Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Well that didn't take long

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't know if this has already been posted.
Plans for fixed-term parliaments that could only be cut short if 55% of MPs voted to do so are a "serious mistake", says senior Tory MP David Davis.

The coalition deal would give the power to dissolve Parliament to MPs - but only if a "super majority" backed it.

The ex-shadow home secretary said it could mean a government supported by only 45% of MPs could not be removed.

Prime Minister David Cameron has pointed out that, in Scotland, 66% of MSPs must vote to dissolve Parliament.

He argues he is giving up a lot of power by introducing fixed-term parliaments - rather than deciding himself when to go to the Queen to ask for parliament to be dissolved, within a five-year term. Last week he said any fixed-term parliament required a "mechanism" to deliver it - but the details would be debated by MPs.

Hmm, I wonder where they came up with this 45% figure required to stay in power? Couldn't have anything to do with the Tories only have 47% of the seats, could it? If they had 44% you could guarantee they would've proposed a 60% threshold to dissolve the government. Sounding extremely dodgy already. Not only that, but completely unworkable. You can't have a situation where a government doesn't have the support to pass anything into law, but the opposition don't have the numbers to force an election. It's completely ridiculous.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well fucking dodgy IMO and certainly gives the impression the Tories and Lib Dems are trying to proof themselves from being ousted at any cost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair, it's based on examples in other countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same article
    But while at present, if a government loses a confidence motion the usual practice would be for the PM to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament - with a fixed-term parliament he or she would no longer have the power to do so. Instead 55% of MPs would have to vote to do so.

    So you could still have a vote of no confidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but that doesn't lead to an automatic election.

    Personally I think they are wrong on the 55% clause because I don't believe it's democratic. I like to fixed term element though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fixed term elections are a good idea. Just as long as we dont end up doing what the americans do and start having MP's running for election 5 minutes after the last election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the downside.

    It already happens though, the Tories started running over a year ago...

    I'd also go for fixed term PM and MPs personally
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Directly elected PM/President?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    To be fair, it's based on examples in other countries.

    Which ones? None of the PR countries have this. Scotland is the only example given.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Directly elected PM/President?

    I want that. I like the american model, although perhaps not the electorial system
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Directly elected PM/President?

    No, that leads to stalemate when the leader is a different party that the majority in parliament. Right of veto etc

    We already have Head of State too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't that why there is three bodies? President, Senate, House of representatives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its 66% in Scotland (so bit hypocritical of Labour to complain about 55%). But you could still have a vote of no-confidence and as I understand it, if the PM can't then form a new government he must resign. What he can't do is dissolve Parliament by just having one more vote than the opposition.

    I'd say as an idea it has some merit, but needs some further working on as like everything being announced at this stage the devil is in the detail
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This idea of an arbitrary 55% 'majority' is strange and could set a worrying precedent - what's the stop the next government raising it to 60%, then 65%... etc? A majority should be just that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely the idea of fixed parliaments is good it stops a government calling a snap election when it feels like it, so that it is at their advantage. Surely a 55% required to disolve Parliament stops the government being able to do the same thing?

    If it was less and was 45% then im sure people would complain as well.

    While there is advantages and disadvantages of this, looking purely at the merits, its not too bad a think when you think that a government can still be smashed with a vote of no confidence. This means a new leader?

    Doesnt this then allow for a least some continuity and people being able to know what to expect and when it will end, rather than chopping and changing?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perfect world would be a fixed term which is dissolved automatically on 55%. But if you there is a motion of no confidence (one more vote for it than against) the PM has two weeks to form a new Government and if that isn't forthcoming an automatic general election.

    Perhaps there also needs to be a few caveats, such as changes of PM lead to a general election within six months and one can be called again within four months of the initial election if there isn't a majority.

    However Cameron is giving up one of the most powerful tools in the PM's armoury, imagine if Brown had called one when he'd taken over (as he legally could have done) - he almost certainly still be PM
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perfect world would be a fixed term which is dissolved automatically on 55%. But if you there is a motion of no confidence (one more vote for it than against) the PM has two weeks to form a new Government and if that isn't forthcoming an automatic general election.

    Perhaps there also needs to be a few caveats, such as changes of PM lead to a general election within six months and one can be called again within four months of the initial election if there isn't a majority.

    However Cameron is giving up one of the most powerful tools in the PM's armoury, imagine if Brown had called one when he'd taken over (as he legally could have done) - he almost certainly still be PM

    He still would be PM, with a mandate of sorts, but I cant help but think that by the time the next election after that came, he would be hated even more, and it may well have worked out better for the labour party in the long run?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd agree with that, except for the "election within four month" without majority. Mainly because I like a system of PR which is designed not to achieve that too easily
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    He still would be PM, with a mandate of sorts, but I cant help but think that by the time the next election after that came, he would be hated even more, and it may well have worked out better for the labour party in the long run?

    Possibly, it could be have been a repeat of the Major years. But it might have also been a repeat of 1979 - 1983, some very tough economic decisions in the early years which led to real pain, but then an improving economy coupled with an understanding the UK had just turned a major corner after years of decline.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do I feel that we are going to recover well from this, and then go right down the pan again :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I'd agree with that, except for the "election within four month" without majority. Mainly because I like a system of PR which is designed not to achieve that too easily

    I'm the opposite in that I dislike PR. Whilst I probably would have voted Tory anyway (if only because on Northern Ireland and Defence they're by far the most trustworthy party) it did feel like my vote had been stolen when they went for things I fundamentally disagree with such as PR
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Why do I feel that we are going to recover well from this, and then go right down the pan again :)

    As one Battlestar Galactica fan to another...

    All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again
    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whatever happened to a good old fashioned duel to the death?

    Celebrity MP death match
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm surprised how little has been made of the far more questionable decision (IMO at least) by the new government to create 100 new peers, so they can ensure any legislation they pass will be ratified at the House of Lords.

    I mean, WTF? If there are not enough of our kind in the upper House, let's just magically repopulate it to ensure votes go our way? What is this, a banana fucking republic?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'm surprised how little has been made of the far more questionable decision (IMO at least) by the new government to create 100 new peers, so they can ensure any legislation they pass will be ratified at the House of Lords.

    I mean, WTF? If there are not enough of our kind in the upper House, let's just magically repopulate it to ensure votes go our way? What is this, a banana fucking republic?

    Doesnt that happen every time though?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does it? Where they put them all? I can't imagine 100 peers have died/retired since the last election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My own view is that the idea of 55% is that, in the land of hung parliaments, it has to be a substantial majority in favour of a vote of no-confidence - in this economic climate it allows the government to get on with the unpopular task of dealing with the budget deficit.

    In terms of the House of Lords, clearly a house populated with chinless and/or fossilised hereditary peers is outdated. But there is a need for an independent "second/upper house" to keep a check on any knee-jurk policies that might be implemented by the elected Government in the "Commons". I am anti a wholly elected second house as the electorate would probably vote the same way for both houses and you wouldn't get impartiality. But I would like to see some sort of partially-elected, partially merit-based house - where you had a real mix of elder statesmen and the great and the good from other walks of life. Difficult to see how this might be achieved though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only one week has passed, and I'm already able, with confidence in my position, to call this government a bunch of power-hungry bastards.

    *waits for someone to come along and ignore my point completely whilst telling me I've been a naughty widdle boy for swearing*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Only one week has passed, and I'm already able, with confidence in my position, to call this government a bunch of power-hungry bastards.

    *waits for someone to come along and ignore my point completely whilst telling me I've been a naughty widdle boy for swearing*

    And the award for stating the obvious 2010 goes to SG :D


    Would you do it any differently?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Would you do it any differently?
    Of course I would. Governments can only serve if they have the confidence of not just the MPs in Parliament, but also its people. Without that, they have no mandate. If Call Me Dave thinks a coalition is the best way forward, fine. But he has no right to engage in this sort of constitutional vandalism just to save his own bacon.

    Even Iain Dale is against it, for crying out loud, and he's one of the most tribal Tory bloggers out there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How would you judge if people still had the faith in the government, when so many people seem to be engaged in arm chair politics.
Sign In or Register to comment.