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

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.

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

I wouldn't bet on it

Considering the fuss that was made about Brown being 'unelected' for the past few years, it seems odd to put in a system that could potentially end up passing Number 10 to David Milliband without any voter having a say!

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

It's only there because both parties know full well they can't justify fixed-term Parliaments when no one in government has a proper mandate.

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

yes, who, under a FTP-and-no-dissolution arrangement, can form new groups, i.e. in the event of the present coalition breaking down

we elect individuals, yes, but in the real world they are easily corruptible bastards who should have to face the electorate as often as possible

carson dial - the whole point of this is to take one of the most presidential powers in our supposed Parliamentary system away from the PM and give it to Parliament. It is giving power to the legislature and removing it from the executive - it is a democratic move.

Matt DC - what is a proper mandate? apart from this election and 1974 every government has had 100% of the power on less than 50% of the votes. Is that what you consider a mandate?

carson dial - the whole point of this is to take one of the most presidential powers in our supposed Parliamentary system away from the PM and give it to Parliament.

fine, make it 50% + 1

but actually just don't bring in 5 year FTPs

history mayne - so are you in favour of direct democracy?

Not really, but it's more of a mandate than what we have now, which is certainly not enough of a mandate to bring in such a big change. (xpost)

Also, the 55% limit doesn't prevent LibCon from calling an election any time they want if they have the discipline (as they'll have 364 MPs in a few weeks), so as ilmigliorfabbro says, if it really is to prevent a majority from fiddling, it should be at least 66%, and combined with a time period as in the Holyrood Parliament.

history mayne - so are you in favour of direct democracy?

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 2:27 PM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark

yes, but only with a 55% threshold. no real reason, just like 55%, s.thing to do with the alliteration probably.

history mayne - No, 50%+1 would leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he chooses. This is why 55% should be more like 66% or 80%.

I would settle for the Swedish model, too: four year fixed term parliaments where the government can call an election during the Parliament, but they then only continue until the end of the same fixed term.

idk why westminster shd be modelling itself on holyrood, i'll be quite open about that

No, 50%+1 would leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he chooses.

oh no, how have we coped with this in the past

Matt DC - the idea of a 'mandate' under our system is meaningless. you can make a good argument that this is actually a more representative government than any we have had before

history mayne - what system of partial direct democracy do you favour? Switzerland's?

im joking brah

talk of mandates is bs, tbh.

you can wrangle enough votes to push in your projects or not, either on individual issues or as a coalition over a period of time.

xps