Question 55% to dissolve Parliament?

[rynnor]

I cant see what the point of this is? Surely you would only need a normal majority to change the law back to 50%?

 

[Chilly]

I think it's a scandalous power grab. They say it's to stop frivolous attemps to force an election, but IMO any time 50% of the house of commons agree on something it's probably worth listening.

 

[Tom]

The irony of a Labour minister bemoaning a change to our constitution is staggering.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Let me get this straight.

You have an election.
You get a "hung parlament" or some such(mixed nuts).
Not that it's been voted, people have chosen, they want to change it cause the result doesn't work?

I thought Iraq needed democracy.

 

[Wij]

Nononono - they had this on Radio 4 this morning.

The proposal is for 55% being required to dissolve parliament. That means no coalition partner (mainly the Cons in this case) can dissolve parliament on their own volition without a 55% majority in commons. The equivalent % in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is 66%.

A confidence motion can still be tabled by opposition which is STILL 50%. If this is passed the PM must resign (acually constitutionally I don't think they have to but they always have and this won't change, maybe they could make this mandatory as part of the reform though.) Once the PM resigns the house can try to form another coalition perhaps with different parties. If it can't be reached an election is called. NONE OF THIS IS CHANGING.

This actually removes some power from the PM and gives it back to parliament. It's to prevent the PM calling a snap election when the polls are good and is a back-up measure for fixed-term parliaments. This cannot be used to prop up failing governments.

Check the fine print.

Also, this has to go through the commons and lords anyway. They won't just vote away their rights. Stop reading The Mirror and The Grundian and use your head not your overactive-indignance-glands.

 

[rynnor]

Not that it's been voted, people have chosen, they want to change it cause the result doesn't work?

I thought Iraq needed democracy.

No - they are just trying to re-assure the smaller party that the bigger one wont just call a snap election when its favourable to them during the next 5 years.

 

[Wij]

I cant see what the point of this is? Surely you would only need a normal majority to change the law back to 50%?

Having to change the law would take enough time to prevent a 'snap-election'.

See also the Lords and my previous post.

 

[Embattle]

The irony of a Labour minister bemoaning a change to our constitution is staggering.

Would that technically remove the point then?

As for the subject I can understand why and what they are doing.

Some info from pros

BBC - See Also: Daily View: Parliament dissolution rules change

 

[Tom]

No its just a comment to remind people (in case they've forgotten) that the previous government removed more civil liberties and changed more aspects of our governance than any in living memory.

 

[Wij]

Now that we have proven this is all very worthy I propose that Chilly must now accept that David Cameron is, in fact, lovely, and should offer to kiss him tenderly. A 50% majority will suffice on this one.

 

[Calaen]

Even party members are saying it shouldn't be changed.

Nice to see they are concentrating on the real problems with our country.

 

[Wij]

Even party members are saying it shouldn't be changed.

Nice to see they are concentrating on the real problems with our country.

No - they just didn't understand what was being proposed. This must go through both commons and lords. Clegg is looking at huge areas of constitutional reform (albeit mainly in the lords), this will be part of it I assume.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

use your head not your overactive-indignance-glands.

Can apply to so much of the shite talked about this election. Utterly mental some of the things some people have been saying

 

[Scouse]

It's currently 50% + one vote to change parliament.

I don't on the face of it understand why this needs to change, but then I can't read about everything

Anyone care to explain why 50% + 1 needs to change?

 

[Wij]

It's currently 50% + one vote to change parliament.

I don't on the face of it understand why this needs to change, but then I can't read about everything

Anyone care to explain why 50% + 1 needs to change?

JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST !!!1one MY POST IS JUST A LITTLE ABOVE HERE

 

[Scouse]

JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST !!!1one MY POST IS JUST A LITTLE ABOVE HERE

So, I'm guessing the 50 +1 is the "confidence vote" eh?


I love it when you use capitals Wij. Makes me feel like I'm being bummed in the ears

 

[ECA]

I come in this thread and the first intelligent post is from Wij.

Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

 

[Embattle]

Least he is a real PM now.

 

[Ch3tan]

Wij, start a pooh thread, it will make you feel better.

 

[Tilda]

It won't make it through the lords.

 

[Scouse]

What? Why don't you think the Lords will like Wij's poo thread?

 

[Zenith.UK]

It won't make it through the lords.

Thanks for reminding me.
I didn't like it when Labour used the Parliament Act to override the Lords and shove a couple of laws through.
At some point in the next Parliament though, the new Govt will probably have to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords on the Lords reform bill. Converting the House of Lords to something like the USA's Senate will meet a lot of resistance in the Lords.

 

[Ch3tan]

It won't make it through the lords.

why won't it? Have you actually read what the changes do? I thinkyou should read wij's post too.

 

[Wij]

I think it's a scandalous power grab. They say it's to stop frivolous attemps to force an election, but IMO any time 50% of the house of commons agree on something it's probably worth listening.

Just to re-iterate 50% of the commons CANNOT dissolve parliament at the moment. Only the PM can.

What they can do is a motion of no confidence which isn't affected.

 

[Embattle]

why won't it? Have you actually read what the changes do? I thinkyou should read wij's post too.

Do you think it has ever mattered

 

[Ch3tan]

Do you think it has ever mattered

what makes me laugh is all the MP's who are just as misinformed as most of the people here, not to mention so called political analysts.


Wij, to save you the hassle;

THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE 50%+1 MP VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

THIS ONLY STOPS ONE PARTY IN A COALITION, NAMELY THE TORIES, DISSOLVING PARLIMENT WITHOUT THE LIB DEMS.

IT MEANS THEY CANNOT ALONE, CALL AN ELECTION AND SHOWS COMMITMENT TO THE COALITION AND FIXED TERM.

CAMERON IS ALSO GIVING UP HIS POWER TO DISSOLVE PARLIMENT WHENEVER HE PLEASES. THE FIRST PM TO DO SO.

Do you fucking get it yet?

 

[Athan]

The thing about this is they could clear up confusion by explicitly stating what happens in each situation after this goes into effect. It doesn't help that you have some people in the Torys and LibDems claiming that this is being brought in exactly so that this government can't be kicked out on a vote of confidence. For those that didn't get it yet ... the Torys alone can't win a vote of confidence anyway, but as they have 47% of the MPs they can also block this (55% requirement) even if every single other MP votes against them. That's a minority of MPs able to block them being kicked out in this way.

Now yesterday I quoted (elsewhere):

A Downing Street spokeswoman said the old rule would still apply to no confidence votes - but should a government be defeated, it would not automatically trigger an election as a 55% vote would be required to dissolve parliament.

However this was from BBC News - Cameron defends change over election vote rules which has since been edited to not include this quote any more ... so I can only think that said spokeswoman was mistaken and withdrew the quote.

Part of the problem is our lack of an actual written down and verified, so anyone can go read it in one place, constitution. As part of that it's true that even if a government loses a confidence vote they're actually under no obligation to resign at all (Whilst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence_votes_in_the_United_Kingdom says "A defeat in a vote of no confidence will oblige a government to resign or seek a dissolution of Parliament." that is immediately preceded by "Despite their importance to the British constitution, the rules surrounding motions of no confidence are dictated by convention"). Simply putting this 55% to dissolve parliament rule in means it is now codified and the old "it's always been done this way" is overridden.

What I think needs to happen is:

1) Fixed term parliament. I can't quite decide if 5 years is right for this (after all we just had a 5 year government...) or if 4 would be more appropriate.

2) As part of that, to over-ride the fixed term in good times there perhaps should be some vote greater than 50%+1 to dissolve parliament. I'm leaning towards "two thirds" (rounded up). The idea here is that to "get another 5 years now whilst things are going good, rather than gambling on things still going well when the current fixed term is up" you need a very strong majority in favour of it. To be honest, I'm not actually sure this is needed at all, as it goes against the specific reason for fixed terms, and you should still have ...

3) But also explicitly codify that the loss of a 50%+1 confidence vote means: a) The current PM has to resign (which means the Queen has to go through the "invite someone to form a government" thing again, which in turn requires a 50%+1 passing of, uh, the new Queen's Speech is it ?), b) that if no new government can be formed within some shortish period, maximum a month, a new General Election is called. Obviously if things are going well this won't happen. But if they ARE going badly we still need this as a get out clause to call a fresh General Election and hopefully get a different set of numpties.