55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

Degenerate

Really2 wrote: »

The last no confidence vote was 1979. Only 3 in the 20th century (1924,1924 and 1979)

Is this not just to bolster to the outside world that the coalition will be a stable government for the term.

It doesn't matter how infrequently it happens, or what their motivations are for making it more difficult. The vote of no confidence is a crucial part of our democracy in that it enables the executive government to be held accountable to the house. They seriously have no business f*cking with it without a referendum.

speedbird1973

It's set so high to stop the parties bailing out on each other and pulling out of the coalition without good reason. Basically it's implying that if most of the Tories and most of the liberals think this was a daft idea they don't have to stay hooked in for the five year fixed term.

Take it in the spirit it was intended - some of you lot are really REALLY stupid - are you ALLOWED to vote?? :eek:

StevieJ

Ignoring the vote of confidence for now, how does the ruling party govern if their legislation keeps getting knocked back by a simple majority?

tomterm8

abaxas wrote: »

Irrelevent.

Manifestos are not legally binding and are mearly a document stating what they might do.

The beleif that have any value, lies only with the stupid.

I don't see it as irrelevant. This is a constitutional change intended to make government less accountable to the house of commons, and threatens democracy.

They have no mandate to do this. None. Not a jot.

StevieJ wrote: »

Ignoring the vote of confidence for now, how does the ruling party govern if their legislation keeps getting knocked back by a simple majority?

By the Civil Contingencies Act 2004?

Degenerate

I keep going back to re-read it in case I'm getting it wrong. As much as I dislike Cameron, I would not have expected something like this from him, and it's almost beyond belief from the Lib Dems.

The worst part is that the general public are too politically ignorant to realize just how serious a change that seemingly innocuous wording represents.

StevieJ

tomterm8 wrote: »

I don't see it as irrelevant. This is a constitutional change intended to make government less accountable to the house of commons, and threatens democracy.

They have no mandate to do this. None. Not a jot.



By the Civil Contingencies Act 2004?

I don't think so.

robin_banks

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.

The Libs (lets drop the democrats bit from thier party) could walk from the coalition and the Tories in minority would be still survive a vote of confidence.

357 MP's will not to vote against the Govt in a vote of cofidence.

It's a stitch up and a big one at that.

You would not get strong govt, you could get a weak implosive govt that could not be removed from office.

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

The last no confidence vote was 1979. Only 3 in the 20th century (1924,1924 and 1979 all were carried with a majority of 311 or more.)

Is this not just to bolster to the outside world that the coalition will be a stable government for the term.

But what if the Lib Dems walk, the maths suggest a Tory govt could not lose a vote of no confidence.

They could lose the vote by 50 votes and survive.

Sir_Humphrey

Hi

Looking into this in more detail, the 55% seems to be for a dissolution of parliament. I do not see how this is much better, as a government could lose a vote of no confidence at 50% + 1. But then what? One event follows the other.

I will try to edit the thread title.

tomterm8

Erm... no government for the next x year?

Surely not?