Parliament will need 55% of votes to overthrow the Government?

[Undesired Walrus]

What do you think of this? To me it seems to be an attempt by the Tories to safeguard them against a breakdown in the coalition, and to preserve minority Governments. As Jack Straw has said, can you imagine the outrage of the Lib Dems if Labour had done this? For a party that wishes to introduce PR, consider the following outcome: A party secures 49% of the vote, with the other two parties on 25.5% each. For what reason can the majority Government on 49% secure a safety net of 55?

 

[funk de fino]

I think this is poo pie with pump sauce

 

[Rolfe]

I don't like it. It was presented as a bit of a throwaway remark, along with the fixed-term parliaments. I don't remember the 55% in anybody's manifesto, and I'm not sure about the fixed terms either. LibDem?

Such fundamental messing with the Way Things Are Done seems a bit premature to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think my biggest problem with it is that the additional 5% is not earned. It seems authoritarian.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you think of this? To me it seems to be an attempt by the Tories to safeguard them against a breakdown in the coalition, and to preserve minority Governments. As Jack Straw has said, can you imagine the outrage of the Lib Dems if Labour had done this?

For a party that wishes to introduce PR, consider the following outcome: A party secures 49% of the vote, with the other two parties on 25.5% each. For what reason can the majority Government on 49% secure a safety net of 55?

I don't understand why you said "overthrow" versus "change" government. Is there a connotation I am missing by being across the pond?

DR

 

[Delscottio]

The idea looks undemocratic to me. If fact the horse trading and dilution of policy feels wrong- we didnt get the chance to vote on some important policy to be enacted. Maybe next time manifestos should have things that are and aren t open to discussion in the event of a hung result?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's a loaded term, but what I mean a vote of no confidence, which is usually 51% of MPs who will vote in favour of forcing a dissolution of parliament.

 

[Blue Bubble]

There was an attempt to clarify this on Radio 4's PM last night. Apparently there's a difference between "Vote of no confidence", which still remains at 50% + 1 MP, and "Dissolution of Parliament" which is the one which will require the 55%.

I'm still not sure what the difference is.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's a loaded term, but what I mean a vote of no confidence, which is usually 51% of MPs who will vote in favour of forcing a dissolution of parliament.

Got it, thanks!

Not my system ... but seems to me the old 51% rule met the good enough standard, why change it to 55%?

Has someone laid out an argument that changing the threshold for change via no confidence to 55% is a sound idea?

DR

 

[drkitten]

Not my system ... but seems to me the old 51% rule met the good enough standard, why change it to 55%?

Greater stability of coalitions.

Coalitions have not "traditionally" been an issue in UK politics, since one party has been able to command a majority by itself.

Has someone laid out an argument that changing the threshold for change via no confidence to 55% is a sound idea?

Er,.... Israel is a pretty good argument.

If you have the Sensible Party getting 49.5% of the vote, and the Sound Party getting 49.5% of the vote, and the Extremely Silly Party getting 1% of the vote, then the Extremely Silly Party is de-facto in control of the government, since it can simply call for a vote of confidence at any point and on any issue, ally itself with the current opposition and force a change of government. In Israel's case, for "Extremely Silly Party" read "National Party of Religious Nutters"....

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I understand it, the aim is that a 55% majority is needed if the government brings a motion to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. A no confidence vote in the government, which would in effect by a motion by the opposition to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, would still only require one more vote for than against. Rather than protecting the government against a collapse of the coalition, this is designed to protect the opposition against tactical timing of elections by the sitting government. I'm not entirely sure of that, because it's the sort of change it would take careful consideration of a whole range of scenarios to understand fully. It's been presented, I think, as an initial move towards fixed term parliaments.

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

It's not an initial move. They've also announced fixed term parliaments as a fait accompli.

Rolfe.

 

[Giz]

As I understand it, the aim is that a 55% majority is needed if the government brings a motion to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. A no confidence vote in the government, which would in effect by a motion by the opposition to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, would still only require one more vote for than against. Rather than protecting the government against a collapse of the coalition, this is designed to protect the opposition against tactical timing of elections by the sitting government. I'm not entirely sure of that, because it's the sort of change it would take careful consideration of a whole range of scenarios to understand fully. It's been presented, I think, as an initial move towards fixed term parliaments.

Dave

If this is correct (that it just prevents tactical dissolution of parliaments by the sittying government), then it's fine. If it is just an attempt to immunise minority Governments from failing a no confidence vote... then it would seem to be a bad idea.

 

[Delscottio]

If there is a fixed term parliament why would there need to be a dissolution clause? Logically it can only be a no confidence vote. again that seems undemocratic.

 

[Delscottio]

After watching the news it appears to be: a vote of no confidence takes place, if that vote is over 50% another vote to dissolve parliament will take place in which 55% of mps will need to vote for it, seems pointless to me

 

[drkitten]

After watching the news it appears to be: a vote of no confidence takes place, if that vote is over 50% another vote to dissolve parliament will take place in which 55% of mps will need to vote for it, seems pointless to me

It looks to me like a protection against coalition breakdown. Basically, the Tories don't trust LibDems (which I understand) and want to make sure that the LibDems can't pull the rug out from under them.

 

[Frank327]

Seems good to me. If the dissolution of parliament by one of the coalition parties would still take 50%+1, libdems could wait for a weak moment of the tories, and walk out of it without the blame. Also, taking away a PM's right to call elections at any time really hasn't got much use in majority governments unless most majority governments can't dissolve themselves with 50% +1.

As long as the opposition can still call to overthrow minority governments with 50%+1 I don't understand the problem.

 

[drkitten]

After watching the news it appears to be: a vote of no confidence takes place, if that vote is over 50% another vote to dissolve parliament will take place in which 55% of mps will need to vote for it, seems pointless to me

As long as the opposition can still call to overthrow minority governments with 50%+1 I don't understand the problem.

If my understanding of the previous post is correct, then the opposition can call to overthrow the government, but that won't work unless they can muster 55% in a subsequent vote

I.e. a "vote of [no] confidence" simply creates a motion to dissolve parliament.

 

[geni]

You only need 50% +1 to render the country ungovernable. This seems pointless.

 

[drkitten]

You only need 50% +1 to render the country ungovernable.

Only if you're willing to do the Senate Republican "party of no" thing. Even a popular party taking a principled stand will end up being killed at the polls if they spend several months trying to "render the country ungovernable."