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

Front page of the Metro too - "Coalition is on the ropes on day one"

Fuck this giant banner on the new BBC site btw

sweet

They've got to lend to somebody, though (xp to hm) - there's so much money around and has been for the last fifteen years that anyone who doesn't look like a basket case has been able to borrow cheaply, brief liquidity crises apart.

Japan is a bad example of a success story too because their ease of borrowing is a bit artificial - largely down to demographics meaning oceans of pension money have to be lent domestically to keep it as riskless as possible.

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy, along with various Labour MPs and constitutional 'experts' who should (and do) know better.

The policy moves power of dissolution from the executive to the legislature. If anything it makes dissolution too easy, so the percentage should be higher - 66% for instance.

David Howarth's Bill didn't have any such provision, so in order to undo the fixed term Parliament would have to pass another Act - a much higher threshold for dissolution, and a genuinely fixed term Parliament.

You will not be surprised to learn this was not even being mentioned on Sky News earlier this morning

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy

Privatise the lefty bastards

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy, along with various Labour MPs and constitutional 'experts' who should (and do) know better.

The policy moves power of dissolution from the executive to the legislature. If anything it makes dissolution too easy, so the percentage should be higher - 66% for instance.

David Howarth's Bill didn't have any such provision, so in order to undo the fixed term Parliament would have to pass another Act - a much higher threshold for dissolution, and a genuinely fixed term Parliament.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 1:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

you are wilfully obscuring the fact that it raises the bar for dissolution by bypassing the old way -- the vote of no confidence.

it also makes no sense in our system to bring down the government but *not* call a new election.

+ ne ways we do not need a five year fixed-term parliament.

ne ways we do not need a five year fixed-term parliament.

We don't but they do

I don't think it is a misinterpretation, currently 50%+1 can vote no confidence after which the PM can try and form a new government or dissolve parliament, in effect parliament can force the PM to go to the queen for a dissolution.

Under the 55% rule, parliament can dissolve itself, but only if it gets a 55% vote, a 50%+1 vote of no confidence basically allows the PM to cling on to power until the fixed term is up or until the PM or enough rebel MP decide enough is enough and put the government out of its misery.

It makes a minority party in coalition stronger than previous elected majorities.

Whether this is being misinterpreted or not is not the issue - where is the case for fixed term parliaments and increased dissolution thresholds? Do we really want parliaments to continue after NC votes with alternative coalitions bringing in the much maligned "unelected" Prime Ministers that the Lib Dems and the Tories have criticised so much in the past 3 years?

A vote of no confidence was not the bar for dissolution in any case. Dissolution is, and always has been, the decision solely of the Prime Minister (and, nominally, the Queen).

I agree five years is too long, but fixed term parliaments are far more sensible than elections being called on the whim of the executive. They were in the Lib Dem manifesto AND the Labour manifesto, and Cameron signalled last year that he was in favour as well.

Dissolution is, and always has been, the decision solely of the Prime Minister (and, nominally, the Queen).

you can't accept the unwritten rule that the pm exercises the queen's preroragtive without accepting the unwritten rule that the pm has to call an election after losing a confidence vote. it's all part of the same deal.

I agree five years is too long, but fixed term parliaments are far more sensible than elections being called on the whim of the executive

^^ this. four years seems about right to me.

Maybe this is why we should have a written constitution.

But in any case, there was not an election in 1924 after Baldwin resigned after he lost a confidence vote.

Ah yes, I remember it well

In constitutional terms it might as well have happened yesterday.

that it's tory-driven does show their confidence in being able to sideline the libdems in due course, they won't be able to try for a majority but the libdems are further hamstrung

I don't know that 55% is actually Tory-driven. Do you? Adonis' commentary (which I quote above) says the LDs wanted Labour to sign up to it as a precondition for coalition. Because it helps the LDs as much as their coalition partners. Maybe more. In the new system, the Government isn't allowed to call elections whenever it wishes - it must get 55% of the Commons to agree with it. At only 47% this would be an uphill battle for the Conservatives if the LDs were opposed. 51% would be much more reachable.

Of course there is the obverse consequence, that this protects Tories from mass LD defection. Which is presumably why both sides agreed to it.

Yeah a coalition is much less attractive to the LibDems if the Tories see a jump in the polls, call a snap election, and get back in with a majority.

If we're going to get historical about this then bear in mind that the last parliament to dissolve itself was the Long Parliament, and that led to a spaniel loving, pseudo-catholic, europhile running the country.

Blair, right?

Exactly. The fact is that it is a bizarre system that allows the executive simply to call an election whenever they feel like it. Hence fixed term parliaments. That is the real argument here, and no amount of disingenuous media churn about confidence votes can change that fact.

As opposed to Nick Clegg, a spaniard loving, pseudo-catholic, europhile

Maybe this is why we should have a written constitution.

yes, these notorious make everything unambiguous and, as you wish, "sensible"

But in any case, there was not an election in 1924 after Baldwin resigned after he lost a confidence vote.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 1:21 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

no-one has said that a no confidence vote *necessarily and at all times forever more* leads to dissolution. just that they generally do, and that there is no solid case for changing the status quo on the question.

i could just about live with a four-year fixed term parliament if that's what a majority *really wanted*, though i don't see the point (please do name some dodgily timed elections -- perhaps if blair had waited till may 2002 the world would be a better place). but the 55% rule is str8 bullshit.

The fact is that it is a bizarre system that allows the executive simply to call an election whenever they feel like it.

sorry, but what is "bizarre" about it? what is your standard?

it is a bizarre system that allows the executive simply to call an election whenever they feel like it. Hence fixed term parliaments.

OK, I can accept this argument while at the same time feeling that the OTHER consequence of it - that it locks in a Conservative government for five years even if the LDs all vote with Labour in a no-confidence vote - is a massive powergrab and that they simply sprung this rather than spell out why or do any consultation does not bode well AT ALL for what we can expect from this government.

(From my American perspective it is bizarre for the ruling party to be able to call an election whenever it likes. It gives even more power to incumbency which can't be a good thing.)

say there is a no confidence motion, but no dissolution: what then? it's a ridiculous prospect.

xpost

the american system is different, though, with your mid-terms, elected senate, state governments, powerful mayors etc -- just totally different.

even then, i can't think of a concrete example of a cynically timed election in the UK

Same here - unless you count Wilson in 1970, which he lost!

most governments have a programme they want to get done, and which they don't want to interrupt/imperil with an election

i realize that the LD programme at this point is kinda 'tbd' (by the tories) but under normal circumstances, there were natural constraints to acting out of cynicism, i.e. the press and public would say 'this is cynical bullshit'

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/2007/05/18/thatcher1.jpg

By the way, that 1970 election: Liberals, 6 seats. Goin' right back there, guys.

they missed the A between Fighting and Lady

Tracer Hand - 'they simply sprung this'? Er, no. It's not law yet, it's just part of the coalition agreement. As FTPs were in Lib Dem manifesto (and Labour manifesto) there's a clear case for legislation to be brought forward on them; when that happens we will have a full debate, which will be far better than under Labour as the new govt is also abolishing guillotines (programme motions)

Maybe so, but Will Hague was telling it like it was a done deal.

Well, they do have a majority!

which of thatcher's elections was really cynically timed?

would it have made all the difference had she left off till 1988?

they were all four years apart, which would be reasonable under a fixed-term arrangement. most people agree five years is too long.

Well, they do have a majority!

haaaaa

iirc they have about 10% of the seats!

history mayne - yes, I agree, 4 years would be better. Hopefully that will be one of the amendments when the Bill comes to the Commons.

Mark G - none of this is a done deal, Parliament isn't even sitting yet. The media frenzy is just because we have, in effect, launched a coalition manifesto. It remains to be seen what will be done when over the course of the five years.

I didn't think it was, just it was how Hague was telling it.

Telegraph reporting that there are some Tory MPs who think 55% is bullshit as well. Given that this is kicking off *already*, I can't see it getting through the Commons let alone the Lords.

I don't know that 55% is actually Tory-driven. Do you?

did you read the previous post? that was from 'sources close to the negotiations' whoever they might be, and yeah they may be wrong but assuming parenthetically that they're correct.....

Adonis' commentary (which I quote above) says the LDs wanted Labour to sign up to it as a precondition for coalition. Because it helps the LDs as much as their coalition partners. Maybe more. In the new system, the Government isn't allowed to call elections whenever it wishes - it must get 55% of the Commons to agree with it. At only 47% this would be an uphill battle for the Conservatives if the LDs were opposed. 51% would be much more reachable.

sure, i said this the other day

i initally thought it wd benefit the libdems more, but they seem to have far less influence in the coalition than initial reports suggested, hence my suggestion that the conservatives wd rather forgo the chance to try for a majority in favour of the security of five years with the supine libdems

srs q: do you really think the liberal democrats (as presently constituted, i.e. voted for) will be in government in 2015?

if not, how democratic is it if our next government within this term is not only a bunch of fannies, but composed of groups who no-one voted for?

Hopefully that will be one of the amendments when the Bill comes to the Commons.

But, even if it isn't, we can rely on you lot to dutifully vote with your lords and masters anyway

It's kicking off largely due to a sustained campaign of misinformation. The actual principle behind it - 'are fixed term parliaments a good idea?' is yet to be discussed in any depth. Given Cameron, the Lib Dems and Labour all claim to support FTPs I'm optimistic we will get

a) FTPs
b) A better and less cynical-looking implementation of FTPs than this deal suggests

You can keep pretending the fixed-term Parliament issue is the main issue all you want, that doesn't make it true.

history mayne - it can't possibly be composed of groups whom no one voted for. We elect individual MPs to the legislature

Tom D - has your bile duct had enough exercise yet?

Matt DC - that *is* the issue. The 55% thing is only there because of fixed term parliaments.