And if a minority government proves to be ineffective it should be able to be removed via a vote, now that will not be possible unless it chooses to remove itself.
A minority government should not have that level of power.
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
And if a minority government proves to be ineffective it should be able to be removed via a vote, now that will not be possible unless it chooses to remove itself.
A minority government should not have that level of power.
A minority government passing a law to keep themselves in power goes against every basic principle of democracy.
But it's not a minority government.
Well, a minority government doesn't have that level of power. An official coalition government, with over 360 seats, has the power to implement that rule. The group of MPs that have agreed that rule represent the largest portion of the voters of any British government for a long time.
They would be if the Lib Dems walked away, that is the point.
Not currently, but if the coalition were to break down and it became a minority government, they have secured their ability to retain power even if every other seat in the House of Commons votes no confidence in them.
Sometimes I think the whole BNP thing is genius trolling when you come out with statements like that.
Yes, currently.
If the coalition breaks down and the Conservatives are then a minority, there will then be no facility for a vote of no confidence to remove that minority if it proved to be ineffective.
But that is the joint manifesto so either the Lib Dems don't mind it or support it. Therefore it is a majority coalition item not a conservative ploy to stay in power.
Blame the Lib Dems for agreeing.
Not at all, my views as expressed today and my previous comments re the BNP are not incompatible or contradictory.
I think you are hinging on this 50% like it is some kind of magic number. Why not 25%?
In practice this will have very little effect. If a minority government is in power, then the opposing parties will be able to oppose all legislation and neuter their control (and if you say this might not happen, then a 50% vote of no confidence wouldn't happen either). The minority government would simply end up caretakers unable to move anything forward. That will result in them calling for a vote of no confidence in themselves.
Because it was never 25% before and that would be an utterly utterly stupid figure for it to be? What a pointless comment.
50% meant that an ineffective minority could be removed if necessary. 55% means if the Conservatives become such a minority during this term they cannot be removed.
As you say, it would require the Conservatives to vote no confidence in themselves. It's a very very dodgy principle frankly.
edit - I wonder how reactions to this would have varied had it been Labour making this change to allow themselves an unassailable minority.
Last edited:
Waits for the BNP to come into the discussion.
I'm sure the BNP doesn't need to be bought back into the conversation now.
But personally I've got more respect for those people who voted BNP than those who didn't bother voting at all.
At least they spent the time to put their feelings forward and didn't sit on their lazy back-sides like 40% of the population did.
It is not a pointless comment, and frankly there's no need for you to be so ostensibly rude about it.
I'm in two minds, if we more likely in future to have minority/coalition governments than it may be better along with fixed term parliaments. On the other hand it makes it much harder to get rid of a government that is deeply unpopular and damaging to the country.
It doesn't, really. What it does is make it just as hard to remove a government with 45% of the seats, as a government with 50% of the seats. It is simply extending the same stability protection every majority government has ever had to a marginally minority government. It is a little bit sneaky considering the circumstances, but it's really nothing to write home about, in my opinion.