"...The second and much more fundament problem is the raising of the bar of a no confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MP’s present and voting. This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution and what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power if the Commons.
"The British constitution is very simple: he who commands the confidence of the House is PM, he who loses that confidence must resign. I simply do not see how such a rule is credible or can be enforced: a majority is a majority is 51%, not 55% or 60% or 80%. But once one concedes the concept on anything other than a simple majority for a confidence vote, then the way is open to Governments to protect their position by passing legislation demanding ever higher majorities before they are forced to resign.
"Indeed why not go the whole hog and pass legislation saying that nothing less than a 100% majority will be sufficient to force the government of the day to resign! As well as being politically dangerous, there is also the fundamental paradox that this legislation need only be passed by a simple majority. If the 55% it had been in place in 1979 when a no confidence motion in the Labour Government tabled by the SNP, and backed by the Tories was carried by one vote, then Callaghan could have stayed in power!
"As well as being politically unjustifiable the 55% rules raises the question of whether the House’s inherent ability to bring down government’s can be limited by legislation. One could of course always try and pass a bill to reverse this 55% doctrine by a subsequent act of parliament and such a bill would of course only need 51% of MP’s in its favour. However to become legislation obviously it would need to pas through the Lords as well, so in effect surrendering the long stop power to bring down the Government to the Lords!"
Frances Gibb @'The Times'
unfortunately the tories are experts at changing the rules of the game to fit them... so no surprise there then, perhaps they will make it a criminal offence to vote |Labour as well.....
ReplyDeleteBUT Labour had 13 yrs to play the same tricks and every time they have failed, they could have done so much, re political donations, the press, constituency boundaries, voting systems etc... but every time they dont... ultimately they delude themselves into thinking the Tories will play nice.... folks they never do and never have done... lets see what else they got up their sleeves... soon the BBC.... then what you can teach in schools.... they destroy the avenues of discussion, remove opprtunities for thought, basically they need an unquestioning workforce to do their bidding....
2Dray/
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately very true...
Regards/
I agree with Cameron in formal and legal terms. There is no ur-document in the UK of a written Constitution that mandates a method to change itself. (Obviously, UK people have some concept of 'constitution' I could never understand!). So the UK Parliament could legislate the House of Windsor out of constitutional existence with a 51% vote in the Commons and the so called Lords. I mean legally, not politically.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting is whether the LibDems can manoeuvre the Cons into a binding referendum on voting reform. Perhaps that could establish a constitution as an accepted ground principle that abolishes the long and corrupt practice of first past the post and institutes a new rule about representation by population rather than locality.
Compare Australia. We are doomed to a stupid two party system because the Commonwealth Electoral Act mandates preferential voting in single member electorates. That Act can be amended by a simple majority in both houses of Parliament. But even if that occurred, it would not have the force of a constitutional law. The Parliament could change the law to revert to a two party state. But in practice it may not be able to because it could not get a majority in the Senate (e.g. because of Green members). A Government would then have two choices (i) a double dissolution, attempting to get a majority in the Senate, or (ii) a Constitutional Referendum, which is unlikely to win.
Which all goes to show that I think the UK system is royally fucked. If the LibDems actually believe they have a legitimate place in the UK system, which they do, then they must be actively trying to undermine their own coalition with the Cons. Good luck to them. And hopefully there will be a war crimes tribunal in the UK to legitimately goal Blair, Brown, Hoon, and all the other murderous craven scum that prided themselves on killing innocent people by knowingly pursuing illegal wars.
2Richard/
ReplyDeleteMy problem is the 55% of ALL MP's not 51% of 'present in house at the time' MP's...a BIG difference, even accounting for the extra 4%!
Re: war crimes...fine with me as long as we have little Johnny H in there too!
Regards/
I can't see how the 55% proposed rule would have force. Why couldn't a 50% vote on the day suspend it? If not, there are serious problems in the UK. How can they tie their hands in that way? The analysis you reproduced lately argues that the majority of LibDems are an anti Con gvt. (Like how you amalgamate Green/ALP votes here). People we know in the UK who are instinctively Lab voters went Lib-Dem because, I suspect, they see Lab as an exhausted party at the sec, and strategically to spike the Cons.
ReplyDeleteAs for war crimes, Mr J. Howard, Mr A Downer, Mr R Hill, and Mr P Ruddock would be justly indicted, tried by their peers, convicted, sentenced and then shot by their peers, and their bodies dumped in a pig pen for recycling. I would also pop in Ms J Bishop, because the pigs would reject her and let her rot like the carrion she is.
2Richard/
ReplyDeleteI reckon we could have a good natter over a cple of beers!
Regards/