tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post746773860840466839..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: Questions of Confidence for the CoalitionTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-5383521336777640242010-05-15T15:52:11.010+01:002010-05-15T15:52:11.010+01:00Hopeoverexperience:
Votes of no confidence are sl...Hopeoverexperience:<br /><br />Votes of no confidence are slippery things. Sometimes, failing governments (Rosebery) declare them after the fact. Other times governments deny that they exist when they should. My example of a place where Labour and the LDs could agree was unfair redistricting that would squeeze them both out. Particularly on constitutional issues (in which I admit I'm most interested--and it seems Nick C is too), it seems to me that the agreement, as it stands, offers a lot of room for some productive LD-Labour agreements, in opposition to the Conservatives. I would argue that the areas that are spelled out explicitly in the coalition agreements would be potential confidence issues, but the question remains, if the coalition loses, should Labour push for a dissolution (when it's out of steam and money), or should it go into a coalition with Labour to advance reform of the rules to make them fairer for everyone? (Or will the Conservatives beat Labour to that objective, with Labour objecting from the sidelines, as an indiscriminate opponent to constitutional reform by the coalition?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056801273076089813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-82651655294185430342010-05-15T12:34:46.228+01:002010-05-15T12:34:46.228+01:00The difference between confidence and dissolution ...The difference between confidence and dissolution is being used to justify this proposal, as if you can simply divorce one from the other. Well in the nice safe world of political theory maybe you can, in terms of a constitutional settlement for a future parliament, maybe you can. In political practice in other parliaments, maybe you can.<br /><br />The significant point is we are talking about a Parliament that has not been elected on this basis. No one party was given an overall majority, all the parties should serve in the current parliament under the basis it was elected; and deal with the realities of the electorates’ decision within that context. They should not be trying to ‘fix’ the constitutional arrangements of this parliament to get short term political gain disguised as either providing for stability and/or enhancing democracy.<br /><br />By trying to separate confidence from dissolution and moving the goalposts to 55% for that, you are trying to insulate yourselves and enjoy the same protection from dissolution a majority Government has.<br /><br />All sorts of scenarios could arise once confidence was lost, yes there could be a Lib-Lab Deal, there could be a minority Tory Government, there could just as easily be legislative inertia and a constitutional crisis. No Government can command a simple majority, yet there is not 55% in favour of dissolution. Just a complete mess.<br /><br />This parliament was not elected on the basis of serving a fixed term. It should serve only upon the basis it was elected. The issue of a fixed term parliament and the arrangements for its dissolution should only apply to future parliaments.<br /><br />This proposal is the complete opposite of democracy. It seeks to entrench the major party and the current coalition in power for five years, regardless of whether parliament has confidence in it.<br /><br />We need to look at the reality of this parliament and not some nice theory about how a fixed term parliament should work.<br /><br />The reality of this parliament is that no one party has an overall majority and that thanks to FPTP we have distorted levels of party representation. We have the situation where the major party has 36% support but wields 47% of the power and the third party has 24% support but wields only 9% of the power; in terms of votes. Labour has 29% support and 40% of the voting power. The only way that the 55% mark for dissolution can be reached is with some support from the major party.<br /><br />I am in favour of fixed term parliaments oddly enough. But we need to be very cautious about throwing away centuries of our constitutional arrangements for short term political expediency, dressed up as stability.<br /><br />If we have a fixed term parliament elected upon a proportional voting system then a threshold of 55% or higher would be democratic. The reality of our current parliament is very different. What might work for a theoretical parliament simply does not cut in under the present realities.<br /><br />Any fixed Term Parliament elected under FPTP or for that matter AV must retain simple majority rules for dissolution, given the distorted levels of representation and voting power they create.steviedeezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07218944604677342858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-89868339771868836912010-05-15T12:02:53.118+01:002010-05-15T12:02:53.118+01:00Frakkin' Wordpress inability to implement Open...Frakkin' Wordpress inability to implement OpenID right...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-4485574620590772162010-05-15T09:47:09.165+01:002010-05-15T09:47:09.165+01:00Scot, you say 'Meantime, if the measure passes...Scot, you say 'Meantime, if the measure passes, the Lib Dems can stop individual pieces of legislation (say, redistricting to ensure a Tory majority) by allying with Labour.'<br /><br />I'm unclear on this one. I'm pretty sure, as much as I'm sure of anything at this point, that a government can have things voted down without needing to resign/dissolve etc. If the Lib Dems were to vote against something that wasn't included in their coalition agreement as something that the Lib Dems either had to support or abstain on, would it automatically be taken as a vote of no confidence? Even if so, shouldn't that sort of thing be dealt with between the parties and not by parliamentary rules?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-91203646834884916922010-05-14T21:09:14.249+01:002010-05-14T21:09:14.249+01:00Stuart,
Thanks. What Bogdanor and Barnett say doe...Stuart,<br /><br />Thanks. What Bogdanor and Barnett say does sounds right to me, though I don't know, and clearly they would know more. One would like a clear statement about that too. <br /><br />If the Commons passed a "We have no confidence in the government and hereby vote for a dissolution" motion, the Bill will have had to set out how and why that would be disallowed, and/or the Speaker might be placed in the position of having to accept it (as a vote of the Commons) or refuse it (because of the provisions of the Bill). I can't myself see how it could go out to the judiciary, but others may know more.<br /><br />It is clear that the Scotland Act is passed by the UK Parliament, which can abolish the Assembly, just as it can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, so in all of these cases formal Parliamentary Sovereignty is preserved. This is a different case. (The question of how you would entrench a written constitution in the UK has some similar features: the practical political point must be that you legislate to create institutions with a referendum; we have a new convention that it would take a referendum to abolish (eg the Scottish Parliament).Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-74483708551315134172010-05-14T19:55:19.009+01:002010-05-14T19:55:19.009+01:00Another question (or pair of questions) is whether...Another question (or pair of questions) is whether there even is a 55% majority in the Commons to support this rule, and whether it's at all morally credible to create a supermajority requirement without having a supermajority in favour. On both counts, <a href="http://viva-freemania.blogspot.com/2010/05/55-rule-may-not-get-55-support.html" rel="nofollow">I suspect not</a>.Tom Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997295899017354602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-51490148419719494332010-05-14T18:22:48.107+01:002010-05-14T18:22:48.107+01:00I disagree, Sunder.
Your proposal is a way of del...I disagree, Sunder.<br /><br />Your proposal is a way of delaying the change's effectiveness. But the changes are in the interests of everyone (*except* the Conservatives, perhaps), including a viable Labour coalition partner for the Liberal Democrats, for the Liberal Democrats to have increased power against the Conservatives. Your hypothetical zombie government won't happen for three reasons: 1. it would destroy the Liberal Democrats, as both large parties could campaign effectively in the next general election for strong (>55%) government, and the Lib Dems would be eliminated (that means before they leave the C's they will have explored a coalition with Labour); 2. the British public, with the scrutiny of the media on the government, would not stand for it (cf. the US in November 1995); 3. an entirely obstreperous Lib Dem Party might force Labour to form a grand coalition with the Conservatives or at least agree to dissolve the government or lose all credibility themselves.<br /><br />Meantime, if the measure passes, the Lib Dems can stop individual pieces of legislation (say, redistricting to ensure a Tory majority) by allying with Labour. That's a lot of power on an ad hoc basis.<br /><br />Granted, all of this is dependent upon a viable Labour opposition (which is a big ask at this point), but it should provide an incentive for that to happen rather than the opposite.<br /><br />Stuart: I'm still worrying about how that works. If you think of the changes as restrictions on the royal prerogative, which they are, then it will be like any other act that restricted it. More interesting is a provision in the statute that says that it can only be repealed by the same percentage of MPs that passed it. (Yet another nail in Dicey's coffin...)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056801273076089813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-41326781913903119852010-05-14T17:18:53.247+01:002010-05-14T17:18:53.247+01:00Sunder: very helpful analysis.
What do you think...Sunder: very helpful analysis. <br /><br />What do you think of the view that Vernon Bogdanor and Anthony Barnett have both expressed, that the proposed 55% rule is of no real consequence since any law embodying it could be repealed by a bare parliamentary majority anyway, restoring the status quo? <br /><br />Either way, it is striking just how cavalier with the rules our 'new politics' government would like to be....Stuart Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05090728365798166746noreply@blogger.com