Money talks and bullshit walks, an occasional series
Hoisted from Matthew's comments, this idea of voting yourself an extra 32 seats really is a disaster, isn't it?
Raising the threshold to 55% for confidence votes is all very well, but what about budget votes? A government which can't pass its budget surely has to be considered to have fallen. And I don't think anyone has got the brass balls to propose a similar reform suggesting that a Finance Bill can be deemed to have passed if it has 45% support. So what this proposal achieves is to give the Opposition an incentive to make explicit use of the previously implicit fact that every budget is a de facto confidence vote. Doesn't that just scream "stability and viability" to you?
Raising the threshold to 55% for confidence votes is all very well, but what about budget votes?
ReplyDeleteWell, and also there's this: say the coalition breaks down and the Lib Dems all cross the floor. The rump minority Government has 48% of the votes, so it can't fail a confidence vote. All David Miliband (or whoever) has to do is:
put in a private member's bill stating that, from now on, confidence votes require only a simple majority;
the bill passes with 52% support;
hold a confidence vote;
win it 52-48%;
parliament dissolves.
A Tory peer on Newsnight last night made the point that this could also be good for the Lib Dems, as the Tories can't ditch them next year and hold an election in the hope of getting a majority by themselves - they're stuck together. (Of course, that only holds if the Tories can't get up to 55% support for an election from some other minority parties and/or Labour, who might also welcome an election.)
Oh dear. It's depressing how many people can't distinguish between (a) a vote of no confidence in the present Government, which leaves open the possibility of a new Government being negotiated, and (b) a vote to dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections. This is a perfectly ordinary distinction that obtains in many Other Places. Including several in the UK. And normally with a threshold much higher than 55%.
ReplyDeleteIt's also pretty depressing how many people can't distinguish between a) making a polite comment pointing out an error or misunderstanding and b) BACAI.
ReplyDeleteI think it's depressing how many people can't distinguish between a) a transparent Tory antidemocratic blag and b) an equally transparent piece of spin aimed at pretending that it's not a).
ReplyDelete(and thinking about it, Cameron is also proposing that any "unelected" Prime Minister should be forced to immediately call an election, so whaur's yer distinction noo?)
ReplyDeleteCameron's argument was that Brown, had he managed to form a coalition this week, would still have been an unelected PM. But, by that argument, so is Cameron. He didn't win a majority in the election; he got into Number 10 through a deal with one of the other losers.
ReplyDeleteIt's what happens when you get into power. You can no longer whitter on about both postcode lotteries and overwheening centralisation without people noticing. Unelected prime minister versus the primacy of parliament is similar.
ReplyDeleteStill, someone who puts "Cutting the deficit, not the NHS" on a campaign poster should be prepared.
It is the case that fixed-term parliaments have such provisions, such as the two-thirds in Scotland. But I think there's two problems here from the arguments being made:
ReplyDeletea) the liberals say it protects them as it prevents the Tories calling an election by voting for a dissolution. But on 47% of the seats they couldn't do that before, whereas it does prevent other parties calling for one.
b) Cameron said today peaking on a visit to the Scottish Parliament, that the procedure he was proposing would help to secure a "strong and stable government" over the next five years. So clearly he sees it in terms of his own government, not the (as its advocates are saying) parliament as a whole.
I think if coalitions are to become the norm without PR you'll need something like this otherwise the coalition is always going to be at risk from the PM calling an election. But perhaps it could be more explicitly against the PM and his party doing the dissolution.
I think the law will have to be that a PM who has the confidence of the House cannot call an election without 55% support. That way it disciplines Cameron without increasing the no confidence threshold. It doesn't allow the Lib-Dems to leave the coalition and form a new one with Labour, but it does prevent Cameron from calling an election without losing a confidence vote. Is that a meaningful distinction?
ReplyDeleteActually I think it does allow the LDs to leave and form a new coalition with Labour, without calling an election in the mean time. Votes of confidence can still be lost by 50%+1, so the LDs can still bring Cameron down; however, having done so they (with Labour) would be unable to call for a dissolution, so they would have to form a new government without an election.
ReplyDeleteAll Prime Ministers are unlected, it's not an elective office.
ReplyDeleteHands up to BACAI.
ReplyDeleteI'd been having the same argument repeatedly, snapped, and posted intemperately and immoderately, in a way that really wasn't likely to improve the debate, let alone convince anyone of my point of view. (I know, I know - what, here?)
There's a fine but important line between snarkiness and BACAI. It'll be a sad day when snark is inappropriate on this blog, of all places, and likely a cold one in hell. But I was over that line.
Sorry.