55% supermajority for dissolution of parliament vote

StevieJ

Cat695 wrote: »

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

Yet no one complained about that

Who cares

StevieJ

speedbird1973 wrote: »

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

Ironically the LibDems are more left wing than Labour Hopefully keep Georgie Porgie in his box, after the honeymoon that is.

apt

A lot of the above posts are confusing a fall of the government and a dissolution with a new election. As far as I understand the government would still fall, but there would not automatically be a new election unless there is a 55% majority. I am not sure this is a good idea and why 55% rather than a different figure. But you obviously could not have a genuine fixed term if the ruling party could trigger an election at any time by voting against itself.

marklv

apt wrote: »

A lot of the above posts are confusing a fall of the government and a dissolution with a new election. As far as I understand the government would still fall, but there would not automatically be a new election unless there is a 55% majority. I am not sure this is a good idea and why 55% rather than a different figure. But you obviously could not have a genuine fixed term if the ruling party could trigger an election at any time by voting against itself.

This is a lot of fuss abouth nothing - hot air.

marklv

One more thing: why is there so much attention on this, and not on the gerrymadering done by Labour's changes to constituency boundaries, which gave Labour a massive advantage in seats? If this isn't undemocratic, I don't know what is.