- This topic has 135 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
Can someone please explain to me what is happening about not being able to have enother election for 5 years? Does that mean that we’ve got a coalition govt for 5 years, or can there be an election if things go wrong? And, if we do have to wait for 5 years regardless, does that mean we’re not a democracy anymore? I’m a bit confused.
Moe,
The 5-year term (& 55% vote required to call an election) certainly smells fishy. It may be that we’ve become SO used to government having no scruples that we automatically assume every change in parliamentary / "constitutional" procedure is for some ignoble/disingenuous party (rather than country) end. This might not be so in this case though.
Here’s one take on it, from Philip Johnston in theDaily Telegraph
There has been a good deal of outrage about the new fixed term parliament proposal and especially the 55pc rule. It is assumed that this means that a government cannot defeated with a bare majority of votes in Parliament. But this not what is being suggested.
There is a difference between a government and a parliament. We do not elect governments. We elect parliaments from which a government is chosen. It is a bit like the American electoral college in that respect. If a government cannot command the support of parliament it falls and that remains the case under the new arrangement. If it loses a confidence motion by 50pc plus 1 it falls.
However, if a PM wants to cut and run for a general election at a time of his own chosing, he would need 55pc of MPs voting for it. This is an understandable lock placed by the Lib Dems to stop the Tories (who have 47pc of the seats) ratting on the deal and going for an early election at a time of maximum advantage to the Conservatives. It also stops the Lib dems re-ratting and getting all the other parties together – who have 53 pc in total – doing the same.
The fact is that at the moment we do not have a vote in parliament for a dissolution. That is a Royal prerogative granted to the PM. Having a vote takes that power away from the PM – which is more democratic, not less, because hitherto PMs have sought to dissolve parliament when it suited them, and since they know they are going early they can use the Civil Service for a year in advance to prepare the most propitious circumstances for the election.Courtesy of Ian Dale – here’s this angle through the eyes of a poster on another blog:-
The 55% rule is not designed to keep the government in power – quite the opposite. It is designed to stop the government dissolving parliament, for reasons of electoral advantage, before the parliament reaches the end of its fixed term. At present the Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve parliament at a time of his own choosing, without the need to obtain the approval of parliament or even of his own Cabinet. Under the proposed new system he could not do so and would have to get a 55% majority in parliament. It is thus a transfer of power from one person – the Prime Minister – to the whole of parliament. As such it is MORE democratic, not less.
The most anti comments I’ve read seem to concern the 55% mark. Why 55% they ask? All seems very arbitray, why not 54% or 63.2654%? That sort of thing. But whatever figure a government came up with would, by the very act of its having been chosen, be "arbitrary". 70mph motorway speed limit is arbitrary. 18 yrs old to vote -why 18? Arbitrary. You get my drift. I always suspect those who choose the "arbitrary figure" line of attack do so because they can’t come up with any deeper criticism. (Although had the number of seats the Cons & LibDems got been different, you could be pretty sure the figure of 55% would be different too.)
The tory blogger Ian Dale http://iaindale.blogspot.com/ though is a big critic of this new rule, and, although he uses the "arbitrary" argument as one of the sticks to beat this with, he still manages to make a couple of other points against it too.
Does it still smell fishy after all that? Well, I’m not yet convinced that we have politicians in power who aren’t just as keen as those of newLabour on tilting the dice in their favour. Hope I’m wrong.Just seen this online from tomorrow’s
Daily Telegraph
by Simon Heffer, a Conservative who loathes David Cameron:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7725732/David-Cameron-turns-ugly-with-our-constitution.html
Just read Simon Heffer’s article and, yes, looks like we’re not a democracy any more. I thought I hadn’t read anything about this prior to the election but must admit to not having read the Conservative Party manifesto, so thought it might have been in there somewhere. So, the only way that there can be a vote of no confidence is if lots of Conservative MP’s vote against their leader, because even if all the other MP’s
voted there wouldn’t be enough. Given that we’ve got people in the Cabinet who belong to a party that came third in the Election it all seems rather surreal to me. And, in case anyone thinks I’m Tory bashing again [with reference to the next thread about the legacy of New Labour] I did actually burst into tears a few years ago when I went to see a performance of Animal Farm because I realised that I was watching what had become of my beloved Labour Party. Good job I don’t really understand politics very well or I’d be really fed up now.
Nice post Moehat; they were my beloved Labour Party too until a couple of years into Blair.
This new bit of legislation is nothing to worry about, however to understand it we need to distinguish between Parliament and Government.
At present there is no legislation or constitutional right to dissolve Parliament i.e. force a General Election, it is the sole preserve of the PM. Under this new legislation if 55% of MPs vote for it the Queen will dissolve Parliament without any input from the seating PM.
And, there is nothing in it to stop a vote of no confidence and the PM calling on the Government to step down if there was a 50% +1 vote against the government, as has happened in the past.
In my view this is a good thing for democracy.
Looks like there won’t be an Autumn thread then.
I’m not keen on either Miliband becoming Labour Leader. Their father’s books were full of French quotes, without any English translations. Rather petty of me, but I’m getting my own back.
Now that the dust has settled and the ex-public schoolboy love-in has begun in Downing Street, our thoughts ( well, my thoughts
) turn to who’ll be the next Labour Party leader.Talk about the biggest no contest ever. If David Miliband is not installed as the main man, then I will, er…. vote Tory at the next General Election.
Surely the 4/6 on offer is not too skinny ?
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
If this is simply an innocent attempt to formalise the Queen’s powers to dissolve parliament then why not set the mark at 50%+1. It’s all a bit whiffy and undemocratic in my book.
Probably a realisation that once the honeymoon is over its going to be very difficult for many Toriberal MPs to stomach much of what they will have to put their names to.
Nice to see these us move away from the old politics and get these new progressive guys in like Hague & Clark
I’ve decided to rejoin the Labour Party and support Ed Miliband. There’s something about him that I like, and I feel the party needs to rethink what it stands for. Althought the Tory/Lib/Dem love in is going to last for a long time, we can at least be the Jiminy Crickets of British politics.
If Labour turn left with John Cruddes, and if this Government is (after early unpopularity) a success; then we just might see Liberals overtaking Labour as the opposition in 5 years time.
Cameron may be able to take the Conservative Party further towards the centre ground (with help from the Lib-Dems) fingers crossed.
I was appalled at the time, when I heard Clegg was in secret, and then not so secret talks with Labour. To do so before Conservative talks had failed smacked of going for whoever gave the best opportunity of voter reform. However, I am now glad they did so. Had it not been the case, many Liberals would’ve always thought "what if". Where as now they know there was no other option. That makes success for this Government more likely (if not probable).
With more cabinet positions than their 57 seats deserve, it again helps to keep Liberals onside. So applaud Cameron’s Cabinet. Think it would not be a bad thing for the party if some right wing Conservatives rebel, Cameron can put two fingers up to them, at the same time as using Liberals as a "we can’t do that because they (Liberals) won’t let us…" excuse.
Can’t understand how many Liberal voters feel wronged by the coalition. There was no choice, we need a stable Government, without one party having a majority, this is the best option. Labour plus Liberals was not a majority so a no go area. A rainbow coalition would’ve brought misery to England, with Nationalists all recieving unfair benefits in these trying times.
Value Is EverythingThis new bit of legislation is nothing to worry about, however to understand it we need to distinguish between Parliament and Government.
At present there is no legislation or constitutional right to dissolve Parliament i.e. force a General Election, it is the sole preserve of the PM. Under this new legislation if 55% of MPs vote for it the Queen will dissolve Parliament without any input from the seating PM.
And, there is nothing in it to stop a vote of no confidence and the PM calling on the Government to step down if there was a 50% +1 vote against the government, as has happened in the past.
In my view this is a good thing for democracy.
Admit to being in two minds about its democratic veracity but – insofar as I understand matters – would agree with that
It’s somewhat counter-intuitive but due to the dire circumstances the country finds itself in I believe attempts to make this still-shaky coalition as robust as possible should be welcomed as they need to ‘get on with the job’ unencumbered by concerns the government could fall at a whim
Essentially, the need to sort out our finances – if they can be sorted at all – is a matter so pressing it rises way above party politics and requires that those of all persuasions ‘do their bit’ to help those in office formulate a rigourous and decisive plan of action.
Cameron is to be granted a ripple of applause for inviting the Left’s Will Hutton and Frank Field to join the fray
Really do hope this proposed auditing of the last government’s accounts proves to be the final nail in Brown et als coffin
Putting personal wishes aside and pulling on the clinically-sterile stone-cold betting boots I notice the ‘2 elections in 2010’ market on Betfair has drifted out to 10.0 and beyond for ‘yes’
Is it 90% certain there won’t be another election this year? hmm…
Simon Heffer is an entertaining writer but does represent the distant Right of the Tories, so he’s likely to be seething about this coaltion I’d imagine. Considered, constructive dialogue rarely emanates from those peering through a red mist
Surely the Government can last 8 months Drone. I’d say it is at least 95% certain. Con + Lib Dem = a good majority. Liberals know they will be blamed if it breaks up and need to prove coalitions can work, if they want PR. If the right wing of the Cons rebel too eaarly they know Joe Public will blame them. Expect some to rock the boat this year, but not enough for another election.
Once severe cuts come in, they will also be locked together. Think this coalition should last at least 3 years. Vince Cable the only loose cannon.
Value Is EverythingI think the Coalition will last for at least 2 years-not least because neither Labour or Liberal party will have enough money to mount any campaign for well over a year.
I wonder if Brown is now questioning the decision to have the election on May 6. Certainly in London it might have been a real boost to canvassers and activists in Harrow, Brentford and Isleworth and Ealing/Acton etc to wake up on May 7 with Labour Councils returned to power. The party would have had little money left for a June 3 election but perhaps the momentum gained on May 6 would have been worth it
Totally undemocratic IMO that elections are won and lost because of who generates the most money for campaigns…..I’m surprised that sorting out this clearly unsatisfactory situation wasn’t in anyone’s manifesto this time………..then again no surprise at all really.
Surely the Government can last 8 months Drone. I’d say it is at least 95% certain. Con + Lib Dem = a good majority. Liberals know they will be blamed if it breaks up and need to prove coalitions can work, if they want PR. If the right wing of the Cons rebel too eaarly they know Joe Public will blame them. Expect some to rock the boat this year, but not enough for another election.
Once severe cuts come in, they will also be locked together. Think this coalition should last at least 3 years. Vince Cable the only loose cannon.
No one in their right mind would want to call an election after BST ends and the weather turns cold as a significant percentage of the sizeable grey vote is likely to remain indoors in front of the fire, so in effect if they survive for five months until October it’s likely they’ll go through to next Spring at least
So should someone wish to rock the boat with the intention of sinking it I’d suggest they’d attempt it by the end of October, or not at all – in the shortish term
The points you raise are well made, I’d largely agree, and you’re probably right to want at least 20/1 the coalition falling…
…though I do sense some unease in the body language of the Liberal members granted subservient roles to the Consevative holders of the ‘great offices of state’. David Laws didn’t look particularly comfortable listening to Osborne the other day and the cool, fleeting eye contact between Dave ‘n’ Nick betrays the ersatz warm smiles and hearty handshakes
The honeymoon will be brief and will be replaced by the premature bickering of an old married couple…possibly
A paddock inspection of Vince Cable, who does seem very late into the parade ring, will be intriguing – the eyes have it
Anyway, unless the Betfair ‘yes’ market livens up considerably I doubt I’ll be persuaded to punt at any price. Life is too short to waste spending weeks fiddling away a succession of £5 backs and orders
Interesting times, and to reiterate I really do want the coalition to succeed – ‘for the good of the country’ if not for the good of my bottom line…maybe
) turn to who’ll be the next Labour Party leader.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.