The gathering storm over the 55 percent plan

David Lindsay

The Tory split opens up. A split over the horrendous fifty-five per cent rule, a rule as alien to Westminster as is the secret ballot once again to be employed in electing a Speaker, and a rule appropriate, if at all, to the vastly more immature institutions where such things currently obtain.

And a split led by David Davis.

Electoral reform is on its way, and a proper Tory party, Whig-free at last, could benefit from it, as surely as a proper Labour party, free at least from cultural no less than from economic Marxists, could, should, must and will benefit from it.

charles hercock

Yesterdays man staking a claim.Ignore

davidk

It's an abomination. I'm staggered Cameron has the nerve to even begin to defend a measure that tears up the rule book on dissolution.

We ARE the party of tradition...aren't we?

Dave

I didn't hear a squeak out of David Davis during the election campaign but within five minutes of a Tory/Lib Dem government being formed he's shouting his mouth off against his own party.

No wonder Cameron won't have him in his cabinet. He's untrustworthy, undisciplined, and egotistical.

General Zod

I don't think Cameron would be remotely unhappy at losing the 55% rule. It was a sop to the Liberals. Without it, he is free to go back to the country when he chooses.

Simon Stephenson

David Lindsay : 6.31pm

"Electoral reform is on its way, and a proper Tory party, Whig-free at last, could benefit from it, as surely as a proper Labour party, free at least from cultural no less than from economic Marxists, could, should, must and will benefit from it."

So you believe that the Labour Party is not irredeemable, then? To me this is such a remote possibility that it's futile even thinking about it. Left of centre rationalism won't come out of this Labour Party. All that will happen, probably successfully, will be another bamboozling act in which Labour is elected on a series of expectations which the Party leaders have carefully nurtured, but which they have always known they have no intention of fulfilling.

Just like 1997.

Publius

Mr Forsyth.
Is there a "gathering storm", or are you just talking it up?

I mean, you say there's a gathering storm, but you don't really give any evidence. Do you have any?

Richard of York

I agree with David.....Lindsay

Tom Pride

The problem is the unrestrained Sovereignty of Parliament, unchecked or balanced by a written Constitution – I.E. a set of rules which Parliament must abide by and pass legislation in accordance with and which cannot be altered by Parliament without some form of “super-majority” and / or by referendum of the people.

Hence fixed term Parliaments would ordinarily to be prescribed in a Constitution and would be thus unalterable by a simple majority in Parliament. What is being proposed is a fudge, necessitated by the need to structure the Coalition.

I do not see bad faith here but it is inappropriate to make Constitutional changes in this type of way which is why the naysayers have solid grounds for objecting.

The solution – give us a proper Written Constitution – fixed term Parliaments, Second Chamber reform, Referenda on changes and the surrender of powers by Parliament, devolution fix, checks on the Powers of the Commons, defined inalienable Liberties of Englishmen, and so on.

The last 13 years were the warning about not having one – get on with it now.

TomTom

How did we get a 5 Year Parliament fixed term ? The Septennial Act gave us 7 Years until 1911 when it became Five; but most countries with Fixed Terms have Four Years.

Why not simply amend the 1911 Act, or was it simply the intention to prolong the life of the current government ? what next, The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 ?

Walsingham's Ghost

"It is also hard to imagine that a man who picks his fights so carefully would have marched so far up the hill if he was not confident that he had a critical number of foot soldiers behind him."

Ha ha ha...

The last time he marched confidently up the hill it not only cost him his place in the Shadow Cabinet but his political reputation as well.

If this is his latest big idea to establish himself as 'a rebel to watch', then I fear he is in danger of becoming the next Michael Heseltine - where people remember his name but nobody can remember why anymore...

WG

Patrick

As a Labour party member I would support fixed term parliaments (though four years seems more acceptable to me), even though it seems against party interests. But the problem with this proposal is that it has been fixed in, and defined by, party interest.

Better to change the law so that it reflects the rules in the Scottish parliament - ie the clock starts ticking as soon as the vote is lost. Or simply stipulate, as is done in Scandinavian countries, that while an election can be held early it is only for the unelapsed time of the parliament.

Either of those rules would not be framed by party advantage.

David Ossitt

“Having called the 55 percent rule ‘just a terrible formula for government’ it is hard to see how he can support the measure.”

He is right; it is a wrong move, he will not support this and I believe that Cameron, though he will not say so, will nevertheless be happy to back down on this.

We have managed thus far without a written constitution; let us not follow the arch-wrecker Blair in changing all that is good about England.

djw2009

I would like to go back to our original system in England: annual Parliaments.

JONNY

Davis has a terrible track record of going off the handle and ending up looking a highly principled fool.

If he wants to kill off the Coalition, maybe he can tell us what he wants to put in its place.

Will J

What happened to David Cameron's idea of requiring an election within 6 months of a change of government outside of an election? Has it been shelved? It wouldn't seem to fit togther well with fixed term Parliaments.

DavidDP

I started out sceptical about this, but the utterly inept arguments of those speaking out against it have had more of an effect than those speaking in favour of it. Not least the consistent confusion, in evidence by Davis, of no confidence votes and dissolution or the belief that this gives more power to the PM when it arguably does not.

In the end, they are attacking the wrong thing - the issue is fixed term parliaments. If you are for them, then a supermajority clause is a necessity. If you are not, then focus your ire on that, rather than the 55%.

David Lindsay

Simon Stephenson - the Labour Party, as such, is finished. So is the Conservative Party. So are the Lib Dems. Leftovers from the twentieth century, and in any case only capable of being sustained by First Past The Post, which is on the way out.

But, as part of a much larger movement, see here:

Taking full advantage of electoral reform, of fixed-term Parliaments, and of House of Lords reform, we organise to ensure that at least one fifth of members of the House of Commons and of elected members of any new second chamber in 2015, and at least one third in 2020, will give a voice to:

- those whose priorities include the Welfare State, workers’ rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, public ownership, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, and a base of real property for every household to resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State, while having a no less absolute commitment to any or all of the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, civil liberties, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, grammar schools, traditional moral and social values, controlled importation and immigration, and a realistic foreign policy;

- those who are aware of, who understand, who value and who draw on the Radical Liberal, Tory populist, trade union, co-operative, Christian Socialist, Social Catholic and Distributist, and other roots of the Labour Movement, rejecting cultural Marxism no less comprehensively than they reject economic Marxism, and vice versa;

- those who, with Herbert Morrison, “have never seen any conflict between Labour and what are known as the middle classes”, and who, with Aneurin Bevan, denounce class war, calling instead for “a platform broad enough for all to stand upon” and for the making of “war upon a system, not upon a class”;

- the alliance of the traditional Right and the traditional Left against the neoconservative war agenda and its assaults on liberty at home, including against any new Cold War with either or both of Russia and China;

- the socially and culturally conservative, strongly patriotic tendencies within the British Left’s traditional electoral base;

- those who recognise that we cannot deliver the welfare provisions and the other public services that our people have rightly come to expect unless we know how many people there are in this country, unless we control immigration properly, and unless we insist that everyone use spoken and written English to the necessary level;

- those who refuse to allow climate change to be used as an excuse to destroy or prevent secure employment, to drive down wages or working conditions, to arrest economic development around the world, to forbid the working classes and non-white people from having children, to inflate the fuel prices that always hit the poor hardest, or to restrict either travel opportunities or a full diet to the rich; and

- those who would co-operate as closely as possible with the forces of provincial, rural, protectionist, church-based, conservative, mind-our-own-business Toryism, forces set free by electoral reform from tendencies variously metropolitan, urban, capitalist, secular, libertarian and make-the-world-anew.

We also organise to ensure the appointment of such candidates to the House of Lords.

"The forces of provincial, rural, protectionist, church-based, conservative, mind-our-own-business Toryism, forces set free by electoral reform from tendencies variously metropolitan, urban, capitalist, secular, libertarian and make-the-world-anew" - that means you.

Judy

The very fact of egocentric grandstanders like David Davis getting operatic about this makes it all too obvious why this change of majority for dissolving Parliament is needed. There are too many would be Prima Donnas who would be only too happy to place their suddenly discovered self-appointed Conscience of the Nation role in the way of government survival on any issue that gets across their political amour-propre.

The public will not be impressed by what is really a heap of Westminster village/anorak self-importance dressed up as constitutional outrage. If these characters had previously made some sort of fuss about the Scottish Parliament two thirds requirement or the foisting on us of an EU 8 member constituency proportional representation voting system, they might have a smidgeon of credibility. As it is, they don't. And nor, on this issue, does the Spectator.

Good luck to David Cameron. It's hard enough to be dependent on coalition with the LibDems to establish a stable government. I think he's done that with more skill, daring and imagination than I would have thought possible. And I've never regarded myself as a Cameron fan.

Give the man a chance.

JohnPage

Agree completely with Walsingham's Ghost. This blog post is built on a fallacy. Davis's ego is way greater than his judgement.

Snowman

One’s hard put to decipher Davis’s take on matters of governance. Does anyone recall his shouting from the hilltops when the Lisbon Treaty, much worse for the country than this ‘formula for Government’, sailed through without the promised referendum, irrevocably it seems? More to the point, could anyone imagine that Cameron, abandoned by the confused party and hence deprived of a simple majority, would keep on governing without being able to push through any legislation that still needs half plus one to pass? The punishment at the ballot box would be fatal for the Tories.

If the rebellion is a proxy for an opposition to the Government or its make-up, it’s silly and undignified. The 55% rule can be voted down by simple majority.

Yosemite Sam

I am somewhat discouraged at the number of loud-mouthed Tory MP's, as well as the number of loud-mouthed (as well as hypocritical) Labour people, sounding off about this issue. There is a one sentence proposal in the coalition agreement. Judging by comments all round, most of which are ill-informed, this is the end of the world as we know it. The proposed legislation is not yet available to be scrutinised (and the 'binding resolution' will not - can not - include the 55% provision). I expect Labour to try to make political capital; but why are Tory MP's making trouble when they have not seen the legislative proposal? Even if they do not like fixed-term parliaments, or a super majority for dissolution, cannot they conduct a reasonably argued debate without screaming armageddon. What a depressing prospect we face.

NicholasV

So the man responsible for ferocious whipping and forcing through of the Maastricht Bill is working himself up over this p*iddling measure. Talk about camels and gnats. This, or something like it, will be needed if there is a move to fixed term parliaments. The Government does, however, need to explain itself better. All in due course, I imagine...but proof, if we needed it, that debates in the House mean zilch if MPs are rushing to make up their minds on the basis of a line on the back of an envelope.
If the coalition is to work, restraint, good will and discipline are needed within the parties as well as between them. Genuine issues of principle will arise but discussion of this proposed "rule" has shown once again that the characteristic of many MPs is big mouth, little thought, vanity and the rancour of thwarted ambition for place. Probably it was ever thus, it goes with the "breed".

LondonStatto

Is Davis really so thick he doesn't understand the proposed rule?

George Laird

Dear All

Aren’t we living in a surreal world, Tories standing up for democracy!

This 55% rule is nonsense, it is undemocratic.

David Cameron should have given Clegg his word, if such a thing has any actual meaning in Parliament about his crew.

The arguments laid out in this article seem fair enough.

Why create a storm in a tea cup when an understanding could be reached.

No point fighting a battle when there is an uncertain outcome.

Having got into power, the Tories should wise up, they aren’t the messiahs, north of the border in Scotland; they are pariahs.

Everyone should wind their necks in before everything falls apart.

It's country before party thingy.

I agree with David Davis but the timimg is lousy.

The solution to a problem is not another problem.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

denis cooper

For the sake of reassuring the markets I'd be prepared to swallow the 55% rule for the duration of this Parliament, but there should be a sunset clause in the Act so that it automatically drops from 55% to a simple majority on the same day that this Parliament is dissolved.

TrevorsDen

Another excuse for the loony tunes to come out of their holes, both on this blog (both above and below the 'comments' button, and in parliament,

If 55% is so bad then why has no-one complained about 66% in Scotland? 66% introduced by Labour.

What is so conceptually wrong with calling for 55% for a dissolution? It might make political problems if we have no dissolution, but we still have a parliament - we still have a democracy.

We have it because we have a fixed term we have it to ensure a coalition govt. Both these issues apply in Scotland (where currently we have a minority govt).

Just how thick do people have to be? Davis ahas already show gross lack judgement --- and its clear the press are desperate now they do not have anything to write about. .

In2minds

"It is also hard to imagine that a man who picks his fights so carefully", indeed, that's what's so good about Davis. I say that without his stand on civil liberties the Tory party would have drifted away from this subject leaving it to the liberal/left.

Commentator

No-one has complained about Scotland because its Parliament has far fewer powers over far fewer people. Hence the issue is trivial north of the border.

Fatbloke on tour

JF

Have to admit, DD is my favourite Tory.
Mentalist politics but he has a back story to die for and he has made his own way in parliament.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the new coalition has produced an unusual amoumt of loose threads in a very short time.

I think DD is just waiting to find the right one and then he will pull with all his might.

As noted above he may be a bit of a mentalist but I think others will flock to his cause if he raises the flag of Maggie / True believers / Estate agents and not estate owners.

Dave the Rave only leads Clan Cameron.
His idea of parachuting in a payroll vote, more Arnhem than Crete, means he is at the mercy of a party he is not comfortable with and doesn't understand.

Consequently Cleggy and his Orange Bookers third of the LibDems are almost a perfect fit and a very welcome boost to Dave the Rave political tribe.

Dave the Rave, closer to Cleggy than Sniffy -- Discus?

Which party will splinter first -- Tories or LibDems?

However it does not take too much imagination to see how the upper middle class establishment will rally around the Tweedle Clegg / Tweedle Cam axis. Add that to a supportive press and we really would be living in interesting times.

Rabid Tories + UKIP = Match made in heaven part 2?

Rod

What does David Lindsay mean by 'Whig free at last' ( I ask with genuine curiousity )

rod

who reads all this idle chatter?

denis cooper

The Commons are still elected by FPTP, which tends towards two leading parties and a trail of smaller parties, which in turn usually leads to a single party government with an overall majority and no real prospect of forming an alternative government. The Scottish Parliament is elected by PR, which tends towards a more even spread of members across more parties which in turn more usually leads to a coalition government with a greater prospect of forming an alternative coalition government if that one falls. That's why the two thirds rule for an early dissolution is more appropriate for the Scottish Parliament than it would normally be for the Commons; it pushes the parties to try to form an alternative coalition, or accept a minority government, before resorting to a fresh election. However the present circumstances with a hung Commons and a fragile gilts market are exceptional, which is why I'd be prepared to accept the 55% rule just for the duration of this Parliament.

Barry

"One way out of this situation would be for the government to say that while it remains committed to the idea that prematurely ending a fixed term parliament must require a super-majority, it is open to the question of what that super majority should be."

Regardless of the percentage of the super majority, unless the changes also include preventing the Government from resigning (off their own bat or because of losing a vote of confidence by 50%+1) it won't actually prevent the PM/Government from forcing an election - get the Government to resign without the PM recommending a successor and the Queen would dissolve Parliament.

As it is (imo) an ineffective measure I'm suspicious why they want to do it.

Verity's Casita

When certain grudgy Englishmen want to sound dismissive, yet elevate themselves at the same time, why do they so frequently use an Americanism instead of our native wit? Women don't do this. Men do. They want to sound American.

Why?

Do they think Americans sound more authoritative? Is it that they know that Britain is no longer the boss, so they scamper over to try to ally themselves with the new(ish) boss?

Personally, I think it's frequent enough to be named a syndrome. I think it should be on the NHS, along with ADD and dyslexia and all those other newly-discovered syndromes.

Trevors Den writes: "Another excuse for the loony tunes to come out ...".

Of course, "Loony Tunes" was famously used by President Reagan drawing on American cartoon characters. Before that, the phrase wasn't known in Britain.

strapworld

No doubt David Davis will now repeat his expensive, time wasting and career ruining path of resigning and standing on a "NO 55% Rule" slogan.

The man is very much yesterday's man and is probably hoping for a new right wing party to be forged by disgruntled tories who cannot realise they LOST the election.

The fact that opinion polls show the vast majority of people supporting the coalition will not wash with the self opinionated conservative MP's such as Mr davis.

He should learn the true meaning of LOYALTY

oldtimer

This 55% idea, if passed into law, will join other wheezes, like PFI and paying MPs extra expenses instead of salary, to get round awkward issues at the time.

They seemed like a good idea at the time but, being open to abuse, they were abused. Such is human nature and the nature of the political animal that inhabits the HoC.

Much is made of Scotlands 66% rule - but Scotland does not really count as it has limited powers. Look at national assemblies elsewhere and try to find one which relies on anything other than a simple majority as an expression of will.

Verityred

Obviously the attack line from the relocated Labour bunker (garden shed somewhere) given the predictable appearance of their lickspittles and attendant freaks. Labour were always going to be very sore losers indeed.

denis cooper

@ Barry - Ostensibly the two partners want to give each other legally binding guarantees in order to reassure the markets about the stability of their coalition.

It would no longer be possible for Cameron to call a snap election without Clegg's agreement, because he'd have to get a motion through the Commons rather than being able to just ask the Queen himself as her Prime Minister. With only 47% of the MPs the Tories could not force through that motion by themselves. Conversely with the 55% threshold if the Liberal Democrats broke from the coalition the Tories could block such a motion and insist on trying to continue as a minority government.

However the Liberal Democrats are also taking the opportunity to put in place some of the measures which would be appropriate for a system of two fully elected parliamentary chambers, both elected separately by PR and with fixed and staggered terms. Obviously it's impossible to have regular "mid-term" elections for the second chamber if the first chamber has variable terms and it's never certain in advance when the mid-point of its current term will be.

Vulture

@strapworld:

I know memories are short, but it was only as few weeks ago on the verge of the election that you wrote post after post here urging the ousting and/or resignation of Dave. (Quite rightly, IMHO)>

And now you are lecturing DD on the virtues of loyalty to the man you wanted out? What's going on?

The fact that DD is a monumentally vain creature of no judgement at all does not mean that he's wrong all the time, and on this issue I think he's right.

denis cooper

@ Barry - Ostensibly the two partners want to give each other legally binding guarantees in order to reassure the markets about the stability of their coalition.

It would no longer be possible for Cameron to call a snap election without Clegg's agreement, because he'd have to get a motion through the Commons rather than being able to just ask the Queen himself as her Prime Minister. With only 47% of the MPs the Tories could not force through that motion by themselves. Conversely with the 55% threshold if the Liberal Democrats broke from the coalition the Tories could block such a motion and insist on trying to continue as a minority government.

However the Liberal Democrats are also taking the opportunity to put in place some of the measures which would be appropriate for a system of two fully elected parliamentary chambers, both elected separately by PR and with fixed and staggered terms. Obviously it's impossible to have regular "mid-term" elections for the second chamber if the first chamber has variable terms and it's never certain in advance when the mid-point of its current term will be.

Fatbloke on tour

Love all the talk about how the 55% rule will stop either of the two coalition partners running out of the agreement and forcing a new election.

The two parties are now dead, the coalition is now the thinking, breathing entity in charge.

55% of 650 = 358
How many MP's does the coalition have?
Blantant gerrymandering of parliament to allow the "coalition" to call the shots.

They can force a new election at any time if it suits them.

Upper middle class right wing establishments dream = Nice dog boiling party without all the estate agent nutters in the Tory party and the beardy weirdo outriders of the LibDems.

Dave the Rave and Cleggy are so close they could be clones.
They are closer to each other than anyother pair of mainstream politicians in the UK, even the Millibrothers are further apart than Tweedle Cam and Tweedle Clegg.

Interestingly for the Tories, Dave the Rave is closer to the leader of the LibDems than he is to Sniffy or Blojo.

denis cooper

@ oldtimer - In some countries there can't be an early dissolution of a legislative chamber even with the support of 100% of its members, let alone a simple majority, because their terms are prescribed in a codified constitution.

The US, for example: Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution lays down that Representatives shall be elected every second year, while Section 3 lays down that Senators shall serve six years with a third being elected every second year, and apart from resigning or dying there's nothing that the members of either chamber can do to vary those timings without first getting the Constitution amended.

That's the kind of final constitutional destination which is envisaged by many Liberal Democrats, and this proposal represents two small steps in that general direction.

Just as Cameron is using the expenses scandal as a pretext to cut the number of MPs, when his real purpose it to intimidate and coerce his own MPs with the prospect that troublemakers will find themselves left without a seat, so the Liberal Democrats are using the current arithmetic in the Commons as a pretext to introduce changes which would be more compatible with their ultimate constitutional vision than with the present constitutional arrangements.

Simon Too

I have seen a lot of writing about the 55% rule, and it does seem suspect. On the other hand, there are ways it could be framed that might make at least temporary sense. However, I have not seen a clear statement of just what is proposed.

Can anyone say where the exact proposal is set out (first hand), or is this a generalised idea, or even just a kite that is being flown.

Noa Zrk

rod
May 18th, 2010 12:31am

who reads all this idle chatter?

You, me lost souls condemned to wander the empty electronic halls of the Spektator until their penance is done, journos (of course)?

Rod

thank you dear Noa Zrk, you've given me hope in the system.
Don't think David Lindsay answered my question though !