Reform? Looks more like gerrymandering

Moraymint

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Are we surprised at this, really?

I'm with the Greek street protestors at the end of the day.

Standby for 5 more years of "common purpose" (to quote a Cabinet Minister today) as our politico-banking and bureaucratic elites tighten the noose around the necks of us citizen serfs.

In the end, the laws of economics and individual human behaviour will prevail over political ideologies and manoeuvring. Time's running out for our political class.

Dan Grover

I agree, it's atrocious that they are even trying to do this.

That said, I don't quite see how it would actually stop the Lib Dems bringing them down. Sure, they might not be able to force a VonC, but they could stop them passing any legislation at all, which I should think would bring about a dissolution of parliament pretty quickly anyway, as the Tories can't really be seen to be literally doing nothing in parliament.

Richard of York

Now cue speccies lining up to justify it.....go on explain why it's a good thing for democracy....

Lets see who will be first?

Ian Walker

On the contrary, it's looking forward to future parliaments. Without it, minority governments will be impossible, and so we will always end up with tails wagging dogs.

55% seems a bit arbitrary to me. I would remove the ability to call a confidence motion altogether, so that governments were able to let more radical proposals fly on their own merits.

Richard of York

Ian Walker you win the prize ...numbskull of the week.

Verityred

Just rebalancing all Labour's crooked rubbish and given the endless media BBC led stacking of kindling wood going on who can blame them?

Off your high horse (or rather Shetland pony).

The Bellman

Maybe I'm being naive, but this refers to the dissolution of parliament, and not confidence in the government. It doesn't change the ability of opposition parties, with the support of the government benches, to muster a simple majority of one for a no confidence motion.

TootingToryInfidel

This argument misses the point and is a fuss about nothing.
The 55% rule applies to dissolution of Parliament, not confidence in the Government. A confidence motion still needs a majority of 1 (presumably; the coalition agreement doesn't mention it). If the government loses a confidence motion it has to resign, usually this is followed by dissolution but not necessarily - the Queen could ask someone else to form a government if they had a reasonable chance of doing so.
This change simply means that it requires a motion of the House (passed by >=55%) before the Queen can be requested to dissolve Parliament, instead of direct advice from the Prime Minister as at present. If all options have been exhausted and there is no prospect of forming a government, there is no doubt the house would vote for its own dissolution and fresh elections. If we want to get rid of the political business cycle - the governing party calling the election at a time that suits it best - we should arguably have a *higher* threshold as 55% corresponds to a majority of just 65.

Kevyn Bodman

This 55% is a shockingly bad proposal.
It serves the intersts of the executive rather than the interests of the population or the legislature.

In stark terms, it removes the idea of government by consent.

It should be opposed vigorously by all right-thinking people.

The MSM should already be ripping it to pieces.

For proposals like this it's worth thinking:
what would you say if the other side tried this?

And Cameron should be very wary of taking for himself a power that will be available to other governments in the future.

In anticipation of disagreement to this comment,I say again:
what would you say if a party you oppose tried this?

Catesby

Seems quite sensible to me.

Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.

Under the new system a government can still be sent packing if it is atrocious, but it will be harder to bring one down without due cause.

Commentator

You aren't surprised are you? Cameron has believed for years that it is his birthright to rule us all with the help of his mates. Can't have the great unwashed getting in the way and this "reform" is intended to ensure that this happens.

Stan

From Guardian comments

It is a shame so many people are so confused. They think that something that currently requires a 50% vote is being changed to requiring a 55% vote.

That's not the case. Something that currently is the whim of the Prime Minister is being changed to a 55% vote.

It's transferring power from the PM to Parliament. Parliament never had a vote on dissolving itself in the first place.

Widdershins

Hang on.

It's 55% to get dissolution of Parliament and a new election.

A government can still be defeated by 50% plus one vote. And if that happens continually, and they can't govern, they could suggest a new government made up of the other parties have a go.

Wilber Wilberforce

R o Y
Are you still here?
I thought you were off to Florida.

paulg

As per usual, the illiberal liberals propose passing perogatives of parliament and the people to the executive.

When it comes before Parliament it must be voted down before it sees the light of day.

Lady Amelia

its outrageous.

one way to litmus test the fairness of legislation is to think about how it would fare in the hands of extremists Marxists or Facists.

this is undemocratic and its obviously so.

If McBruin's lot had proposed it there would be howls on these pages. its not ok just because the conservocrats proposed it.

2trueblue

Sounds like this needs real clarification. It is wrong to protect yourself from the very thing you say you believe in, democracy.

Richard of York

Sorry Verityred you were pipped at the post try again next week.

Will J

The Bellman is surely right - this is transferring the right to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election (outside the new 5-year time-frame) from the PM to Parliament. That is a gain for democracy, even if it requires a 55% majority.

It is not touching the right of Parliament to pass a motion of no confidence in the PM.

Calm down everyone!

Ian Walker

Richard, for you to think me a numbskull is indeed an honour, given the calibre of the people you actually admire.

djw2009

Peter, what about the MP recall votes? They will only be permitted where the MP has committed gross wrongdoing. This is not what was said during the campaign. We should be able to recall our MPs whenever we want to. These political reforms clearly do not envisage an empowering of the people.

Jorge del Mundo

PH

Gerrymander? Surely this is a misuse of the the word. But let that go and consider what could possibly come to pass if 'difficult' legislation involving reductions in state expenditure were presented to parliament.

An ad hoc counter-coalition of Labour members and renegade Liberals might well seek to break the government, supported by nationalists united in demands for extra spending on their own regions.

The 55% barrier on no-confidence measures may obviate an attack from a provisional cabal of the self-interested in opportunistic attempt to extort concessions.

IMV the measure is sensible and in the best interests of the country at the present time, though the Marxists will, no doubt, be planning a timetable of activities for Rentacrowd.

idonotbelieveit

As a few people have already pointed out, surely this makes it more difficult for a government to seek a dissolution, presumably requested by the Lib Dems. It has nothing to do with votes of confidence.

AdamR

This is interesting, but before we start jumping to conclusions, perhaps this is worth a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/13/55-per-cent-coalition-constitutional-law

Dick and his Labour mates should remember their own set up in the Scots Parliament before they start puffing hot air about this. It is an odd looking proposal, but any attack from Labour is pure hypocrisy.

emil

I believe some clarification is needed. As I understand it this relates to any PM requiring a vote of 55% to dissolve parliament (for say party advantage), whilst a vote of no confidence would still be 1 vote over 50%. That being so I think this is ultimately sensible.

Catesby

this is transferring the right to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election (outside the new 5-year time-frame) from the PM to Parliament.

I'm no constitutional expert, but, strictly speaking, isn't this really transferring a power from the Sovereign to Parliament? Under the current set-up a PM can request a dissolution, but it's the Queen who grants it.

Fatbloke on tour

Love the reverse engineering in the proposal.

Main issue is how doe we tie the LibDems to the government?

Invent a 55% hurdle to generate a dissollution of parliament and try and get the media to swallow it as part of a move to fixed term parliaments.

The figures are so bare as to be shameful --

Cons = 47%
Non Cons = 53%

Lets make it 55% and we are in easy street.

And to think Dave the Rave spent 4 weeks warning about the weakness inherent in coalition governments, then he has to build one to get himself inside No.10 selling it as a good thing / new politics and then he introduces this little "fatal" flaw.

If Cleggy and Dave fall out then we have --

No Confidence Vote = Passed
Dissolution Vote = Falls

Repeat until QE2 gets fed up and asks someone else to try and cobble together a second rate, weaker coalition which then runs the same risks but with a lower level of robustness.

What happens if that fails and the dissolution vote is not passed?

Total chaos.

Naked politicing of the lowest order.

Jorge de la Bodega

Idon'tbelieveit,

Your point of view seems to bear up to examination and you are not alone in that view.

However, it's possible to envisage an attack on the government after Labour have elected a new leader - or rather, installed one at the behest of union paymasters in a very minatory campaign - backed up rolling strikes, and nationalist outcries.

Ronnie

Fog of hysteria.

We wanted strong and stable government, here it is proposed in the context of the current unstable environment. However, it makes no sense to have MP's living in constant fear of being recalled at the whim of 10% of their constituents. That certainly does not deliver strong government.

Catesby

@ Fathead

Main issue is how doe we tie the LibDems to the government?

Or perhaps the main issue is: how do we persuade the markets etc. that this coalition is stable and will last for 5 years unless something really serious crops up?

TrevorsDen

Various fat blokes and dicks from York think we are talking about outvoting a govt.

Its about dissolving parliament. We now have a fixed term parliament. If that is a good thing then just try and work out how to make it work. A fixed term parliament means effectively abolishing votes of confidence. This arrangement means that we can still have a dissolution vote - it just requires a 55% vote.

It also removes the PMs ability to dissolve parliament on a self serviong whim.

What a pathetic bunch of dorks to get whipped up over this.

Either fixed term is bad or good. If you like it - live with it.

Richard of York

@Catsby
The issue is how do the people persuade the members that they want a change.
If a party that gets a vote of no confidence cannot be voted out of office you leave the only option a Coup or peoples revolt. Very Dangerous gerrymandering.
Shameful abuse of power....and its only two days ......blimey.

Catesby

@ Richard of York

how do the people persuade the members that they want a change?

Same way as now.

As others have explained above - this measure is simply to give force to the new fixed-term rule by preventing a PM dissolving Parliament early.

The only circumstances in which this could be a problem is one in which Parliament first voted that it had no-confidence in HM Government but then voted against a dissolution. In that eventuality the PM would be in the same position Gordon Brown was between May 7th and 11th.

Safety valve: HM the Queen.

Jorge de la Frontera

People,

As a rule Richard of York's posts don't merit a response but his latest contribution is very revealing and speaks volumes about his own attitude to the democratic process.

He says "a coup" or "a people's revolt" is the only possible response to the imposition of conditions on no-confidence motions.

How very revealing this is of the thought processes of the Marxist left: moderate control is opposed by the threat of extremist violence.

Actually, I'm very keen on preserving civil liberties but the security services are going to have to watch out for the possibility of subversion by the alliance of wilder franchises on the political extremes.

AlexK

I am sorry that so many people are confusing Parliament with Government. This relates to the early forced dissolution of a fixed term Parliament and has nothing to do with the Govt or the passing of laws. If 50%+1 MPs decide to vote against the Con/Libs then the govt will fall and someone else will be required to form a new one, maybe the rainbow coalition. An election would not be called immediately unless 55% voted for a dissolution. If we have fixed term Parliaments then they are supposed to be exactly that, otherwise what is the point. However we could have 3 or 4 different govts within that one Parliament.
This actually is more democratic than our present system.

Paul Hawkins

Don't you love the socialist outrage? - from supporters of a party who allowed a seriously flawed postal voting system to continue unchecked and who spent 13 years bending the electoral boundaries so a Labour vote was actually worth more than anyone elses's. At the same time as using Orders in Council to subvert Parliamentary scrutiny - even with a majority!

Fat Bloke's previous pontifications seem somewhat thin on this subject as do Dick of the North's.

Hypocrites both.If Broon had tried the same thing would you have protested? No chance.

I suggest we wait until the detail is presented -there are enough MPs to vote this down or get it amended if it is flawed.

Sadly a scenario the previous regime were not subject to, more's the pity.

davidk

By God, this muddle just keeps on getting worse.

50%+ was good enough for a few hundred years, but now we have this dangerous toying with parliamentary procedures on dissolution. Why on earth do we have to have such a Draconian locking in of the "coalition" with Cleggover? We face getting a deficit down, not Nazi hordes eyeing up an invasion.

Cameroon and Cleggover need to step back from this one. Is this the New Politics or the New Order?

Fatbloke on tour

Failed Blogger @ 3.14

Read my comments again you numpty.
The whole issue reeks of self interest.

Flawed at the most basic level.
At least the MP's will be guaranteed 5 yrs salary once they are elected.

Oh well I suppose we have a recall mechanism to fall back on!

Shambles, poor governmemnt followed by weak government followed by what?

Fatbloke on tour

Catesby @ 3.12pm

Shroud waving of the highest order.
Oh the markets, the all powerful markets, these would be the people who never saw the Credit Crunch coming and hid behind the sofa until the state sorted out the issue.

Brilliant.
Half the "markets" made money and kept quiet.
half the markets lost money and got the taxpayer to bail them out.

And now we have to bend the knee to their every whim.

Time to start building that wall ...

Publius

Actually WillJ and TrevorsDen appear to be correct on this, and my initial concern was overdone.

This move is intended to *weaken* the executive and *strengthen* parliament. It has been inserted, one assumes, at the behest of the LibDems. It protects their coalition and prevents the PM (in this case Cameron) from ditching them and going to the country when it suits him, and thus doing the dirty on the LibDems.

If the governing ministry loses a vote of confidence (50% + 1) then it resigns, as has always been the case.

But if the PM wants an early dissolution thus an early election, then 55% of the house must agree. He can't just do it to suit himself.

Get it? If not, think about it and read some of the more intelligent comments on Iain Martin's site, where this is explained.

paulg

The 55% rule is being implemented so politicians can bring Down a government, without the need for them to seek a mandate from the people to form a new government.

This is a fundamental erosion of the peoples right to choose a government: yet again, we see how the lib-democrats dispise democracy of the people by the people.

Inserting their view of democracy of the politicians by the politicians.

New politics always involves moving from: democracy to, oligarchy then to tyranny, its a cycle and whigs ride it straight to oligarchy.

If thats progress you can keep it.

Catesby

@ Fatbloke at 4.06

The only reason we have to worry about the markets is because we have for some years - thanks to your friend Gordon Brown - been living on borrowed money and cannot hope to pay this year's bills without borrowing some more.

If you don't want to give 2 hoots what the bank manager thinks, then it's easy: live within your salary.

Your attitude is all too common among socialists. First you run up an enormous overdraft without any thought for the future.... then you whine like a baby when the bank says it won't lend you any more until you start behaving sensibly.

Publius

An addendum to my previous post.

Ultimately this is a question about fixed term parliaments.

Personally I don't much like the idea, but if you want them, then you have to have a mechanism that stops the PM calling an election at a moment of his own choosing.

Otherwise any fixed term parliament rule becomes meaningless.

Richard of York

@AlexK
You are wrong...sorry

If 51% vote down the conservatives they still can't vote for a disolution (55% is more than all the opposition together)...ie the Conservatives remain in power without a majority or a mandate. So long as they don't have to pass another law or budget they can sit and draw their salary until the end of the Parliament. If that happened in the first year they could govern for four more years unless the Queen steps in thus forcing her hand.... its outrageous.
If Gordon Brown had proposed this you would be outside Downing Street with your red face and shouting foul.

Yosemite Sam

It is sad that Mr Hoskins is joining in the condemnation of this proposal without really understanding it (I have read Mr Martin's article and he does not understand it either). At present, the power to request a dissolution is the PM's alone. He can choose the moment to his own advantage. Even if there was a vote of no confidence, the PM does not have to seek dissolution, he could still attempt to form another administration. This would not be so far-fetched either. Suppose Cameron had formed a minority administration which had been defeated on an immediate vote of no confidence, then he still would have been at liberty to form a coalition or a supply and confidence arrangement if he could. And that might have been possible. This proposal takes the power of dissolution from the PM and gives it to Parliament - a very democratic thing to do and one that is absolutely necessary if fixed terms are enshrined in Statute. Is 55% the correct trigger point for a dissolution? I am open to be persuaded either way, I can see some arguments in favour some against. But the proposal is not gerrymandering, nor antidemocratic, nor anything to do with votes of no confidence - it is a necesary part of the proposed statute. I hope that the Spectator is not going to to be looking for every nit picking point (and in this case incorrect point) to criticise the new government.

Snowman

The one with the rhyming name and his obese friend should read AlexK @ 3.50. He explains it clearly, even their feeble brains should be able to absorb it.

The 55% dissolution level is eminently sensible, and would accompany any coalition Government if we were to switch from the FPTP. Without such a safeguard, the great unwashed would have to vote often, getting fed up with it.

Naomi Muse

Either governments are given a defined term as per the USA or a vote of no confidence trips the mechanism into resignation and dissolution.

Can't have it both ways.

Lizzy

People are getting carried away this is part of the constiutional reform. At present just the PM can dissolve Parliament now it has to be voted on by 55% of said Parliament.
Tin Foil Hat panic please make it clear it is not to affect the vote of no confidence and is wicked to make out that is so.

TomTom

Either governments are given a defined term as per the USA

Do read the US Constitution Article by Article before making fatuous comments. The Presidency has a different term from The Senate and that is elected by thirds, and the House is elected for two years.

If The Commons had a third of seats up for election every two years it might be feasible, but the power vested in The Executive in Britain is far greater than in the USA - especially to appoint Judges and prolong its own life.

The Executive is able to legislate using EU Directives and circumvent Parliament, the Us President cannot do this nor can he bind Congress by using Secondary Legislation to fill in the blanks on Enabling Acts from Congress.

Britain has Arbitrary Government

GDT

Having read some of the more enlightened posts here explaining the reasons and mechanisms of the measure....I am happy.

AlexK

@Richard of York
You have totally missed the point. You are right that a dissolution could not be forced in your example. However the purpose of govt is to pass laws, budgets and to govern. Secondly the rest of the House could pass laws over the head of the Tory minority and withold their salary,offices, entry to Westminster etc. This would leave them with their red faces banging on the gates of no 10 not me. Yet again you confuse Parliament with Government. Sorry.

Kevyn Bodman

It is an intersting point that has been raised by a number of commenters that the proposed 55% rule is im fact an increase in Parliament's power and a reduction of the PM's power.

I like that aspect of it;but I'm still not happy about introducing an 'effective' majority that is greater than a simple majority.

So how about removing the PM'S right to request a dissolution and giving that right to the Speaker?

Now, I offer this as a discussion point.I haven't thought it through yet because I'm watching the cricket.
But I would be interested to know what others here think.

RKing

Well done Cameron you've outsmarted all the left and right wing dorks!!

John Wilkes

If anyone is still reading these comments and wanted final proof of quite how stupid and ill-informed R of Y is - doesn't he know that the fundamental rule of our parliamentary democracy (constitutional monarchy) require a Finance Act (budget) every year and if that isn't passed all government funding comes to an end. That has been the case since about the Civil War and the "Glorious Revolution".

TGF UKIP

A large slab of the electorate may have rumbled him but you lot are forgetting who and what the Silver Spoon Spiv really is. Dave's sole priorities are Dave, his close mates, as his instinctive nepotism bears witness, and his donors.

Inside this bit of gerrymandering you will also find tucked away the Save the Dave provision, touted before the GE, to save his hide from the revenge of the Stupid Party for his uselessness as a Leader.

I look forward to a rebellion by the parliamentary Tory Right who owe Dave and the Clique nothing more than a bloody nose.

A similar rebellion by the Libs would set the scene nicely.

Richard of York

@John Wilkes
Why change it from a simple majority what is the purpose?
It is Gerrymandering plain and simple.
Ther is no need for a change other than to benefit the Conservatives.

Publius

@TGF UKIP
You too fail to get it. Shut up and read up about it.

paulg

@ROY, thats not the way I see it, it would effectively mean, the lib-dems could walk over to the other side of the house and form a new government with labour without having to go to the country.

This gives them a lock on a larger party and a veto to get their own way.

As we know a whore never changes her ways.

Michael Booth

This is not a good move for democracy. WE criticised the last government for gerrymandering and emasculating the House of Commons - we must do the same with this government. We should have no truck with 'Enabling Laws' of any kind, no matter how they are dressed up.

Publius

@Michael Booth
"emasculating the House of Commons"

It does the opposite. It strengthens the HOC and weakens the executive. Read up about it properly.

At present, the PM can just go to the Queen and say, "I'd like a dissolution" and he gets one. He has to consult no one else at all. If that is the case, then fixed term parliaments mean nothing.

If you want fixed term parliaments however, then you need to restrict this prerogative of the PM, and allow parliament itself to decide whether to override the fixed term rule.

Gannic

I'm sorry but I simply don't agree - this is a necessary reform if you also go to fixed term parliaments. Why?

If you have fixed terms, the government is no longer allowed to call an lelection at it's own choosing. However, the opposition still is able to call votes of no confidence...thus effectively transferring the power to call an election over to the opposition at a time of their own strategic bonus. As such, a government would be forever looking over its shoulder at opinion polls, and never take hard or unpopular decisions for fear of an electoral backlash followed by a cynical move from the opposition to call a vote of no confidence.

Not that I think fixed terms a necessary though either......

Richard of York

@Publius
The PM has to have the right to dissolve Parliament.....It is he not his party that is appointed by the Queen. It is with her authority he holds office and no-one elses.
You could have the situation where the coalition partners, dissaffected members and opposition veto bills but hold the PM hostage by not voting for dissolution.

Publius

@ROY
"The PM has to have the right to dissolve Parliament....."

-- Fine. Then you have to ditch the idea of fixed term parliaments. That's ok with me. But you can't have the one without the other. Geddit?

I thought you lefties were all in favour of stuff like fixed term parliaments.

Publius

@Gannic
"thus effectively transferring the power to call an election over to the opposition at a time of their own strategic bonus."

-- No. You are wrong. Think about it.

GDT

Lord Adonis and Lord Falconer seem to be the two main Labour trolls rolled out to complain about this. Funny two unelected politicians complaining about abuse of democracy. Adonis was never even an MP. Rank hypocrisy!

Michael Booth

@Publius

Point taken, and I have read up on it and I agree you are correct - but OUCH! That was a bit of a put down. Mmmmm will have to watch my Ps and Qs a bit more.