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

that's election winners, not pms

ah

basically, the public love us.

Even under rampant PR you don't need power to vote to dissolve. Fixed terms are fine without it.

What I can't see is any justification *for* it, but that's because it hasn't been debated, just announced.

Chris Grayling owns four houses in London but is only worth £500,000?

Think Churchill's educational career of posh school followed by Sandhurst may be a little different from Major's, but by all accounts he did pretty terribly at school and I always like to point and laugh at Sandhurst, so

55% is totally becoming a thing. From the Guardian liveblog:

4.07pm: The 55% threshold required for an early dissolution is turning into an issue for the new coalition government with PA reporting a "backbench rebellion":

The newly formed Cameron-Clegg coalition government is facing its first threatened backbench rebellion, over a controversial plan to reduce the risk of it being voted out of office before the end of its planned five-year term.

As the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat cabinet met for the first time today, some senior Tory and Labour MPs voiced concern over a proposal in the coalition agreement that dissolution would need to be approved by 55% or more of MPs.

It would represent a radical shift away from the Commons tradition that a simple majority of one would be enough on a no confidence vote to force an unpopular government to resign.

The 55% threshold means that Mr Cameron could survive at the head of a minority Conservative government even if the Lib Dems pulled out of the coalition deal.

It would need a significant rebellion by disaffected Tories joining force with all the opposition MPs to force him to call another election ... Labour MPs are already alarmed by what they see as an attempt to change long-standing Commons rules in the new government's favour.

They have been joined by several senior Conservatives on the libertarian wing of the party who are lobbying behind-the-scenes for the 55% threshold to be removed before the legislation is introduced in the Commons.

The last time a government fell on a no confidence vote was in March 1979, when the minority Labour administration led by James Callaghan was defeated by 311 votes to 310."

David Blunkett, the former Labour home secretary, described it as "a profoundly anti-democratic move".

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

"This is nothing less than a stitch-up by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to overturn historic precedents for their own advantage. If Labour had attempted something like this in government, the Lib Dems in particular would have been incandescent," he said.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, defended the move on BBC Radio 4's The World at One:

"Once you agree that there should be a fixed-term parliament, it is only fixed-term if there is some provision to really give it credibility to make it hard to dissolve parliament, other than exceptional circumstances, part way through its five-year term.

"We thought about it carefully in the negotiations, and we do intend that to happen."

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

This is always true.

(I agree with his conclusion tho)

http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/9588118738
http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/11418243066
http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/11245928535

change that works for you

it's certainly working for him

55% is totally becoming a thing.

basically i think it's taking time for people to understand the implications. my own idiot LD MP doesn't get it. they're all saying hey it's only for dissolution motions, confidence motions. but it's customary to dissolve parliament after a vote of no confidence and what they are trying to argue is that now we would just reshuffle the deck. with only three parties, i don't see how that even works, let alone whether it's democratic.

There would be uproar if the LibDems just shuffled to the other side and the cobbled together a belated Rainbow Coalition with the same Parliament and D Miliband or whoever at the helm. Why not just have another election? It's ridiculous.

I can see why the LibDems are so keen on PR as it would virtually guarantee them being in power with one party or another forever.

Why not just have another election? It's ridiculous.

?

because a govt can be formed out of the last one.

not really, unless we go down the LOL LAB-CON AMIRITE?! route

act 1: lib dems and tories: we can't go on like this
act 2: vote of no confidence
act 3: but not dissolution! no, that'd be lame
act 4: another coalition is formed out of _________
act 5: profit

that happened in '24, so at least it's no worse. If you're going to have a fixed-term parliament, the German model seems way better imo

that happened in '24, so at least it's no worse.

How'd that Parliament work out for everyone again?

http://www.poecker.homepage.t-online.de/01/1ge12mo1.jpg

god imagine a parliament where they just actually voted on the individual issues, every time. nightmare scenario.

again with the krautwerk

Feel free to way in with some fussball

yeah sure rafa out lol carragher paul robinson is a health risk and lol terry k i'm done

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

This is always true.

― caek, Thursday, 13 May 2010 16:29 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

What's also true is that the coalition could collapse and LibDem-Lab-DUP-SNP-Green-SDLP-PC-SfuckingF-whoever I've missed from the Big Rainbow still couldn't vote to dissolve parliament without a couple of dozen Tory defectors from a *minority* party.

Sure.

Common sense says that enough Tories would realise governing in minority was kinda fuckin pointless and would do the right thing in those circumstances - meaning that, like 5 year fixed terms, it's a solution to something that doesn't need fixed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/13/55-per-cent-coalition-rule

Guardian finally getting round to raising this 55% thing. I'm sure the rest of the media won't cover it though.

Report on C4 news speaks of 55% as perhaps 'the first casualty' in the coalition agreement.

We'll see..

From the comments on that Guardian story:

Parliament has no right, priviledge or power to dissolve itself. That prerogative rests with the Crown alone.

The Crown invites a Member, who commands the loyalty of the largest number of Members, to be Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in the time being appoints the Crown's Ministers. When a Prime Minister chooses to resign he so does, there is nothing that the House can do to frustrate his action. It may be that he resigns on health grounds, or because he is fed up with the job or because he has lost the confidence of the House. This latter means that the Members have given him notice that they will, in future, vote against all legislation that he proposes. This can be achieved by the House passing a vote of no-confidence in him and his government. In these circumstances he resigns, there being no point in carrying on in Office. It maybe that, when he resigns he can advise the Sovereign that another Member commands a majority of the House and could be invited to form a Government. It may be that he cannot so advise and must therefore request the dissolution of Parliament and the election of a new one.

It is difficult to see what value the Losers' Coalition Memorandum of Understanding brings. It merely expresses the intention to propose a Motion that the Parliament shall run for a full five years and that a Motion for Dissolution with less that 55% support cannot be allowed to succeed. But, hey, the House cannot dissolve Parliament, only the Queen can do that, and then only on the advice of her Prime Minister.

Face it, Cameron will remain free to ditch the Liberals when ever he chooses. What are they going to do about it when he does? Whine about it to the Voters? Sue the Tories until their eyes fall out? Take it to the European Court?

January 2009

But Robert Goodwill, shadow minister for Leeds, claimed that the cabinet meetings outside of London were "a bit of a gimmick".

He said: "The cost of hosting them given the increased security is something that should be borne by Labour rather than by the taxpayer.

Mr Cameron said he would continue the Labour tradition of holding cabinet meetings in different parts of the UK.

shadow minister for Leeds?

He was Shadow Minister for Roads. Was that first quote in the Guardian perchance?

I like the idea of every Cabinet including a Minister for Leeds.

The rehabilitation of Chris Langham continues.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4603645741_ab50bbc25c.jpg

they're leading w/ 55 on newsnight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs

Ned's photo reminds me a bit of:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/3/11/1236764626916/Brian-Clough-with-the-Lee-002.jpg

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

think i had 55 more or less right already, also david grosssman sez it was a ~conservative~ priority tho happily they got lib dem lord rentard to flail about in defence of it

amending the constitution just for this one sketchily cribbed together abortion govt.....these cunts have got nerve

The Shadow Minister for Roads AND the Shadow Minister for Leeds. Wonder what he spent more time on?

Nakh, it's not nerve, it's ENTITLEMENT. Cameron's in the door two seconds, under a shaky agreement, and is behaving as if he's got a giant mandate.

A giant what now?

A giant man date

Yeah, it's a gift of a title for the slash that's going around.

Actually I first read that as 'as if he's got a giant manatee' and I was like oh wow...

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

My first thought was it's some sort of tax dodge.

Oh yes, it would have to be win-win for them to consider it worth doing. A person on £20K is going to be a grand out and will have no way to claw stuff back.

In about three months David Cameron will look like a giant manatee. I call four chins by August bank holiday.

Anyone watching Question Time? Mehdi Hasan laying into the Liberal Democrats and getting some great dirty looks from Simon Hughes. Definitely no slash fiction in their future.