55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

Degenerate

WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/05/12/the-55-rule-is-a-very-dangerous-constitutional-innovation/


"No to 55%" Facebook campaign:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121430121214879

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/lib-dem-tory-deal-coalition




So what are you Liberals going to do then?

In a word, nothing. I have been told that Lib Dems in parliament see it as being for their benefit as well. The case has not been made AFAIC. I am still very sceptical about it.

Instead I am going to crack open the Champagne on account of the repeal of Labours foul attacks on civil liberties. This excites me more than anything else and this is the reason I was happy to go with the Tories. Civil Liberties are of the utmost importance to liberals and that is where we share common ground with Conservatives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/may/12/coalition-proposals-civil-rights

tomterm8

marklv wrote: »

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.

No, not at all. If more than half the members of the house of commons who vote in a motion of no confidence vote against the government, it falls. At that point, if the queen feels there is another group of MPs that can form a government, she appoints that group. If there is not, the PM asks for a dissolution of parliament. The queen grants it.

This change says a government that can't make law, and can't govern, also can't be toppled. Meaning, an unpopular government that can't make law also can't be removed by the house of commons.

The foundation stone of British democracy is that MPs have the power to make law, and to remove unpopular governments.

This move is antidemocratic in our system. What's more, it would lead to possible circumstances where our political system could grind to a halt. I thought torys want 'strong government', but this is a law to promote weak government that doesn't have the support of the people.

Really2

marklv wrote: »

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.

I know and that is why I said if they lose 15 seats in local/by-elections does that not mean th 55% mark can be breached. (MPs just don't lose gain seats in a general election or are they stopping by-elections elections)

If their majority is cut (much like Majors was) could this be a possibility or is it different under fixed term.

You did not answer my question you just stated what I had already read, my mentioning of losing 15 seats should have indicated that to you.

abaxas

Just to remind you all.

Democracy systems do not need >50% to win a 'vote'. This is an assumption by the stupid as all systems require a definition of what it is to 'win' before they start.

Eg the LibDems require 75%+ in some of their internal systems.

Personally I agree with this as it protects coalitions and IMPROVES democracy. As I've said before, all the 50% system does is give disproportionate power to minorities, which leads to certain votes being more important than others?

To sum up, all systems have faults. You can have a 55% system that you deam unfair, or a 50% system when some votes are worth more than others.

You cant win.

tomterm8

Can you give a single example of any government that fell due to a motion of no confidence in the last 100 years, where it was not right that the government fell?

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Can you give a single example of any government that fell due to a motion of no confidence in the last 100 years, where it was not right that the government fell?

Or one where some of their own party members had not disfected on the vote or abstained?

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

Or one where some of their own party members had not disfected on the vote or abstained?

Not sure what your point is?

I am asking, is there a single time in the last 100 years where the motion of no confidence has been abused... that is, where a popular government has been removed from office via a motion of no confidence, and been reelected by the people?

Of course MPs should defect or abstain if they believe that is in the interest of Britain. That would remain the case under the new system. But this change would have prevented the callaghan government being brought before the people, even though it was the least popular government in modern history.

There are only two other examples in the last 100 years, and they were before the 1930's.

In other words, the system hasn't been abused, and there is little reason I can see to change it.

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

No, not at all. If more than half the members of the house of commons who vote in a motion of no confidence vote against the government, it falls. At that point, if the queen feels there is another group of MPs that can form a government, she appoints that group. If there is not, the PM asks for a dissolution of parliament. The queen grants it.

This change says a government that can't make law, and can't govern, also can't be toppled. Meaning, an unpopular government that can't make law also can't be removed by the house of commons.

The foundation stone of British democracy is that MPs have the power to make law, and to remove unpopular governments.

This move is antidemocratic in our system. What's more, it would lead to possible circumstances where our political system could grind to a halt. I thought torys want 'strong government', but this is a law to promote weak government that doesn't have the support of the people.

I'm confused by what you say here. If a government cannot be toppled, then, by definition, it can still make laws and put them up for voting. The laws may be defeated in parliament, but they can still be drafted and submitted for a vote.

marklv

abaxas wrote: »

Just to remind you all.

Democracy systems do not need >50% to win a 'vote'. This is an assumption by the stupid as all systems require a definition of what it is to 'win' before they start.

Eg the LibDems require 75%+ in some of their internal systems.

Personally I agree with this as it protects coalitions and IMPROVES democracy. As I've said before, all the 50% system does is give disproportionate power to minorities, which leads to certain votes being more important than others?

To sum up, all systems have faults. You can have a 55% system that you deam unfair, or a 50% system when some votes are worth more than others.

You cant win.

Well said. As an example, in many democratic countries you need 2/3 of parliament to agree for the constitution to be changed.