Are the Lib Dems so stupid that they will throw away their power with this blatant 55% proposition?

[HerBeatitude]

is anyone else following this with a mixture of hilarity, outrage and utter disbelief? 55% shenanigans here

It seems such a blatant attack on the rule of parliament and I wonder if the Lib Dems are idiot enough to swallow it? It would leave them impotent in this coalition. And if there were a vote of no confidence in the government, it wouldn't matter - the government could stay on, in spite of the wishes of parliament. Will they really push this through? Have just been watching it on Newsnight and it's unclear if this is being proposed just for this parliament or as a permanent rule.

Ha! Even Melanie Phiips agrees with me!

Find myself on the same side of an argument as Melanie Philips is a little hard to take. But yes, it's bizarre to think they can gerrymander the system like this.

two words
Sold Out
and four words
Sold Down the River

LOL Edam yes it's years since I've agreed with MP about anything...

um, wasn't it drafted by a LibDem academic beofre the election?

it's 66% in Scotland.

it's dead normal with fixed parliaments.

in fact it's low.

This story is a whole load of hot air. It just shows how much this country and its politics needs to grow up.

grow up, become more informed, stop swallowing murdoch press lines/daily mail lines/metro lines whole etc etc etc etc...thoroughly depressing on the whole gaelic.

I don't think it's hot air at all. why is it hot air?

cause fixed parliaments are a very good thing (not allowing a party/party leader to call an election when he has geared everything to her best advantage etc). and you can't do it without having a percentage below which it can't be dissolved. and this percentage (55%) is really very low compared to many other (healthy) democracies that have fixed parliaments.

AND a VONC still works (has to be twice iirc).

so it is a total non-story (if you are into a greater level of democracy in this country).

the tories would never agree to it under normal circs, and it is a very good thing that current circs make it in their interests...cause it is also in the national interest because it is more democratic!

hth

VONC (vote of no confidence).

you need policywonk to come and explain this really, she the expert.

Because the policy is designed to protect the stability of the coalition. It means that the Tories can't just pull the plug when they fancy it and call a snap general election.

Parliament has never had the power to dissolve itself - this is a huge change in favour of Parliament and democracy. Until now we the electorate have been completely beholden to the will of a PM trying to protect his own arse by calling an election at the time that suits him and his party the best.

Both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments have similar arrangements - overseen by the previous Government - and those arrangement require 66% of members to vote for dissolution. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition has set the threshold as low as it can possibly be to be workable.

what gaelic said. again.

"Because the policy is designed to protect the stability of the coalition"

Well, I am not sure that is laudable. If a government is not stable without need of a constitutional change to make it so then, well, it's not stable and should be replaced with something more stable.

And, of course, the change will be permanent and won't only apply for this coalition. It will "protect" any government hereafter. And that ISN'T a good thing.

If there is a vote of no confidence with a majority of MPs then why protect that government? in those circumstances it is not appropriate to prop up that government imo

I disagree. Not hot air. Genuine objections to changes that might make sense to some in the present particular circumstances but could/will have ongoing consequences.

"Both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments have similar arrangements - overseen by the previous Government - and those arrangement require 66% of members to vote for dissolution"

and?? not sure what your point is here. I think that these are not good precedents tbh.

the idea is that the term is fixed, the government is not.

If the Lib Dems withdraw their support, the Tories will be unable to govern, because they do not have a majority.

At this point, there are two options:

vote of no confidence - intended as a last resort, because the term is supposed to be fixed length

OR

the parties will try and form a new coalition

Obviously if the Lib Dems withdraw their support, the Tories are completely fucked (as a minority) to implement their policy agenda; the idea in response to that is not to go running to the polls (remember that nobody voted for this particular coalition in the first place, so there's no logical reason why we should get a vote on a different coalition), but try and form a new government.

If no government can be formed, MPs of all parties will pass a vote for dissolution and we will have an election.

It's so ironic that so many of the electorate wanted a hung Parliament yet now it's here they can't handle the consequences. European countries who have more advanced political systems must be laughing their socks off at us right now.

Protecting the stability of a coalition is a good thing for the country, and it counteracts the silly suggestion of the OP that the 55% rule is a bad thing for the Lib Dems. And in the future, if we get a majority Government again, it is also a good thing that Parliament, and not the PM, decides when to call an election. A PM has never been obliged to dissolve Parliament on the back of a vote of no confidence.

.... And, of course, the change will be permanent and won't only apply for this coalition. It will "protect" any government hereafter. And that ISN'T a good thing.

But no law (assuming this becomes law) is permanent. Laws can be amended and repealed.

Fixed terms aren't about ensuring stability, they're about removing power from the executive (which in the current system can call elections to suit itself). They've been a plank of electoral reform for, like, forever.

AFAIK this policy has yet to be fully fleshed out. The crucial questions IMO are:

1. What happens after a VONC, and specifically, will there be a safety valve providing for the dissolution of parliament after a specified time (usually 28 days) if no party can form a government; and
2. The 55% threshold is actually too low, because it will allow the libcon coalition to dissolve parliament at will, thus torpedoing the raison d'etre of fixed terms.

There's nothing wrong with either of those precedents. Both are working away quite happily (whether or not one happens to like the parties in power) and neither country has descended into chaos.

Doesn't matter how many times you hand over to me, I'm still going to bed

Think SomeGuy has our back on this one