DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

If sitting gov't Queen's Speech is voted down, PM will have to resign and allow another coalition to form?
does anyone know if this will remain the case under 55?

― nakhchivan, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:45 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

We can be like belgium.

Dammitall now I want moules frites

Suspect Pickles might've eaten all the frites tho

Hmm:

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/05/12/libcon-agreement/

That sounds almost as crazy - I think we're going to see the actual text of what's presented. This, though, would seem to make a mockery of the 'unelected PM' rubbish - if the LibDems switch, then the next Labour leader could be made PM with no election, right?

going to need to see

oh and scary that chris grayling got shafted from home secratary (presumably for the gay b&b remarks) for teresa may who has a WORSE record for voting on lgbt rights (basically consistently against everything) - and she's also the Equality Minister.

The government could still change mid-term (a PM loses confidence of House, Queen asks someone else to see if they form a new government), but the parliament would stay in place.

Could lead to some hellish negotiations though – similar to the ones we saw this week, but without the fresh mandate that leaders enjoyed.

It also makes a full term for this Parliament much more likely than we’d all thought.

this shit -if it passes- will be all time in terms of tory nefariousness

now i wonder how easy it wd be for the lib dems to change their leader(ship)

it's easier than it is for the other parties, but it takes a ton of members

It's just completely illogical and dare I say against the constitution, which requires the PM to command the "confidence of the Commons" (aka more than 50% - exactly why we got a hung parliament and needed a coalition in the first place). The vote of no confidence is simply a vote to demonstrate that the government cannot command a majority and therefore cannot pass laws. It would be pointless for a government to remain "in power" if it could only command the votes of less than 50% of the house - you'd have a government that could pass nothing.

too logical

so it's possible for a new govt to be formed from the same parliament but it seems unlikely that (nearly) all the lib dem mp's (including the orange book cunts) could switch allegiances

It would be pointless for a government to remain "in power" if it could only command the votes of less than 50% of the house - you'd have a government that could pass nothing.

Except the government could fall, it's just that the next one would need to be formed from the existing House.

It's a remarkably dumb move for several reasons:

How can you be called conservative if you've not only failed to conserve a long-standing tradition but introduced one which actually makes Parliament and the nation less representative and less responsive?

If their is a failure of confidence in govmt, the best remedy IS to vote the bums out and give the incoming govmt their proper and timely mandate.

Yes, the incumbents use the calling of elections to their own advantage. I fail to see what's wrong with that if they actually get enough to form a govmt or increase their majority - it means the people actually like them bettter or have been swayed to better support their policies. If, otoh, they don't, they've not only disappointed the people but showed themselves to be politically naif as well.

Irony of ironies, Callaghan would never have lost the confidence vote in March 1979 and could have waited until Autumn when they would have had a much better chance of winning.

if the 55% rule was in force then of course.

'David Cameron side view'

callaghan wouldn't have lost if that one labour mp who died a few days later would have been allowed to go to the commons to vote. to think, if callaghan had cared slightly less about this guys health & safety thatcher might not have got in.

Mind you, he'd already survived one vote by bribing the Ulster Unionists through breaking up their constituencies into smaller ones to give them more seats. (Or more correctly promising to, which he then did. They didn't then all support him in the second vote.)

Full cabinet list

Tory Broken Promises

m. white dropping knowledge all over this thread

word

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley

Dude gets his own MP?????????????

[lame gag involving the word 'represent']

Does that mean that the Con-Lib coalition will now be in power for the next five years come what may?

No. The legislation will provide for a general election to be called if 55% or more of the Commons votes in favour. The convention since 1782 has been that a significant defeat on a major issue can lead to a vote of no confidence in the government. If they lose that vote then they are obliged to resign or call a general election. This happened twice in the last century – in 1923 and 1979.

The fixed-term parliament legislation will take away the power of a prime minister to call an election in these circumstances. But it will also mean that if the government falls the sitting prime minister can try to form a new coalition government from among the opposition parties. If that fails in other fixed-term parliaments, such as in Germany, the head of state can call an election, but in Britain there is no wish to involve the Queen in such decisions.

So they have settled on a threshold of 55% of MPs to force a general election. The 55% figure is significant because the Conservatives have 47% of MPs and it ensures that the Lib Dems cannot simply walk out of the coalition and vote with the opposition to call a general election as they can only muster 53% of the vote.

That doesn't really answer the key question that we've been asking on here: if the coalition falls apart and the Lib Dems no longer support the Tories, but the opposition can only muster 53% in a vote of no confidence, and Cameron can't actually call an election, and nobody is willing to form a new coalition, are we basically left with a minority Tory government that cannot pass ANYTHING because no majority of MPs will vote for it, dragging on for months or years until the five-year term is finally up? Because that's really fucking stupid.

that's really fucking stupid

^^^ otm

sounds like a constitutional crisis.

And seems somewhat contradictory to the 'right to recall mps' policy.

The right to recall MPs smells like bs to me, the bar will be raised so high that in practice it'll never happen.

That doesn't really answer the key question that we've been asking on here: if the coalition falls apart and the Lib Dems no longer support the Tories, but the opposition can only muster 53% in a vote of no confidence, and Cameron can't actually call an election, and nobody is willing to form a new coalition, are we basically left with a minority Tory government that cannot pass ANYTHING because no majority of MPs will vote for it, dragging on for months or years until the five-year term is finally up? Because that's really fucking stupid.

― Home Taping Is Killing Muzak (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 21:13 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. it's still stupid and breathtakingly unprincipled imo but they'll make it work. mind you, if the lords are any use at all, they'll block this.

xpost

It's 5 percent of the electorate I thought? That's not insane if somebody wanted to get organised and hilarious, but the "wrongdoing" caveat cd be fucked with to mean anything or nothing I guess.

I just mean the principle that if an MP can no longer rely on the support of his constituents (say, via a scandal) he can be recalled for an election, but if a government can no longer command support of the commons (say, via a scandal), we're stuck with them until the end of the term.

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. it's still stupid and breathtakingly unprincipled imo but they'll make it work. mind you, if the lords are any use at all, they'll block this.

But with a three-line whip Tory MPs couldn't vote for it.

Getting 5% shouldn't be difficult nowadays, just needs a facebook page to get started. As NV says its how they decide on 'wrongdoing', and if something's serious enough for say criminal investigation to take place then it's likely to be construed as prejudicial to any investigation.

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. .

But Tories can vote it down on their own. What Tory is going to reject the whip to vote the Tories out of power? Bar is unjustifiably high

i'm not defending the system, because it's stupid and unjustifiable, but in practice i wouldn't expect the whips to keep alive a govt which can't pass any legislation or even make a budget because the long term damage would be catastrophic. also, aren't whips some of the biggest schemers among mps? maybe i'm just thinking francis urquhart here, but i reckon a lot of them would see their chance and be quite happy to stick the knife in.

So, to get the party in power out, they have to start knifing amongst themselves - that's great for stability.

Yeah, tho to get to that point not only does the coalition have to crumble the Tories themselves have to implode well beyond the point they ever have -- this allows them to keep power while they elect a new leader and have him reform a coalition. Xp

m. white, my point is only that the worst case scenario of having effectively no govt for months or years because the coalition has broken down but a no confidence vote can't be passed isn't very realistic. this deal is good for stability - just like a real majority government, it will have to implode to be removed before its time is up - but the mistake is thinking stability is the only virtue. the system should allow for the fact that people haven't given anyone much of a mandate and we may want to rethink things in a short while. that's why the fixed term is a disgusting power grab.

xp stet, that's prob true.

That's basically it -- it gives a minority govt the same privileges as a majority one, which the public hasn't given it.

this allows them to keep power while they elect a new leader and have him reform a coalition But how long would we have to wait for the party to choose a new leader in the first place and what government would we have in the mean time? And what if this new leader can't reform a coalition? There doesn't seem to be any mechanism to bring things to an end: it relies on the MPs that form the government voting out their own government without obliging them to do so.

Yes, exactly. Is ludicrous. No mention on BBC yet, either.

im just amazed how little the media has picked up on this. five-year parliaments are comparatively rare, aren't they?

1959–64
1992–97
2005–10

see a pattern?

oh and the glorious 1974–79 of course, which also fits the pattern

I'm amazed how little the media which was so fair and balanced during its coverage of the election and negotiations has picked up on this

Hold on, it's even more stupid than I thought. Presumably a future majority government could call an election whenever it wanted (as long as it had at least 55% of the seats) by calling and winning a motion of no confidence in itself, whereas a minority government would be obliged to continue to the end of the five years even if it didn't want to. What a load of shit.

lol yes I considered this earlier

ha, ha, ha

i guess the LDs are counting on no more majority governments. instead you can just come last and still get cabinet seats!