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

Jesus Christ. Can I just say, good luck, LOLBritain with your hilarious legislature?

The New Politics. World War I is just round the corner.

As it stands the coalition has more peers than the opposition anyway, don't know what they're so worried about. Are those crossbenchers really that independently minded?

"currently dominated by Labour"

labour has 211. the tories have 188. the libs have 72.

this is complete fucking bullshit. obviously the lords is the lords and there's a debate to be had about that. but this is in service of a massive rigging exercise. more and more echoes of 1910.

Are those crossbenchers really that independently minded?

Too much so for the Neu Politik

existence of a football board would be justified by a specialised excelsior thread for just such as above tbh

― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac)

I started a nakhchivan-specific one last night

If I'm being honest the concept of a "Labour Lord" has always been a little o_O to me

If I'm being honest the concept of a "Labour Lord" has always been a little o_O to me

If nothing else, the fallout from this election is making read up on aspects of our parliament that I knew nothing about. For example, the Salisbury Convention.

I like how whenever there's a big election in Britain people get all frisky with the Constitution. It's heady, this access to power.

ha!..

Since the Labour general election victory in 2005 the Liberal Democrats have indicated that they do not feel bound by the Salisbury Convention as a result of decreasing voter turnout, the low share of the vote received by the Government and the changes to the composition of the House of Lords introduced in 1999 by the Labour Government

.. and now, they do.

Principles, errrr, schminciples

Four (c)leg(g)s good, two (c)leg(g)s better.

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100517&t=2&i=108567295&w=600&r=2010-05-17T123437Z_01_BTRE64G0WW000_RTROPTP_0_BRITAIN-OSBORNE
I can never tell if Osbourne is sneering or not. I presume 'is'.

It's more like "total contempt for anyone who isn't him".

... compensating for deep-seated contempt for himself

(inner voice) "If I hate everone else more than I hate myself, everything will be alright..."

Fixed term 55% rule a serious mistake, says David Davis

Still got his eyes on the prize, I see.

I'm sure there's a simple answer for this, but: what is the point of a no-confidence vote if it doesn't also lead to dissolution and election?

govt gets shook

Tracer Hand - to bring down the government. They don't speak for us.

I'm sure there's a simple answer for this, but: what is the point of a no-confidence vote if it doesn't also lead to dissolution and election?

― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Monday, May 17, 2010 3:28 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is the most sinister thing!

the libs say that it leads to a new government being horribly formed

but in the UK parliament, how the eff is that going to play out?

bringing down the government midway through fixed term parliament leads to what exactly?

It might end up in a MAJORITY GOVT!!

and then the Libs won't get THEIR SAY!!!

It might end up in a MAJORITY GOVT!!

no, it can't because -- as you may have gleaned -- there's no single party with a majority

informal voting blocs? crazy bargains you-scratch-my-back-i'll-scratch-your 'yes minister' style?

s0 preferable to, y'know, fresh elections

tories voting with labour on giving all children into the care of abusive addicts in return for labour support of funnelling all science funding into an immortality experiment for the queen

It's conceivable another government could be formed out of this Parliament, as in 1924.

But more likely after a couple of weeks of horse-trading that you would get sufficient pressure from media and electorate to force a vote on dissolution through with the support of all parties.

so why bother with this nonsense in the first place? and why 55%?

where is the pressure coming from?

(i don't think it's that "conceivable" bee tee dubs)

the pressure is coming from the weak coalition themselves, tbh- it's kinda a pre-emptive 'you'll have to work to get us out' move.

shhh we know, it's fun pretending there might be a "National Interest" reason tho

well a weak govt isn't ever in the national interest, really?

As an argument that's only gonna take you into some dodgy neighbourhoods

If a vote of no confidence passes the PM has to either resign or ask the Queen for a dissolution of parliament. But under these new plans the PM loses his powers to ask for a dissolution completely so an additional motion has to be put to the Commons whether to dissolve it or not - hence all this debate over where to set the threshold - 50%, 55%, 66%, 101% etc. Wouldn't it just be easier if the PM retains his power to ask for a dissolution of parliament in the event of a vote of no confidence? Or simply, a vote of no confidence of 50% just equals a dissolution, without the possibility of a government desperately trying to reshape to cling to power.

He doesn't want to have to ever go to the queen and go "They Hate Me, sob"

xp i'm not making an argument, i'm all for minority govt tbh

@nevermind312

It would be easier, but far less democratic, for a PM to retain that power. And if a vote of no confidence equalled a dissolution you would be introducing fixed term parliaments.

That is why the debate is actually about whether to have fixed term parliaments or not, as I have said previously (to universal derision).

argh. For 'would' in second sentence, read 'wouldn't'.

we shouldn't have fixed term parliaments. if we are going to have them, make them four years, and don't put this pissy 55% rule in.

talking about democracy with a straight face when what you are advocating is rolling coalition governments is a hollow joke.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-ming-vote-out-bercow-let-me.html

Bizarre behaviour, Ming lining himself up with the Nadine Dorries of the world.

Conservative whips are unlikely to rally to Speaker Bercow's defence. After all, at their final dinner of the last parliament they voted Bercow 'C*** of the Year'.

Just think what they say about people they don't like.

Ming would be a pretty great speaker actually.

too old

labour shdn't have installed whatsisname

the convention is to have a speaker from the other team

most tories regard bercow as labour, so appointing him was a big FU from labour

Seems to be little more than "westminister gossip"

the convention is to have a speaker from the other team

Parliament likes to pretend this but it's not really tru

Wetherill was made speaker by the conservative gov.

I thought the convention was to alternate, not have a member of the opposition.

Which happened, and hey if the conservatives 'don't like' one of their own, hey you picked him!

They set a precedent by removing Michael Martin, so they assume they can go ahead and do the same to Bercow. And probably every successive Speaker once they start getting a bit annoying, which surely they all do?

On the other hand I'm not sure this really matters against the backdrop of everything else going on right now.

Yeah, but it's part of the EVERYTHING IS OURS FOR THE TAKING mood going round at the moment.

Foxhunting legalised in 10.. 9...