h1

Betrayed: Part 2

May 12, 2010

I was fairly sure both parties were offering more accountable, transparent government. Apparently not.

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. Seriously, there’s a lot of hyperbole, but the article I linked by Lee Griffin is correct.

    If the Govt lose a confidence vote (whcih remains 50%), then they resign, simple as.

    What this changes is it doesn’t lead immediately to a fresh election. That’s normal in fixed term Parliaments. In Scotland and Wales, Labour wrote the rules at 66% to dissolve, 55 is alower and more accountable, but still stops people playing silly buggers.

    I don’t support that specific figure, but I don’t oppose iteither.

    What I oppose ia big pile of hyperbole and scaremongering, espcially from Labout supporters who supported the Welsh/Scottish system.


  2. Really? Because I have been looking at the numbers, and it adds up- even if Labour and the Liberal democrats unite, no ability for a vote of no confidence? In this situation?

    And the scottish system isn’t first past the post, with accountability removed is it?


    • This is the Scottish system (the FPTP or PR thing isn’t relevant) applied to avoid perceived abuse of fixed-term parliaments. As Matt said, I don’t remember any big outcry from Labour over that.

      Having said that I still don’t agree with it!


      • I think it is relevant to be honest. That is why we have a 50percent threshold. Above 50percent is a majority. And am sorry but this is major constitutional reform- that appears to have been included on a hastily written agreement about how two parties will work together. The coalition agreement is a partisan executive agreement- certainly not the place for constitutional reform.


      • Fixed term parliaments were in the Labour & Liberal manifestos! For a fixed term parliament you need a rule that allows for parliament to be dissolved only in “exceptional” circumstances – otherwise the party with a majority can effectively ignore the fixed term parliament rule because it has that majority – in other words it becomes a meaningless law.

        I’m no fan of the rule, but the irony is that it wasn’t something the Conservatives wanted, it was policy of the Liberal Democrats – and the Labour Party. That they didn’t understand or make clear this would mean/require a change to the “dissolution” rule should be a question for them to answer.


      • BUt this isn’t a bill about constitutional reform- or legislation for parliamentary reform. This is a party political coalition agreement written in a few days, under extreme circumstances. As I understood it the coalition agreement includes a referendum on reform- and that is where such a major change should be. We have a house where over 50percent is a majority- and until that house is reformed as part of a considered piece of legislation- I don’t particularly want an unpopular and fairly fragile coalition making major constitutional changes- to protect their own survival.


  3. Vote of confidence remains unchanged at 50%. Seriously, there’s nothing going to change that, that would be stupid.

    What changes is that before, if PM lost a Confidence motion, could call a GE directly and Queen would virtually always form dissoution (didn’t always happen, myth that it did).

    Now, power to dissolve goes with Parlt. If Cameron loses Confidence, he has to resign, but other parties could try to form a Govt without a GE. That’s a significant change that reformers have been campaigning for for decades.

    Some of those that backed this campaign before are now complaining because it’s been implemented by someone they don’t like, and are churlishly lying about it. I don’t know why.


  4. As I read it, MatGB is right. This doesn’t alter the existing no confidence rule, but adds something else that allows for MPs to call for a general election, a power they never had before. 50% -> no confidence (and everything as we have now)… 55% simply takes the Queen and the constitutional process of deciding how to form the next government out of the equation, handing that power directly to MPs



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: