – not in any one’s manifesto, not subjected to scrutiny during the election campaign, and announced after a few days of continuous negotiation when everyone is probably extremely deprived of sleep?
The “new politics” approach would be for the government to say they have made a mistake on this one, asap.
The mechanics and the mathematics are neither here nor there James. the politics are prime!
Would the public be really happy to see a government lose no confidence motions which lead to more behind closed door deals to cobble together a new coalition without reference to the country? I don't think so.
I personally think that the idea of fixed term Parliaments is also misjudged, the House of Commons is meant to be the representation of our opinions, and if in our opinion our elected government no longer has the ability to effectively transact its business in the House then it is right that the Prime Minister of the day out to be able to seek a dissolution and a new mandate from the country.
After all, if the government of the day is losing confidence motions, then it is effectively in a battle against the will of the people.
Our unwritten constitution has served us well enough since de Montfort's Parliament, I don't recall electing a party which promised to change the constitution at the last election.
Post a Comment