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.

The LDs agreed to everything far too hastily in their bid for power. No guarantee of PR, this very suspect '55%' change. I think they've committed political suicide, frankly, and won't last past the next election. Not that I'm upset about it particularly, but they've really not thought this through and the consequences for their party are going to be dire.

argh! there is nothing suspect about it!!! vis below!

I don't undesrssstasnd sswhy people want stability so much.

Stability comes from having a majority in parliament and if not, from working reasonably with other parties and not trying to push through goggle-eyed unreasonable legislation. If a government destabilises itself by trying to push through crap legislation, then it should fall. I don't want strong stable government, i want government that can't push through rampant legislation which most of the country doesn't want.

Of course there are advantages to having fixed term parliaments. But the advantage of being able to get rid of the government when they've gone goggle-eyed (as they all do left in long enough), irrespective of the fact that its term hasn't yet come to an end, seems pretty good to me.

I realise that this thread has been dead for 36 hours, but the level of misunderstanding among the public, MPs and even some so-called lawyers is really annoying me. Now I'm no expert, but my understanding here is as follows.

None of us voted for this particular coalition government - a fact that many Labour voters are still banging on about day after day. So there is absolutely no reason why Parliament should be dissolved simply because this particular coalition fails (which I hope it doesn't). Should the coalition fail then the Tories would possibly try to run with a minority Government - if that failed DC would be forced to resign. Then the parties would try to form a new coalition. If that failed, then, and only then, would it be appropriate for Parliament to be dissolved and a General Election be called.

This from the BBC News website:

"Professor Gavin Phillipson, who teaches constitutional law at Durham University said a prime minister who lost a confidence motion would still have to resign.

"This won't stop MPs being able to bring down an unpopular government, just as they can now."

The 55% threshold was about a separate issue - when Parliament can be dissolved early, he said.

Currently, losing a confidence motion tended to lead to the prime minister asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament, triggering a general election.

But he said: "Under the proposed change, parliament would remain sitting and the political parties would have to see if they were able to form a new government - either a minority administration supported by a 'confidence and supply' agreement or a new coalition with a new prime minister.

"The idea behind the 55% rule is to make sure that one party on its own can't trigger a fresh general election." "

I agree with Sophable and Policywonk

The Scottish Parliament has been running with a fixed term parliament and a 66% rule for over 10 years (and has experienced both coalition and minority goverments) and no-one had complained about that being undemocratic .

There are plenty of other examples of where 50% is not the "democratic" figure - many clubs and charities require 2/3 majorities (or more) to change their constitutions.

At the moment one person (the PM) can decide when the next election is: how democratic is that?

The 55% is a good safeguard - as people hwo know international politics have pointed out - that is actually low. It means that in finely balanced parliaments, one single disaffected MP can't hold the balance of power.

The 55% figure is too low for a supposed fixed term parliament - as long as the Tories and the LibDems agree they will be able to call an election when they want. This figure does however protect the LibDems from the Tories dissolving parliament from under them.

I was sceptical about the coalition UNTIL they brough up fixed term parliaments! In my opinion, it is more democratic to have fixed terms- At present, Prime Ministers can call elections whenever they want, as someone else said, as long as its before 5 years. This means they can wait until pol results are in their favour, give people tax cuts, start wars etc and then call an election. It produces a bias in favour of the party in power. As other posters have said, we are not the only country in the world that has a parliament. Most countries have fixed term parliaments. I bet all these people haven't bothered going to Amnesty International about them because they are so undemocratic! Imagine, no more endless speculation about when the election will be if you can just say May 7th 2015? My god! Journalists will have to actually do some work instead of making up non stories and creating endless speculation about when the election will be 3-5 years after the previous election!