Well, yes you're right, if evey Govt of the past follwed their manifesto's and campaigns to the letter. Not one ever has...

Thing is, Nick, you're in opposition and you feel how oppositions do - I know, it's been my political life story . Atm, I'm not in opposition, in that I did vote for the party in Govt, otoh, what we have isn't what I'd want - halfway house. But, I have to admit I do feel differently now. For once in my life people I've voted for are in power - and I'm not alone, this Govt was voted for by more people than any of my life. It has a secure base - like it or not, that's how it is. It wasn't, like the last Labour Govt, voted in by 25% of the electorate...

So, please, less of the betrayal, or 'it's not what they said they'd do stuff'. It never has been the case.

Happen to agree with that. The Coalition is a compromise of course and the Conservatives have made compromises to accomodate the LDs which I wish they hadn't. But at the end of the day, we need stable government at the moment, since we have deep structural problems in our economy to resolve and a crushing public sector borrowing requirement to address.

So I am prepared to give the Coalition the benefit of the doubt, in the wider interests of the country. Getting public finances onto a sustainable footing just has to be the number one priority at the moment.

Cheers MM. After all the furore, it's a sad day for democracy that such a travesty of a bill should have got through.

The current stage of Bill - this one is in its Report stage in the Commons:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/fixedtermparliaments/stages.html

In my previous answer, I was thinking of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/parliamentaryvotingsystemandconstituencies.html

- that one is at the Committee stage in the HoL, but it is being held up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12208766

Cheers MM. After all the furore, it's a sad day for democracy that such a travesty of a bill should have got through.

The current stage of Bill - this one is in its Report stage in the Commons:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/fixedtermparliaments/stages.html

In my previous answer, I was thinking of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/parliamentaryvotingsystemandconstituencies.html

- that one is at the Committee stage in the HoL, but it is being held up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12208766

 

 

More on the Voting System Bill - a marathon Lords sitting is in progress as the Government tries to get the legislation through in time for the May elections (for the AV referendum):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12208766

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

 

I would imagine that you're not so delighted that the coalition is pursuing a 'new-right' agenda of imposing market solutions to the provision of our public services (going further than Thatcher ever dared), whilst offering 'socialist' protection of the banks. Meanwhile engineering a regressive shift in levels of well being that will send the Gini coeffecient off the scale. No LD should be delighted with any of that.

Wrt to HH's analysis of the democractic credentials of the fixed parliament. VoC and dissolution reforms, there appears to be some assumption that our system of representative democracy operates through some sort of 'free' Burkean style decision making on the part of MPs. The truth is that 'our representatives' are actually mere fodder for the parties to whip into line on any VoC/dissolution. Hence, the concern that the coalition reforms owe as much to self-interested survival as to the greater good of our system.

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

 

I would imagine that you're not so delighted that the coalition is pursuing a 'new-right' agenda of imposing market solutions to the provision of our public services (going further than Thatcher ever dared), whilst offering 'socialist' protection of the banks. Meanwhile engineering a regressive shift in levels of well being that will send the Gini coeffecient off the scale. No LD should be delighted with any of that.

Wrt to HH's analysis of the democractic credentials of the fixed parliament. VoC and dissolution reforms, there appears to be some assumption that our system of representative democracy operates through some sort of 'free' Burkean style decision making on the part of MPs. The truth is that 'our representatives' are actually mere fodder for the parties to whip into line on any VoC/dissolution. Hence, the concern that the coalition reforms owe as much to self-interested survival as to the greater good of our system.

Wrt your last point, well, as I've said, whenever was that not the case? Didn't the last Labour Govt want to survive? Do politicians want to loose power? Will the Govt still be oustable via a VOC+1? YES!

I'm not, of course, and as I've said, delighted with some of what is going on. The NHS reforms could (could) be a absolute disaster. Nor am i delighted with other changes to spending, feathering of bankers opulent nests - though I'm not convinced any likely party of Govt would not be cutting to a comparible extent. But, again (and it really ought not be to difficult to understand ) the LD's aren't in Govt alone. Again, we can discuss the merits of a coalition V minority Govt > new elction > Conservatives win oughtright? Or minority Govt > bigger financial probs > bigger cuts? Or minority Govt > Labour wins new election > still get cuts? If you like.

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

 

I would imagine that you're not so delighted that the coalition is pursuing a 'new-right' agenda of imposing market solutions to the provision of our public services (going further than Thatcher ever dared), whilst offering 'socialist' protection of the banks. Meanwhile engineering a regressive shift in levels of well being that will send the Gini coeffecient off the scale. No LD should be delighted with any of that.

Wrt to HH's analysis of the democractic credentials of the fixed parliament. VoC and dissolution reforms, there appears to be some assumption that our system of representative democracy operates through some sort of 'free' Burkean style decision making on the part of MPs. The truth is that 'our representatives' are actually mere fodder for the parties to whip into line on any VoC/dissolution. Hence, the concern that the coalition reforms owe as much to self-interested survival as to the greater good of our system.

Wrt your last point, well, as I've said, whenever was that not the case? Didn't the last Labour Govt want to survive? Do politicians want to loose power? Will the Govt still be oustable via a VOC+1? YES!

I'm not, of course, and as I've said, delighted with some of what is going on. The NHS reforms could (could) be a absolute disaster. Nor am i delighted with other changes to spending, feathering of bankers opulent nests - though I'm not convinced any likely party of Govt would not be cutting to a comparible extent. But, again (and it really ought not be to difficult to understand ) the LD's aren't in Govt alone. Again, we can discuss the merits of a coalition V minority Govt > new elction > Conservatives win oughtright? Or minority Govt > bigger financial probs > bigger cuts? Or minority Govt > Labour wins new election > still get cuts? If you like.

 

Yes - people who don't like the Coalition on principle don't seem prepared to engage in a serious debate about what the alternatives are and how they would play out. I have made my views plain - I would prefer a majority Conservative Government, but that is not possible. The alternatives were a minority Conservative Government and fresh elections after a few months, or an unstable rainbow coalition and fresh elections after a few months. Neither option is particularly palatable during a fiscal and financial crisis - either would have led to Bond Market turbulence, increases in the interest paid on Government debt and the sort of problems besetting Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

We are not out of the woods yet, by any means, but at least the Coalition Government has a fighting chance of sorting out the mess before the wolves of the international debt market start circling the UK.

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

 

I would imagine that you're not so delighted that the coalition is pursuing a 'new-right' agenda of imposing market solutions to the provision of our public services (going further than Thatcher ever dared), whilst offering 'socialist' protection of the banks. Meanwhile engineering a regressive shift in levels of well being that will send the Gini coeffecient off the scale. No LD should be delighted with any of that.

Wrt to HH's analysis of the democractic credentials of the fixed parliament. VoC and dissolution reforms, there appears to be some assumption that our system of representative democracy operates through some sort of 'free' Burkean style decision making on the part of MPs. The truth is that 'our representatives' are actually mere fodder for the parties to whip into line on any VoC/dissolution. Hence, the concern that the coalition reforms owe as much to self-interested survival as to the greater good of our system.

Wrt your last point, well, as I've said, whenever was that not the case? Didn't the last Labour Govt want to survive? Do politicians want to loose power? Will the Govt still be oustable via a VOC+1? YES!

I'm not, of course, and as I've said, delighted with some of what is going on. The NHS reforms could (could) be a absolute disaster. Nor am i delighted with other changes to spending, feathering of bankers opulent nests - though I'm not convinced any likely party of Govt would not be cutting to a comparible extent. But, again (and it really ought not be to difficult to understand ) the LD's aren't in Govt alone. Again, we can discuss the merits of a coalition V minority Govt > new elction > Conservatives win oughtright? Or minority Govt > bigger financial probs > bigger cuts? Or minority Govt > Labour wins new election > still get cuts? If you like.

 

Under the coalition reform a successful (50%+1) VoC does not automatically wrest power from the tories. they would have a 14 day window, following the vote, to lash together another administration (possibly minority?) to put to the monarch. But even more troubling is their move to a 2/3 requirement for dissolution, that automatically means it cannot occur, (429), even assuming a complete non-tory unanimity,without a significant tory rebellion.

I can't believe that you don't see the contentious nature of this move, given the present circumstances. Under the existing 50%+1 such a dissolution could have toppled the tories (given similar assumptions) with only a partial defection of LD rebels. Hmmmmm....goood for democracy...?

A no confidence vote by 50% + 1 would not require a GE as it currently does (in practice). Simple as that, no matter how you dress it up.

Hell, you mean Govts can change things to what they want? Outragous!

Peter, for someone who is usually so open minded, you do seem to be lacking objectivity on this subject. The accusation isn't that the Govt does or does not have the ability to 'change things to what they want', rather that changing the majority required in a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to a higher, arbitrary majority is undemocratic and purely for the purposes of protecting the position of the current Coalition.

I read what Haggishunter said. It's quite clear the Govt will need a majority to bring in this measure. And, at the next election people are totally at liberty to vote for parties wanting to go back to unfixed term parliaments when dissolution is at the whim of the Prime Minister alone not the house (one person, not the house! So all this talk about loss of democracy is pretty hollow).

In other words, the government is eroding democracy for its own ends.

No it isn't. Any Govt needs to be able to command the house. All that is happening (if I understand what HH said) is that votes of confidence that immediately brings the Govt down needs a larger majority, but if a new Govt can't be formed after a VOC, there will still be a disollution. So, it's a breathing space.

Actually, I think the Govt doesn't need this measure, I increasingly think it will survive a full term without much trouble. To me it is a true coalition, in that sections of both parties are unhappy about what they are, and are not, getting out of it. I'm delighted the right of the Conservatives are unhappy, that Europe isn't dominating things, and (as a liberal) unhappy that not everything we want is happening. It's almost as if neither party can get it's way, that each one is only partly in power ...

 

I would imagine that you're not so delighted that the coalition is pursuing a 'new-right' agenda of imposing market solutions to the provision of our public services (going further than Thatcher ever dared), whilst offering 'socialist' protection of the banks. Meanwhile engineering a regressive shift in levels of well being that will send the Gini coeffecient off the scale. No LD should be delighted with any of that.

Wrt to HH's analysis of the democractic credentials of the fixed parliament. VoC and dissolution reforms, there appears to be some assumption that our system of representative democracy operates through some sort of 'free' Burkean style decision making on the part of MPs. The truth is that 'our representatives' are actually mere fodder for the parties to whip into line on any VoC/dissolution. Hence, the concern that the coalition reforms owe as much to self-interested survival as to the greater good of our system.

Wrt your last point, well, as I've said, whenever was that not the case? Didn't the last Labour Govt want to survive? Do politicians want to loose power? Will the Govt still be oustable via a VOC+1? YES!

I'm not, of course, and as I've said, delighted with some of what is going on. The NHS reforms could (could) be a absolute disaster. Nor am i delighted with other changes to spending, feathering of bankers opulent nests - though I'm not convinced any likely party of Govt would not be cutting to a comparible extent. But, again (and it really ought not be to difficult to understand ) the LD's aren't in Govt alone. Again, we can discuss the merits of a coalition V minority Govt > new elction > Conservatives win oughtright? Or minority Govt > bigger financial probs > bigger cuts? Or minority Govt > Labour wins new election > still get cuts? If you like.

 

Under the coalition reform a successful (50%+1) VoC does not automatically wrest power from the tories. they would have a 14 day window, following the vote, to lash together another administration (possibly minority?) to put to the monarch. But even more troubling is their move to a 2/3 requirement for dissolution, that automatically means it cannot occur, (429), even assuming a complete non-tory unanimity,without a significant tory rebellion.

I can't believe that you don't see the contentious nature of this move, given the present circumstances. Under the existing 50%+1 such a dissolution could have toppled the tories (given similar assumptions) with only a partial defection of LD rebels. Hmmmmm....goood for democracy...?

Aiui, it's 55% not 66%? Or is it 66% for an immediate dissolution?

Well, it's quite hard to find out - most of what I've found on the beeb is for back when it all started in May. SO, I'll be honest, i don't know more than HH has told us.

If a government loses a vote of confidence (still 50% + 1 vote), there is a 14 day period for a new government to be put together that carries the confidence of the house in a confidence vote. If the 14 day period passes without an alternative government obtaining the confidence of the house, an automatic dissolution follows.

The other route to an early dissolution is for a two thirds majority to back a specific dissolution motion (this is completely separate to a confidence motion), but of course it's possible that a loss of  a confidence motion might be followed immediately by a dissolution motion if it's clear that no new government can be formed from the existing house. At present there are no means for MPs to seek dissolution, it is the PM's decision and theirs alone. At present MPs can bring a government down with a confidence motion, but that does not guarantee a dissolution.

If a government loses a vote of confidence (still 50% + 1 vote), there is a 14 day period for a new government to be put together that carries the confidence of the house in a confidence vote. If the 14 day period passes without an alternative government obtaining the confidence of the house, an automatic dissolution follows.

The other route to an early dissolution is for a two thirds majority to back a specific dissolution motion (this is completely separate to a confidence motion), but of course it's possible that a loss of  a confidence motion might be followed immediately by a dissolution motion if it's clear that no new government can be formed from the existing house. At present there are no means for MPs to seek dissolution, it is the PM's decision and theirs alone. At present MPs can bring a government down with a confidence motion, but that does not guarantee a dissolution.

Got it!

Doesn't seem too terrible to me.

If a government loses a vote of confidence (still 50% + 1 vote), there is a 14 day period for a new government to be put together that carries the confidence of the house in a confidence vote. If the 14 day period passes without an alternative government obtaining the confidence of the house, an automatic dissolution follows.

The other route to an early dissolution is for a two thirds majority to back a specific dissolution motion (this is completely separate to a confidence motion), but of course it's possible that a loss of  a confidence motion might be followed immediately by a dissolution motion if it's clear that no new government can be formed from the existing house. At present there are no means for MPs to seek dissolution, it is the PM's decision and theirs alone. At present MPs can bring a government down with a confidence motion, but that does not guarantee a dissolution.

Got it!

Doesn't seem too terrible to me.

Nor me - seems to have been some over played alarmism with regards to this change.

If a government loses a vote of confidence (still 50% + 1 vote), there is a 14 day period for a new government to be put together that carries the confidence of the house in a confidence vote. If the 14 day period passes without an alternative government obtaining the confidence of the house, an automatic dissolution follows.

The other route to an early dissolution is for a two thirds majority to back a specific dissolution motion (this is completely separate to a confidence motion), but of course it's possible that a loss of  a confidence motion might be followed immediately by a dissolution motion if it's clear that no new government can be formed from the existing house. At present there are no means for MPs to seek dissolution, it is the PM's decision and theirs alone. At present MPs can bring a government down with a confidence motion, but that does not guarantee a dissolution.

Got it!

Doesn't seem too terrible to me.

Nor me - seems to have been some over played alarmism with regards to this change.

Your opinion, obviously.

In mine, this is well worth a read:-

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00831.pdf

If the aim is to protect the executive from the legislature, to ensure that politicians can concoct several different governments and even PMs without recourse to the electorate, and to ensure that voters are consulted as rarely as possible consistent with masquerading as a western democracy ...... then fixed terms are a great idea

How exactly is having the timing of elections soley down to the PM of the day and thus the governing party interests great for democracy? What is great for democracy in the incumbetent government having an election when it suits itself?

Alan Johnson has gone.

No surprise there - he was useless!

Doesn't say much Ed's judgement though!

So it's going to be the Balls vs 'Boy' George show.

The Tories waste no time in getting stuck into Balls

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6634023/the-tories-waste-no-time-in-getting-stuck-into-balls.thtml

ICM/Guardian

Con 35% Lab 39% Lib-Dem 15% Lab Lead 4%

ICM/Guardian

Con 35% Lab 39% Lib-Dem 15% Con Lead 4%

Tories starting to take some of the heat fomerly on the LDs. 35% is low for them, and this might be significant:-

"Carried out before today's poor GDP figures were published,.."