55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

LauraW10

Yeah, it does seem like a two fingered salute to democracy.

lvader

Coalition calls for new rules, simples. If you didn't want these changes you should have voted Conservative or at least Labour. Lib Dem voters getting exactly what they asked for and now moaning make me laugh.

Really2

Could it simply not be covered by local elections.

Conservatives lose 15 MP's lib's ditch them and then the 55% is breached?
Or does the fixed term stop that?

StevieJ

lvader wrote: »

Coalition calls for new rules, simples. If you didn't want these changes you should have voted Conservative or at least Labour. Lib Dem voters getting exactly what they asked for and now moaning make me laugh.

To be honest I didn't notice the new rules (overturning historic convention) in the prospectus, they did have mention of repealing all the terrible Labour introduced laws in contradiction of historic doctrines like Habeas Corpus and the like

Rochdale_Pioneers

Day one of Libservatism and the gerrymandering has started. A 55% level of support for confidence motions is ludicrous - either the government has the confidence of the house or it doesn't. If not then the government falls - its that simple. Otherwise you can have a government that loses vote after vote after vote - because it no longer has a majority - which cannot be removed from office because the vote against hasn't as yet reached 55%.

News channels haven't made much of this so far, but if the coalition gets into trouble it HAS to come up.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I notice that MarkLV is arguing for this over at:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2697?cp=8

I wonder who might be paying his wages...

No political party is paying me. And I would be grateful if you would stop referring to me in the third person. Kindly address me directly if you have question.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

It's not anti-democratic because a general election is constitutionally guaranteed. This designed for preventing the opposition from toppling governments on whims, and is absolutely a sensible measure to take. The opposition is there to oppose, not to deliberately undermine an elected government.

Cat695

Doesn't the Scottish parliment and Welsh assembley need 66% to do the same thing??

Yet no one complained about that

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

Could it simply not be covered by local elections.

Conservatives lose 15 MP's lib's ditch them and then the 55% is breached?
Or does the fixed term stop that?

358 MPs in parliament (out of 650) need to vote against the government in a confidence motion for it to fall. The Tories only need 293 votes to survive such a motion, meaning that even if all other parties including the Lib Dems vote against, the Tories survive. Even if 14 Tory MPs join the opposition, the government still survives.

Degenerate

Here's an interesting legal opinion from the Times:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2010/05/plans-for-fixedterm-parliaments-not-credible-and-dangerous-says-law-expert.html