Fixed Term Elections

bioboybill

So the new LibCon Government are bringing in fixed term elections. When I heard that I thought, "Good idea". Then I saw the sting in the tail. The election could be called earlier if the government lose a confidence vote where the "no confidence" side get 55% of the vote!

Yes, that's right. Previously a government could lose a confidence vote by just one vote but now this new government are tipping the scales in their favour. Assuming the Conservatives win the Thirsk and Malton by-election on May 27th they will have 307 seats, which is 47% of the seats. In other words even if they fall out with Clegg and Co they couldn't be forced to the polls under these new rules.

This hasn't been widely reported (I saw a 60 second report on the BBC yesterday where a consitutional expert said the government could be accused of queering the pitch and a mention in the Daily Mirror this morning).

Surely even the most ardent Conservative supporters wouls agree that this is breathtaking hypocrisy and simply wrong?

JasonLVC

There's already some threads doing the rounds on this subject....

.....but no-one seems to be complaining that the predominantly Labour/left wing Welsh and Scottish assemblies operate under a 2/3rds (66%) vote of no confidence basis.

Anyone would think they designed it so they could never be ousted?

purch

It is designed to stop the Tories (or LibDems :eek:) pulling out of the coalition, and forcing a GE if they see some good poll results.

It will be passed as a statute which could just as easily be repealed by the next Government.

It's a logical and sensible safeguard for the current coalition Government.

Really2

purch wrote: »

It is designed to stop the Tories (or LibDems :eek:) pulling out of the coalition, and forcing a GE if they see some good poll results.

It will be passed as a statute which could just as easily be repealed by the next Government.

It's a logical and sensible safeguard for the current coalition Government.

I totally agree, it is a signal to the markets that we will have a stable government (all going well) for the full term.

If it was not there, there was an obvious achilles heel to the government stability.

StevieJ

purch wrote: »

It is designed to stop the Tories (or LibDems :eek:) pulling out of the coalition, and forcing a GE if they see some good poll results.

It will be passed as a statute which could just as easily be repealed by the next Government.

It's a logical and sensible safeguard for the current coalition Government.

But how do they stay in power if their legislation is continually overturned on a simple majority e.g. if the LibDems pull out of the coalition, what happens in that situation is key to this IMHO.

bioboybill

JasonLVC wrote: »

There's already some threads doing the rounds on this subject....

.....but no-one seems to be complaining that the predominantly Labour/left wing Welsh and Scottish assemblies operate under a 2/3rds (66%) vote of no confidence basis.

Anyone would think they designed it so they could never be ousted?

I didn't know that, but I agree that it is unfair and wrong.

bioboybill

purch wrote: »

It is designed to stop the Tories (or LibDems :eek:) pulling out of the coalition, and forcing a GE if they see some good poll results.

It will be passed as a statute which could just as easily be repealed by the next Government.

It's a logical and sensible safeguard for the current coalition Government.

No, it's totally rigging things in their favour by the Tories.

bioboybill

Really2 wrote: »

I totally agree, it is a signal to the markets that we will have a stable government (all going well) for the full term.

If it was not there, there was an obvious achilles heel to the government stability.

So you were enraged at the thought of a Labour government hanging on when it didn't have the confidence of parliament but it's okay for the Tories to do that if the situation arises? Breathtaking arrogance and double standards.

Really2

bioboybill wrote: »

So you were enraged at the thought of a Labour government hanging on when it didn't have the confidence of parliament but it's okay for the Tories to do that if the situation arises? Breathtaking arrogance and double standards.

Hang on I was not enraged but are you saying labours 257 seats were ok to form a government? That would require the no confidence limit to be raised to 61% to protect a coalition (63% to protect it by 15 seats).

Get off your high horse, I was just wanting a stable government and only a Lib con coalition could do that given the circumstances. Lab Lib was far to flaky and would be far more risky/unstable at the offset than the current setup.

markharding557

I think fixed terms are an excellent idea my only minor disagreement is that five years is a bit too long,i would prefer four

bioboybill

Really2 wrote: »

Hang on I was not enraged but are you saying labours 257 seats were ok to form a government? That would require the no confidence limit to be raised to 61% to protect a coalition (63% to protect it by 15 seats).

Get off your high horse, I was just wanting a stable government and only a Lib con coalition could do that given the circumstances. Lab Lib was far to flaky and would be far more risky/unstable at the offset than the current setup.

I'm not on my high horse at all. The day before the coalition was formed I was on here saying I didn't want Labour to go into a coalition, as I would rather see the Tories go alone or form their coalition with the Lib Dems if that was what they wanted.

I totally accept that Labour doesn't have enough seats to form a government and if that's the will of Britain then that's fine. In fact if you read my comments above I said that the way it's rigged in Scotland is also wrong, so I have no idea where you get the idea that I want things rigged for Labour. However, you did clearly say above that you are happy for the new government to rig things to keep the Lib Dems locked in and to keep the Tories in power.