Non-motoring > Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 3 Miscellaneous
Thread Author: R.P. Replies: 18
View Threaded 

New Fri 14 May 10 15:20 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 3 - R.P.
A thread to discuss the Consequences of the election etc.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 12 May 10 16:37 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
Even the 55% vote required for a confidence vote? The Tories have 306/650 = 47% of seats in Parliament. If the coalition breaks up, then they are able to defeat any confidence motion, yet unable to pass any legislation, and unable to dissolve parliament - without joining in a confidence motion against their own government.


Nuts.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 12 May 10 17:42 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Bromptonaut
A further complication to the arithmetic......

Five seats were won by Sinn Fein. One assumes those seats will not be taken.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 12:04 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
55% required.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8678222.stm

Essentially the Tories are passing legislation that will ensure they cannot be voted out of power. Was Hitler the last man to do this?



And it will also mean that any party with a 55% share of the seats will be able to have a snap election by voting against itself on a confidence motion.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 14 May 10 at 12:04
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 12:41 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - R.P.
No confidence votes remain exactly the same as they are - according to the BBC the 55% majority thing will only prevent the Tories voting for a snap election.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 12:41 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Bromptonaut
Mapmaker,

Certainly not a legislative dictatorship. A party with a majority in the house has always been able to force an election at a time of its own choosing.

I think PU has the measure of the point in the post above. Press reporting has confused a vote of confidence, which may in current circs lead to a government being formed in without a new election by some alliance other than ConDem, with a vote to dissolve parliament and force an early election.

Intention now is to make it more difficult for the Tories to force a snap election as soon as the polls show they're ahead and might be able to govern alone. As there is still debate and no formal proposal has been brought forward it's difficult to discern exactly what might happen. It should be read together with the intention to fix the life of a parliament at five years with next election set in stone now to be May 2015.



Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 May 10 at 12:42
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 12:52 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - R.P.
My understanding was that this had been agreed between the Libs and Cons to prevent the Tories doing exactly that. I have to admit I haven't read much about it beyond what seems an authoritative report from the radio last night.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 13:25 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Bromptonaut
Later bbc report news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm makes it a bit clearer.

Confidence vote can still be lost by one vote. Result might be minority government or some other coalition. If that's not possible than presumably Tories recognise position untenable and election gets called.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 13:28 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - R.P.
Even clearer on the W@O earlier - good report.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 14:22 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
Thank you Brompton. That illustrates EXACTLY my point.

Although the Tories have a minority in the House, under the proposed legislation the other parties cannot bring the Government down. How is this democratic?

Similarly, the PM will be unable to dissolve Parliament.

So this can leave us in the situation with a Government that cannot pass legislation and so is effectively powerless, yet it cannot be brought down and cannot dissolve itself.

Might as well go the whole hog and say that the Government only needs 45% to pass legislation...
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 14:34 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
Just to add that whilst I appreciate there is proposed a difference between a vote of no confidence and a vote to dissolve Parliament, with the current demographic in Parliament the only alternative to the Con-Dem version is the rainbow coalition that has already been proved not to work. And until HM sees another PM who can wield a majority the current PM is not required to stand down, I think?

The Tories are in effect legislating themselves into being in power for 5 years.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 14:45 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Zero
you are deliberately misrespresenting the facts mapmaker.

Of course the government and the PM can disolve parliament. It only needs 13 tory MPs to vote in the other lobby or abstain, and the government is gone. You dont think the tory whips could walk that one through the lobby?

It still needs a majority to pass legislation.

the way you describe it, is that they can steamroll through anything they wish. They cant. The worse that can happen is a lame duck government till the end of the fixed term, who would need cross party support to pass legislation or budgets.

And that my old son, is no bad thing.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 14:53 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
If we are honest the Government doesn't really need to pass much legislation in order to be able to achieve its aims.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 15:39 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Zero
It needs to pass legislation to bring in the 55% rule ;)

Mostly it needs to get the queens speech and budgets nodded through.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 15:50 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Mapmaker
>it needs legislation to get the 55% through...

... indeed, but the Liberals are backing that. It's what happens after that's passed and the coalition falls to pieces.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 16:27 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Zero
But thats the point.

with a 5 year fixed term, and no way of getting rid, the only games in town to have any say in what goes on, is to be shackled to the tory skirts for the full term. Its a very clever device.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 21:24 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - John H
>> >it needs legislation to get the 55% through...
>>
>> ... indeed, but the Liberals are backing that. It's what happens after that's passed and
>> the coalition falls to pieces.
>>

No worries. If the 55% cannot be achieved on the day they try it on, it then only needs a simple majority to revoke the 55% rule and bring back the current rule.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 21:32 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Harleyman
>>
>> Similarly, the PM will be unable to dissolve Parliament.
>>


The PM has never been able to dissolve Parliament. That is the sole prerogative of the Queen.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 14 May 10 22:04 
 Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - Zero
he can suggest to the queen that is what she does.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts