55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

Sir_Humphrey

According to the Telegraph, the new Lib Dem and Conservative government plans to make it necessary to have a 55% vote to pass a motion of [STRIKE]no confidence [/STRIKE] dissolution of parliament in the House of Commons to remove the government.

And you thought Gordon Brown had a problem with democracy...

Utterly bonkers.

EDIT: Title changed - see later post.

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

According to the Telegraph, the new Lib Dem and Conservative government plans to make it necessary to have a 55% vote to pass a motion of no confidence in the House of Commons to remove the government.

And you thought Gordon Brown had a problem with democracy...

Utterly bonkers.

Oooh, not happy with that. Very unhappy with that full stop. I am not going to defend that if true.

Part of my excitement at this coalition was the thought of the repeal of years of invasive, intrusive, assaults on civil liberties, ID cards, DNA Database etc etc.

And yes, Gordon Brown had a massive problem with democracy.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

According to the Telegraph, the new Lib Dem and Conservative government plans to make it necessary to have a 55% vote to pass a motion of no confidence in the House of Commons to remove the government.

And you thought Gordon Brown had a problem with democracy...

Utterly bonkers.

Erm, why bonkers? Do you want a stable government or not? I agree entirely with this move; personally I would have made 60% the threshold.

purch

Is this a 55% majority of seats, or a 55% majority of votes, or a 55% majority of preferences, or a 55% majority of something entirely different ?? :eek:

Sir_Humphrey

I think the details might a little hazy. This will have been drawn up the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.

It had better bl00dy not be true.

Sir_Humphrey

marklv wrote: »

Erm, why bonkers? Do you want a stable government or not? I agree entirely with this move; personally I would have made 60% the threshold.

Why not just abolish the opposition altogether then?

Even if were not undemocratic, how would any such government pass any legislation?

:mad:

abaxas

Something has to be done if coalition government is the only way forward as the current system would lead to a distotion of power to minority, which is undemocratic.

No system is perfect, we have to accept the rough with the smooth.

marklv

purch wrote: »

Is this a 55% majority of seats, or a 55% majority of votes, or a 55% majority of preferences, or a 55% majority of something entirely different ?? :eek:

55% majority of MPs in the Commons. That means 358 MPs are needed to bring down the government in a House of Commons of 650. The government only needs 293 MPs to support them to stay in power, and the Conservatives have 306 seats, soon to be 307 when they win Thirsk, as expected.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

Erm, why bonkers? Do you want a stable government or not? I agree entirely with this move; personally I would have made 60% the threshold.

If a government has 292 votes it can hold on and not lose a confidence vote. That is crazy. We need a strong and stable government through consensus and coalition not by diktat.

How on earth would a government which had 292 out of 650 ever get its legislation through the house without sever compromise. In effect when it gets to that level it loses confidence anyway.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Why not just abolish the opposition altogether then?

Even if were not undemocratic, how would any such government pass any legislation?

:mad:

Supply and confidence.

kennyboy66_2

marklv wrote: »

Erm, why bonkers? Do you want a stable government or not? I agree entirely with this move; personally I would have made 60% the threshold.

Why stop there ? Why not 75% ?

If this was Gordon Brown, we would have had dozens of posts comparing him with Robert Mugabe.

It's xxxxxx outrageous - although I suspect its not true.