You do not need to cap and trade "carbons", or tax us out of existence to reduce pollution. There are alternatives, you just need to invest in them
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
You do not need to cap and trade "carbons", or tax us out of existence to reduce pollution. There are alternatives, you just need to invest in them
No, because the ruling government usually has over 50% of the seats.
In this case, the coaition has over 50%.
If a government loses the confidence of most of the House of Commons, it should be possible to vote them out. If a party only has the support of 45.1% of MPs, how is it democratic that the 54.9% can't boot them out?
The Tories have 47% of the seats. They would need to vote against themselves in a no confidence vote :/
Can people not see why this is a tad dodgy?
Nope, it prevents it turning into purely party politics, and going forward no party is likely to have more than 45% of the seats after electoral reform.
The Tories have 47% of the seats. They would need to vote against themselves in a no confidence vote :/
Can people not see why this is a tad dodgy?
And how is it more dodgey than normal? Where a majority government can only be overthrown if they themselves vote themselves out of power?
The only electoral reform we will be getting will be AV, which will produce very similar results to what we have now.
But even under PR, a coalition government would have well over 50% of the seats - they would have to, in order to have the power to govern.
So whichever way you look at it, this move is completely unnecessary and undemocratic.
Considering the only electoral reform on the table as far as I am aware is AV, the future results won't actually be all that different to now.
At least a majority government won most of the seats in an election! The Tories won 47% of the seats and about a third of the vote.
It's not that dodgy when you think about it. The vote of no confidence has almost always required the party to vote against itself, as in most cases the sitting government party have had over 50% of the seats.The Tories have 47% of the seats. They would need to vote against themselves in a no confidence vote :/
Can people not see why this is a tad dodgy?
The difference of having fixed term parliaments doesn't really add another dimension. The PM was always the one to decide on the timing of an election.
Under AV we would have fewer Tory and Lab seats and more LD seats still, which still forces a coalition and with fixed terms means we need to change the no confidence slightly
Fixed term means that PM doesn't do that any more, instead we go to the polls every 5 years, like they do in America for president every 4 years on the dot.
The Tories have 47% of the seats. They would need to vote against themselves in a no confidence vote :/
Can people not see why this is a tad dodgy?
It has always been the case that the government has to vote against itself in a no confidence vote with our previous parliamentary system. We have pretty much always goverened with majority governments prior to this point. I think the important thing is that it is ONLY a no confidence vote that can trigger an election prior to the end of the fixed term. So no more calling for election as soon as it is politically expedient to do so. If we move to some form of PR with coalition government almost all the time then the 55% makes sense.
A vote of no confidence has never really had any relevance to a majority government though, which is fine as in theory they have the majority of support anyway.
It's entirely different when you are dealing with minority governments though.
Tories will redraw the boundaries as well. Labour will take all the hit.
Only a very very slight difference, ordinarily it will produce much the same results as usual, a massive Conservative or Labour majority.
I already said I am happy with fixed term parliaments. But the 55% issue is separate to that and is a blatant ploy by the Tories to ensure their reign is unassailable and it will be impossible to remove them no matter what they do. It doesn't matter if you are a Tory supporter, anyone should see that this is simply wrong.
Throw in Scottish Independance if the SNP manage to walk the next Scottish Parliament and Labour take a further hit. If voting reform also involves party funding reform then Labour take another hit. There is so much that could go right this parliament to seriously hurt the Labour party.
Ultimately the most telling aspect of it for me is the convenient issue that it just so happens to mean the Conservatives now cannot be removed from government, even if the LD coalition were to break down and leave them in a minority position with every other seat in the commons voting no confidence, unless they choose to leave.
Here is the wording of the proposed change.
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable Files/agreement.ashx?dl=true
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable Files/agreement.ashx?dl=true
I'm indifferent to it. It's a very small adjustment, and effectively ensures a stable government (assuming no big by-election losses) for the next 5 years.
It's clearly just a back-up option. If the coalition fails, then they operate as a minority government.