Shopping & Style11 mins ago
5 year parliament.
3 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ib-Dems-demanded.html
Is the 5 year parliament plan a recipe for anarchy, or a sensible measure to bring continuity to our parliament?:
/// The change in law would mean Mr Cameron could be removed only if 55 per cent of MPs voted for the dissolution of Parliament and an early election.///
/// A number of MPs want to retain the right to kick out a government by a simple majority of one, in a no confidence vote.///
Surely the former is the more democratic way to take?
Apparently this 5 year election will take place on the same day as the Scots vote, so consequently they are asking Cameron to change the date.
Tough titty I say, they shouldn't have a separate parliament.
http://www.guardian.c...015-election-scotland
Is the 5 year parliament plan a recipe for anarchy, or a sensible measure to bring continuity to our parliament?:
/// The change in law would mean Mr Cameron could be removed only if 55 per cent of MPs voted for the dissolution of Parliament and an early election.///
/// A number of MPs want to retain the right to kick out a government by a simple majority of one, in a no confidence vote.///
Surely the former is the more democratic way to take?
Apparently this 5 year election will take place on the same day as the Scots vote, so consequently they are asking Cameron to change the date.
Tough titty I say, they shouldn't have a separate parliament.
http://www.guardian.c...015-election-scotland
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the plan is for 55% required for the government to disolve themselves.
The government could be ousted by a simple majority
This would prevent a cynical government calling an election just because they thought they'd do well out of it because of the timing.
Totally unlike Margaret Thatchers calling of an election just after the Falklands war
-can't imagine why I thought of that
The government could be ousted by a simple majority
This would prevent a cynical government calling an election just because they thought they'd do well out of it because of the timing.
Totally unlike Margaret Thatchers calling of an election just after the Falklands war
-can't imagine why I thought of that
I think the interest will come at the end of the next 5 year period. Why vote for the junior partner (ie the Lib Dems) when you can have the major player (ie the Torys).
Also if they Tories achieve a bigger majority next time do they need the Lib dems any more?
Personally based on recent events the Lib Dem policies are merging into those of the Tory party so come the end of 5 years it will be hard to notice any difference. The result then will be a 2 horse race between the Tory and Labour.
Also if they Tories achieve a bigger majority next time do they need the Lib dems any more?
Personally based on recent events the Lib Dem policies are merging into those of the Tory party so come the end of 5 years it will be hard to notice any difference. The result then will be a 2 horse race between the Tory and Labour.
I think you are wrong on this one, jake.
The plan is that votes of “no confidence” and other important votes (such as the Queen’ Speech vote) which could bring down the government if they go against them can only succeed with a minimum of 55%. This means that instead of 326 MPs being able to oust the government as at present 358 will be needed.
This means that a government can limp along with only 45% (292) MPs in support (very convenient for the Tories who would enjoy just 307 votes if the coalition falls apart).
Cameron has picked up in the same duplicitous manner where Brown left off. He portrays his plan as a “refreshing new way” that politics will be done in future. He justifies this by coupling this affront on democracy with the “fixed term Parliament” ruse, saying that it is an important relinquishment of power by forfeiting the right as PM to call an election when he chooses.
I do not believe this has a hope in hell of passing the Commons and the Lords. If it does, what next? “Well, 55% has brought about some stability. But perhaps we ought to up it to 65% [just to cater for a few Tory defectors]. Or maybe 75%”.
The two issues should not be confused. It is one thing to deny the Prime Minister the right to call an election at the time of his choosing, and it perhaps an issue worth debating. But it is quite another to deny the Commons the ability to oust the government by anything other than a simple majority.
The plan is that votes of “no confidence” and other important votes (such as the Queen’ Speech vote) which could bring down the government if they go against them can only succeed with a minimum of 55%. This means that instead of 326 MPs being able to oust the government as at present 358 will be needed.
This means that a government can limp along with only 45% (292) MPs in support (very convenient for the Tories who would enjoy just 307 votes if the coalition falls apart).
Cameron has picked up in the same duplicitous manner where Brown left off. He portrays his plan as a “refreshing new way” that politics will be done in future. He justifies this by coupling this affront on democracy with the “fixed term Parliament” ruse, saying that it is an important relinquishment of power by forfeiting the right as PM to call an election when he chooses.
I do not believe this has a hope in hell of passing the Commons and the Lords. If it does, what next? “Well, 55% has brought about some stability. But perhaps we ought to up it to 65% [just to cater for a few Tory defectors]. Or maybe 75%”.
The two issues should not be confused. It is one thing to deny the Prime Minister the right to call an election at the time of his choosing, and it perhaps an issue worth debating. But it is quite another to deny the Commons the ability to oust the government by anything other than a simple majority.
1 to 3 of 3
