55%
The Wall Street Journal, and a new website called "Say no to 55%" appear to have completely misunderstood the proposal for fixed term parliaments which can be over-ridden if 55% of MPs vote to dissolve parliament.
Iain Martin writes here that
'In the document outlining the coalition agreement that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed up to there is a startling little paragraph in the section headed “Political Reform”.
“Legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favor.”
If implemented, that would mean that a majority of one on a motion of no confidence in a government is no longer enough to bring it down.'
The "Say no to 55%" website says that
"This change in the law would make it impossible for Parliament to hold the government to account through a confidence vote."
Actually, no, the sentence quoted does not mean either of those things.
The government has to resign or call a General Election if it loses the confidence of the House of Commons. This can happen in two ways:
1) If the government loses a vote on an "issue of confidence" and does not immediately manage to carry a motion that "This House has confidence in Her Majesty's government," the Prime Minister has to go to the Queen and either resign or ask her for a dissolution of parliament and a General Election.
2) Similarly, if a motion that "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is passed by a simple majority of the House of Commons, or if a motion of confidence fails to get a simple majority, the Prime Minister has to go to the Queen with the same options.
There is no suggestion in the coalition agreement that it is proposed to change the margin required for a motion of confidence or one of no confidence. The author of the Lib/Dem policy on fixed term parliaments which the coalition has adopted confirms in the Guardian that there are no plans to change rules on no-confidence.
What the coalition agreement paragraph, appears to change is what would happen after a motion of confidence fails (or if a motion of no confidence is passed).
Under the present rules, a Prime Minister who is defeated in the Commons can ask the Queen to dissolve parliament, and then fight an election as Prime Minister.
What changes is that Prime Minister who has been defeated in a vote of confidence in the House of Commons can only ask the Queen for an election if there has also been a vote supported by 55% of the House of Commons calling for one.
In other words, supposing that the government loses a motion of confidence in the House of Commons, and there isn't a vote to dissolve parliament, the Queen's next move is to see if an alternative government can command a majority of the existing House of Commons.
Far from making it harder for parliament to bring down the government, this rule change makes it slightly easier, because MPs can sack the PM without necessarily precipitating a General Election.
For the benefit of the Wall Street Journal: translated into US terms, the proposal is not, as you appear to assume, equivalent to increasing the size of the majority required to impeach the President. It is equivalent to saying that congress can impeach the President without having to fight an immediate election themselves unless 55% of them vote to call such an election.
Incidentally, to impeach a US President currently requires both a simple majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senators present for the vote - which is 11 percentage points more than 55%. Iain Martin's statement wrote in his article that
"It is an idea that has been easily and widely grasped for generations inside and outside parliament that if you lose a confidence vote by one then, there’s no way around it, you have lost. Fifty per cent plus one is enough."
On that basis, will he be campaigning to change the US constitution so that 50% plus one in the Senate will be enough to impeach a President ?
Incidentally - and here's a first - the proposal by the new government has been defended by the Guardian here. Alan Travis points out that
"there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs."
Iain Martin writes here that
'In the document outlining the coalition agreement that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed up to there is a startling little paragraph in the section headed “Political Reform”.
“Legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favor.”
If implemented, that would mean that a majority of one on a motion of no confidence in a government is no longer enough to bring it down.'
The "Say no to 55%" website says that
"This change in the law would make it impossible for Parliament to hold the government to account through a confidence vote."
Actually, no, the sentence quoted does not mean either of those things.
The government has to resign or call a General Election if it loses the confidence of the House of Commons. This can happen in two ways:
1) If the government loses a vote on an "issue of confidence" and does not immediately manage to carry a motion that "This House has confidence in Her Majesty's government," the Prime Minister has to go to the Queen and either resign or ask her for a dissolution of parliament and a General Election.
2) Similarly, if a motion that "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is passed by a simple majority of the House of Commons, or if a motion of confidence fails to get a simple majority, the Prime Minister has to go to the Queen with the same options.
There is no suggestion in the coalition agreement that it is proposed to change the margin required for a motion of confidence or one of no confidence. The author of the Lib/Dem policy on fixed term parliaments which the coalition has adopted confirms in the Guardian that there are no plans to change rules on no-confidence.
What the coalition agreement paragraph, appears to change is what would happen after a motion of confidence fails (or if a motion of no confidence is passed).
Under the present rules, a Prime Minister who is defeated in the Commons can ask the Queen to dissolve parliament, and then fight an election as Prime Minister.
What changes is that Prime Minister who has been defeated in a vote of confidence in the House of Commons can only ask the Queen for an election if there has also been a vote supported by 55% of the House of Commons calling for one.
In other words, supposing that the government loses a motion of confidence in the House of Commons, and there isn't a vote to dissolve parliament, the Queen's next move is to see if an alternative government can command a majority of the existing House of Commons.
Far from making it harder for parliament to bring down the government, this rule change makes it slightly easier, because MPs can sack the PM without necessarily precipitating a General Election.
For the benefit of the Wall Street Journal: translated into US terms, the proposal is not, as you appear to assume, equivalent to increasing the size of the majority required to impeach the President. It is equivalent to saying that congress can impeach the President without having to fight an immediate election themselves unless 55% of them vote to call such an election.
Incidentally, to impeach a US President currently requires both a simple majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senators present for the vote - which is 11 percentage points more than 55%. Iain Martin's statement wrote in his article that
"It is an idea that has been easily and widely grasped for generations inside and outside parliament that if you lose a confidence vote by one then, there’s no way around it, you have lost. Fifty per cent plus one is enough."
On that basis, will he be campaigning to change the US constitution so that 50% plus one in the Senate will be enough to impeach a President ?
Incidentally - and here's a first - the proposal by the new government has been defended by the Guardian here. Alan Travis points out that
"there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs."
Comments
If anything this has strengthened Parliament, as it removes the power from the PM, as to when to call an election. The no confidence motion that could terminate a Parliament comes from Parliament.
I noted that a debate on Newsnight revealed that not only had the 'Wall Street Journal' confused the issues of fixed term Parliament and the 55% majority, but so had many journalists and Lord Adonis.