YouGov/News International

Con 37% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 6%

---

YouGov/News International

Con 37% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 6%

In the last month there has been a widening of Labour's lead from about 1-2 to 4-6.

Nothing for the govt to worry about yet, but they wouldn't want things to continue to drift

 

---

YouGov/News International

Con 37% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 6%

In the last month there has been a widening of Labour's lead from about 1-2 to 4-6.

Nothing for the govt to worry about yet, but they wouldn't want things to continue to drift

 

Certainly isn't; not since they've given themselves the right to Govern until 2015 come what may.

Other than that there's plenty they should be worrying about.

Certainly isn't; not since they've given themselves the right to Govern until 2015 come what may.

Emotive bull, but bull none the less. Parliamentary terms are 5 years and 4 weeks, you'd think the way some folk go on here that they'd abolished elections!

The farce/tragedy of this lost opportunity born of political necessity and self preservation is quite how little difference the majoritarian systen would make to our politics.

It might only make modest changes to the make up of the House of Commons, but it's a huge cultural shift to a preferential voting system. It is a step in the right direction, but more importantly it will give more folk a sense that their vote is not wasted.

Certainly isn't; not since they've given themselves the right to Govern until 2015 come what may.

Emotive bull, but bull none the less. Parliamentary terms are 5 years and 4 weeks, you'd think the way some folk go on here that they'd abolished elections!

At the moment, Parliamentary terms "can" last 5 years and 4 weeks but parliament can bring down the Government earlier with a vote of no confidence. I think that is an important safeguard for democracy. The Coaltion wants to stop this by bringing in fixed term parliaments of 5 years (which is too long anyway - 4 years is enough).  They also want to gerrymander constituency boundaries in their favour.

---

Parliament can still bring down a government at any time with a confidence vote.

Parliament can still bring down a government at any time with a confidence vote.

Not nearly as simple as that (now)...a successful (lack of) confidence vote would trigger a 14 day period in which the executive would be free to put together another administration, and a dissolution vote will now require a 2/3 majority vote.

Certainly isn't; not since they've given themselves the right to Govern until 2015 come what may.

Emotive bull, but bull none the less. Parliamentary terms are 5 years and 4 weeks, you'd think the way some folk go on here that they'd abolished elections!

At the moment, Parliamentary terms "can" last 5 years and 4 weeks but parliament can bring down the Government earlier with a vote of no confidence. I think that is an important safeguard for democracy. The Coaltion wants to stop this by bringing in fixed term parliaments of 5 years (which is too long anyway - 4 years is enough).  They also want to gerrymander constituency boundaries in their favour.

That old nonsense - the current boundaries are skewed heavily in Labour's favour - reducing the number of constituencies and changing constituency boundaries simply creates a level playing field. Of course Labour bleat about that, because they are losing their current built-in advantage.

---

Let's not get into this old argument again Maunder. The boundaries were already adjusted at the last election with Labour losing a lot of seats. There was higher turnout in safe tory seats at last 2 elections which affected the stats. Besides, there are many inner city Labour seats with a very high population as well.

---

unless they want to be wiped out.

They're going to be wiped out anyway at the next election - just a case of when and with how much of their pride and integrity they manage to keep intact, to load into the cardboard box alongside their House of Commons stationary, as they begin a life after politics

A week is a long time in politics, four years much longer.

If there isn't room for a liberal party becuase the other two are broad enough to accomodate liberals then then both the need for a liberal party and it's prospects will deminish. If Labour goes left or the Tories right the space is there for a liberal party.

---

Excuse my having taken my eye off the ball on this, but has the 2/3 of the house needed to dissolve parliament proposal actually gone through and made it to the Statute book?

---

Excuse my having taken my eye off the ball on this, but has the 2/3 of the house needed to dissolve parliament proposal actually gone through and made it to the Statute book?

It has passed the Commons, it is now in Lord's committee stage.

---

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

---

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

I do not get how this is a travesty for Democracy, quite the opposite in fact. We elect MPs not PM's in this country and now the decision to seek early dissolution will be the call of all elected MPs in a parliamentary vote, not the sole discretion of the PM using the Royal Prerogative for party political advantage.

 

Regarding the proposed date of the next UK election, I really hope the UK government doesn't move the Scottish Parliament election from the same day to the autumn.

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

I do not get how this is a travesty for Democracy, quite the opposite in fact. We elect MPs not PM's in this country and now the decision to seek early dissolution will be the call of all elected MPs in a parliamentary vote, not the sole discretion of the PM using the Royal Prerogative for party political advantage.

 

Don't confuse theory with practice. Up until now, a no confidence motion carried by 50% +1 has been enough to lead to the PM effectively having to dissolve parliament. That threshold is being raised, meaning that the PM/government not enjoying the confidence of the majority of the people who represent us will no longer be enough to force a GE. You must be able to see that this is a pretty transparent attempt to ensure the survival of the coalition for 5 years, can't you haggis??

---

No it's not, a no confidence motion carried by 1 vote will still be the end of the incumbent government. If no new government can be formed within the given timescale a dissolution would follow - fairly standard fair where fixed term parliaments exist. A direct vote for dissolution though has to have a higher threshold if you are moving to a fixed term system - it is a balancing act between parliaments having a fixed term and an adequate safety value for exceptional circumstances.

There will for the first time be a mechanism for MPs to seek dissolution. I was under the impression that at present once a government had lost a confidence vote the PM also lost the right to seek a dissolution and whether a dissolution occurred would depend on circumstances, namely whether there was a realistic chance of forming another government from the existing Parliament. There will in future if the new law is passed be clear procedures for such scenarios instead of relying on the royal prerogative.

No it's not, a no confidence motion carried by 1 vote will still be the end of the incumbent government. If no new government can be formed within the given timescale a dissolution would follow - fairly standard fair where fixed term parliaments exist. A direct vote for dissolution though has to have a higher threshold if you are moving to a fixed term system - it is a balancing act between parliaments having a fixed term and an adequate safety value for exceptional circumstances.

There will for the first time be a mechanism for MPs to seek dissolution. I was under the impression that at present once a government had lost a confidence vote the PM also lost the right to seek a dissolution and whether a dissolution occurred would depend on circumstances, namely whether there was a realistic chance of forming another government from the existing Parliament. There will in future if the new law is passed be clear procedures for such scenarios instead of relying on the royal prerogative.

Thanks for that explanation.

Not what some are claiming. Still, I guess it is an outrage that a party doesn't achieve what it wanted to (student loans) and an outrage when it does (fixed terms)

---

No it's not, a no confidence motion carried by 1 vote will still be the end of the incumbent government. If no new government can be formed within the given timescale a dissolution would follow - fairly standard fair where fixed term parliaments exist. A direct vote for dissolution though has to have a higher threshold if you are moving to a fixed term system - it is a balancing act between parliaments having a fixed term and an adequate safety value for exceptional circumstances.

There will for the first time be a mechanism for MPs to seek dissolution. I was under the impression that at present once a government had lost a confidence vote the PM also lost the right to seek a dissolution and whether a dissolution occurred would depend on circumstances, namely whether there was a realistic chance of forming another government from the existing Parliament. There will in future if the new law is passed be clear procedures for such scenarios instead of relying on the royal prerogative.

Thanks for that explanation.

Not what some are claiming. Still, I guess it is an outrage that a party doesn't achieve what it wanted to (student loans) and an outrage when it does (fixed terms)

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.

Peter: erm,  the change to the rules re. dissolution was not in any manifesto that any of the parties stood on; as for fixed term, the lib dem manifesto was for 4 years, not 5. More to the point, it's not just that they've not achieved what they want re student loans - and you entirely miss the point here - it's that they (the uppoer echelon) are now fully behind the proposals. They are NOT saying they haven't got what they wanted; they're saying they've changed their minds on what they want! Unless you're claiming that what the leading Lib Dems say is not true, and when they vote for a proposal in the House they're actually going against what they want?

---

No it's not, a no confidence motion carried by 1 vote will still be the end of the incumbent government. If no new government can be formed within the given timescale a dissolution would follow - fairly standard fair where fixed term parliaments exist. A direct vote for dissolution though has to have a higher threshold if you are moving to a fixed term system - it is a balancing act between parliaments having a fixed term and an adequate safety value for exceptional circumstances.

There will for the first time be a mechanism for MPs to seek dissolution. I was under the impression that at present once a government had lost a confidence vote the PM also lost the right to seek a dissolution and whether a dissolution occurred would depend on circumstances, namely whether there was a realistic chance of forming another government from the existing Parliament. There will in future if the new law is passed be clear procedures for such scenarios instead of relying on the royal prerogative.

Thanks for that explanation.

Not what some are claiming. Still, I guess it is an outrage that a party doesn't achieve what it wanted to (student loans) and an outrage when it does (fixed terms)

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: erm,  the change to the rules re. dissolution was not in any manifesto that any of the parties stood on; as for fixed term, the lib dem manifesto was for 4 years, not 5. More to the point, it's not just that they've not achieved what they want re student loans - and you entirely miss the point here - it's that they (the uppoer echelon) are now fully behind the proposals. They are NOT saying they haven't got what they wanted; they're saying they've changed their minds on what they want! Unless you're claiming that what the leading Lib Dems say is not true, and when they vote for a proposal in the House they're actually going against what they want?

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.

---