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.
Options
Well that didn't take long
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't know if this has already been posted.
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.
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.
0
Comments
So you could still have a vote of no confidence.
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.
It already happens though, the Tories started running over a year ago...
I'd also go for fixed term PM and MPs personally
Which ones? None of the PR countries have this. Scotland is the only example given.
I want that. I like the american model, although perhaps not the electorial system
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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
As one Battlestar Galactica fan to another...
All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again
Celebrity MP death match
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?
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.
*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
Would you do it any differently?
Even Iain Dale is against it, for crying out loud, and he's one of the most tribal Tory bloggers out there.