Did Clegg stitch Dave up on the 55% thing?

[Hopeless Romantic]

A number of people, following my earlier post today, have pointed out that the 55% "super majority" vote is not for confidence votes, but rather for dissolution votes within fixed-term Parliaments. The argument thus goes that because the Tories don't have 55% of the vote they wouldn't just be able to win a dissolution vote at a time of their own choosing.

Thus, as some have said, it's not really that bad at all. However, if you take a closer look it might actually be worse than previously thought and, in fact, it may just be that the Lib Dems have totally conned the Tories with a ruse that boosts their power for years to come.

Basically, what we might in fact have with the 55% rule is not a means to lock the door of Downing Street for Cameron (as it first appears), but rather a very clever long-term strategy to make a third party be able to sway vast amount of power in parliament and forms Government without the need for election mid-terms if a confidence vote is lost.

Imagine for example, if unlike now, the share of the voting power was such that a third party could form a Government with either of the other two. A Parliament made up of Con 40%, Lab 35%, Lib Dems 20% for arguments sake. The potential for radical pendulum-style changes of Government without an election become a very real possibility - is that democratic?

The quick and easy analysis was that the rule was a stitch-up by the Tories, however, perhaps it's really a stitching-up of the Tories by the Lib Dems who are looking to future Parliaments, not this one?

As one person put it to me "this is what happens if an experienced Eurocrat negotiator sits down with a bunch of power-hungry poshboys who wrongly believe they have the upper hand."


http://dizzythinks.net/2010/05/who-really-wins-out-of-55-rule.html

[T_i_B]

1. It's the elecorate who'd be stiched up most by the 55% rule

I'm glad to hear that a number of Tories do have reservations about this.

http://noto55.com/

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Someone pointed out on the radio this morning the Scottish parliament has a 2/3rds threshhold

for dissolution (Wikipedia says that too

And this bit from the Wikipedia entry for Scotland is interesting too: "...or if the Parliament fails to nominate one of its members to be First Minister within certain time limits..."

The 2/3rds threshold sort of makes sense - that's a real case of "so many of us agree we can't go on like this that we have to go back to the people".

If the idea is, as they are saying now, that this is for 'dissolution' rather than 'no confidence' (which would still need 50% plus 1 MP), then I'm not quite sure in what circumstances they're saying this would be used. They've said they don't want the PM just suddenly calling the election for his own advantage; so I presume that is what they are calling a 'dissolution'. If so, this appears to be an attempt to say:

"If you're in a reasonable position (eg 356 seats out of 646, which happens to be what Labour got in 2005, including the then Speaker), you can call for the dissolution of your own government; if you're worse off than that, and either a minority government, or a majority but on a knife-edge (and thus maybe suffering from backbench revolts), then you may be stuck. Unless you say you don't have confidence in yourself, in which case you can go."

Which doesn't seem all that useful.

[fedsron2us]

3. Given that the Liberal Democrats lost seats and barely increased their vote

Clegg has played a blinder in grabbing so much power and influence for his party. Many Tories think Cameron has sold his own supporters down the river. In fact he appears to have screwed up this election from start to finish by first agreeing to the televised debates that gave Clegg so much free publicity and then when that had not damaged his party enough he introduced Clegg into office. Some are even cynically quipping that if you vote Tory you wind up with a Liberal Democrat government.

Clegg certainly benefits from the fixed term Parliament and 55% majority for dissolution proposal since his party is probably the least able to afford an early General Election.

Cameron is a fool and his advisers are idiots. He should have formed a minority government and then gone back to the counbtry within a year. Instead he risks dividing his party and losing votes to UKIP. In fact before this is done we may see disgruntled Tories voting with Labour in the Commons.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Government faces backlash over election vote plans

Odd headline but never mind.

The new coalition government is facing a backlash over its plans to change the rules on how an election is called.

The Lib Dem-Tory deal agrees to fixed-term parliaments which can only be dissolved with support from 55% of MPs.

Labour figures including Jack Straw and Lord Adonis say it is a "fix" and a "stitch up" - currently 50% of MPs plus one can trigger a no confidence vote.

Downing Street says Labour put through fixed-term laws in Scotland requiring 66% of MSPs to dissolve Parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm

Last para above says it all aside from which given New Labour's propensity to lie it could mean they're actually in favour. :sarcasm:

[TheBigotBasher]

5. So giving Members of Parliament the power to call an election

which had previously been a power held only by the Prime Minister is undemocratic?

[LeftishBrit]

6. MPs always had the power to force an election by a no-confidence vote

This means that it will require 55% of them to do so, instead of 50% as in the past; and that the expectation will be that the parliamentary term should last for five years.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. MP's have had the power to force a PM to resign

or for that PM to call for the dissolution of the House after a confidence vote. They have never had the power to dissolve Parliament, that was the prerogative of the PM alone.

There is no change to the rule about a vote of confidence.

[fedsron2us]

8. Actually the process is a bit more nebulous than you suggest

A Parliament is dissolved either by the passage of time or by a proclamation of the Sovereign on
the advice of the Prime Minister. Dissolution may occur at any time; Parliament does not need to
be sitting, nor to be recalled, for the purpose of dissolution. It was customary during much of the
twentieth century for dissolution to be preceded by prorogation of Parliament.

From September 1974 until 1992, and again in 2001, an alternative practice was used of
dissolving Parliament by proclamation following the adjournment of both Houses. The
prorogation procedure was reinstated in 1992, 1997 and 2005 however. An adjournment
merely suspends the House’s business within a session for a specified period of time, and the
exercise of the power remains with the Lords and Commons separately. All that is required is a
resolution of the House or for the Speaker to declare that under Standing Orders the House is
adjourned. It is not, therefore, a prerogative act. The practice of dissolving Parliament following
the adjournment of both Houses appears to have been first used in 1922 following the sudden
collapse of the coalition government. Since Parliament had already adjourned for the summer
recess, Parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation on the same day as the calling of a
general election, and no prorogation took place.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m07.pdf

[fedsron2us]

9. The Prime Minister does not have the absolute power to call an election

if they do not command a majority in the Commons. The monarch can always invite the other parties to try to form a government before formally dissolving Parliament.

The proposal actually limits Parliament's ability to effect its own dissolution because 45% of MPs (plus one) could effectively have a veto over the votes of the remaining 55% (minus one) on any proposal to go to the Country

It is also dumb politics on Cameron's part since under the proposed arrangement it would be far simpler for Clegg's Liberal Democrats to bring down Cameron's government on a vote of no confidence which only requires a simple majority than it would be for the Tories to force Clegg to the polls at the time of their choosing. Indeed, any Tory government might effectively have to partake in a no confidence vote with Labour against itself to get such a result.

[TheBigotBasher]

10. Has the Queen ever refused a request for a dissolution?

I agree that there is a difference between the PM having the right to dissolve Parliament and having to request it, although if such requests are like Royal assent the difference is semantics (I also concede that it is those semantics that the British "constitution" is based on).

[FunkyLeprechaun]

11. I don't mind the fixed parliament idea

but 55% is a bit much to ask...