55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

tomterm8

It's not hard. A government that can't get 50% of the vote in the house of commons can't make laws. You can write anything you like, you just can't do anything about it.

Traditionally, the number of votes needed to pass a confidence motion is set at the precise threshold necessary to pass a law.

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

It's not hard. A government that can't get 50% of the vote in the house of commons can't make laws. You can write anything you like, you just can't do anything about it.

Traditionally, the number of votes needed to pass a confidence motion is set at the precise threshold necessary to pass a law.

But you could get a no confidence vote of less than 55% of MPs and some laws still being passed, could you not? It depends how much support the laws obtain, does it not? There are also other rules, such as the Royal Perogative, through which laws can be passed without the need for a vote in parliament. I suspect any minority government could use these mechanisms to still pass legislation despite suffering a defeat in parliament.

tomterm8

A vote of no confidence is pretty much always triggered by the government losing a vote on a bill they make a matter of confidence - i.e. one that is very important, or by failing to pass a budget. They are always important laws; its not triggered by a whim.

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

A vote of no confidence is pretty much always triggered by the government losing a vote on a bill they make a matter of confidence - i.e. one that is very important, or by failing to pass a budget. They are always important laws; its not triggered by a whim.

Sometimes it is, if the opposition party wants an election. This 55% law is designed to prevent that happening and maintain a 5 year parliament.

tomterm8

Um, there have been three successful votes of no confidence in the last 100 years, in each case the government was deeply unpopular at the ballot box, and in each case the issue was very important. The last government to fall was a labour government that lead to thatcher gaining power.

JasonLVC

tomterm8 wrote: »

I don't remember this being in the manifesto of either party. Shows how much they trust the public.

Labour mentioned fixed term parliments (of 4 years) in their 1992 manifesto, 1997 manifesto and again in their 2010 one :-
( http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf) - see Page 6, second column.

LibDems also had it as a manifesto pledge for this election : -http://issuu.com/libdems/docs/manifesto

So arguably, we either have to accept all the parties were heading this way anyway or that whichever party had won, was going to do a stitch up to favour themselves, be that Lab, Con or LibDem.

As for the whole 55% argument, an interesting paper that explains one view of the subject :-

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/research/fixed-term-parliaments.pdf

This article makes reference to the fact that setting the % at something like 50% could allow the government to engineer a false vote of no confidence and call an election before the 5 years term, so this % works in both sides favours.

Lest not forget the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies (fairly Labour/left leaning parliments I think you'll agree) both require a 2/3rds majority of no confidence which equates to about 66% of the vote - just to put the 55% into some perspective.

Yes, the Tories have 300+ seats and so effectively have a enough in ensuring the 55% cannot be achieved easily, but seeing as the Libs and Labour hadn't published what their % was going to be (and seeing as the assemblies have much higher ones ), we can only assume a Labour government would have installed a highish % as well anyway.

tomterm8

JasonLVC wrote: »

Labour mentioned fixed term parliments (of 4 years) in their 1992 manifesto, 1997 manifesto and again in their 2010 one :-
( http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf) - see Page 6, second column.

LibDems also had it as a manifesto pledge for this election : -http://issuu.com/libdems/docs/manifesto
.

As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats also pledged that there would be a constitutional convention, and the changes would be put before the people in a referendum.

The conservatives didn't have this promise in their manifesto.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Not sure what your point is?

I think only one in the last 100 years as the vote been less than 55%.

My point is an unpopular government is usually unpopular in it's own ranks also.
IMHO this move is just done to stop LIB or Con trying to split itself up.

If they become as deeply unpopular like in the past I dare say the 55% would still be breached. No votes and voting against their own partys could see to that.

I don't think every politcian in this day and age would try to hold on no matter what when the ship is sinking so rapidly, some always become disillusioned with their own party when they see the country going down the pan.

So I see what you are saying, but I think the 55% covers a breakdown of parliment over minor points given the coalition.
If it was deep dissatisfaction I would still say it would be breached IMHO.

JasonLVC

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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%.

If 55% is ludicrous, why are the Welsh and Scottish assemblies operating on a 66% basis?

Yes, the Assemblies are not 'parliment' but they operate on the same model.

Blair historically lost many a vote in his later years on a number of key issues such as ID cards and fox hunting and when he couldn't get it his own way, he was fond of using The Parliment Act to overrule the Lords and have his laws enacted anyway - but your post suggests if you cannot get the vote you should go?

speedbird1973

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

As others mention Rochdale - it's ridiculously low! The future is blue and gold my friend. The vermin have gone.