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.
"When it takes nearly 900,000 votes to elect one party’s MP, and just 26,000 for another, you know something is deeply wrong."
The electoral reform society, 14,12,19