55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

StevieJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

That was my point, any way I am not sure LibDem Mp's will back this when they have considered it.

Stryder

I am waiting for a 100 year fixed term and dissolution requiring 100% support, the army to wear jack boots and goose step down Downing Street - Heil Cameron

lvader

Very sensible, it locks the parties in for the full term and allows the government to do the neccessary to fix the economy without the possibility to pull the plug until the job is done.

Sir_Humphrey

It isn't sensible.

In the UK if you lose a vote of no-confidence, then Parliament is dissolved. So what would happen if the Lib Dems fell out with the Tories? They would call a vote of no confidence, which presumably would be passed. But then what happens if no election can be called?

Another point; this does not introduce fixed terms. If a majority govt had more than 55% of seats, there would be nothing to stop them cutting and running. However, it would make it more difficult for oppositions to topple governments. So it is still anti-democratic in that it makes oppositions weaker.

In short, the proposal is a complete mess. I hope for the sake of good governance that the rest of the agreement has been better worked out.

kennyboy66_2

lvader wrote: »

Very sensible, it locks the parties in for the full term and allows the government to do the neccessary to fix the economy without the possibility to pull the plug until the job is done.

i somehow doubt people would agree with this if it had been Brown and a "coalition of losers" pulling this kind of stunt.

StevieJ

Actually weren't they proposing some scheme where you could ditch your local MP if you had enough local signatories, in the name of democracy this seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

chaostheory

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 [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.

It's a power grab and a desperate one at that.

Graham_Devon

What was the percentage needed beforehand?

When I first read it, I thought it seemed quite sensible....as it would stop the merely disgruntled doing what they were trying to do to Gordon Brown and making politics look like a snivelling little school playground.

But the more I read from you guys, it seems this is underhand.

So what had to happen before? Is this a massive change? If so, I find it strange both the tories AND lib dems would favour it.

lvader

When a gorvernment has a majority it's the PM that decides the best time (for him) to have an election, which is hardly democratic.

FrankieBoyle

Just announced as part of the five year fixed term plan for Parliament.

A vote of Confidence to defeat the sitting Government will require a 55% majority to get rid.

This Coalition is already making itself safe from challenge, by changing the rules which have stood for a very long time.

And what of Camermoron's promise that there will be an Election within six months if a Prime Minister stands down.

He promised that, do you remember?

THE LIES AND CHEATING HAVE STARTED ALREADY.

Be very afraid.