-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
dr_octagon
Banned
In an NBA thread, I think.Souldriver said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think I have got the hang of how this 55% majority to bring down the government thing works.
What we were thinking (and some journalists as well) was that it was an attempt to change the rules of voting on confidence motions - so that a majority of 55% rather than 50%+1 would be needed in a confidence motion. And nobody understood how that could work, because Parliament could just undo the rule and then revote.
Essential background: the way confidence votes work is that it is a convention that if the PM loses one he asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament and the Queen acts on his advice.
What seems to be proposed is this:
1) the PM loses the right to advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament (so that he can't pick the time of elections)
2) because of that, the old confidence motion approach couldn't work anyway, because if the PM lost one he couldn't advise the Queen etc etc
3) Parliament - well, the House of Commons - gets a NEW power to advise the Queen to dissolve itself (so the power is Parliament's rather than the PM's). Because it is a new power, it can have whatever rules Parliament decides it can have.
4) It's 55% so that (a) the Tories can't cut and run to the country (b) neither can the LibDems (c) neither can the LibDems in conjunction with all the other parties together. Which pretty well ensures a fixed term Parliament unless there are rebel Tories or broad consensus, which is what the policy objective is.
5) the Commons can't just change the rule and re-vote because this will be an Act of Parliament rather than the old Commons convention, so changes will need approval from the Lords - and by the time they have that the fuss will have died down.
What we were thinking (and some journalists as well) was that it was an attempt to change the rules of voting on confidence motions - so that a majority of 55% rather than 50%+1 would be needed in a confidence motion. And nobody understood how that could work, because Parliament could just undo the rule and then revote.
Essential background: the way confidence votes work is that it is a convention that if the PM loses one he asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament and the Queen acts on his advice.
What seems to be proposed is this:
1) the PM loses the right to advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament (so that he can't pick the time of elections)
2) because of that, the old confidence motion approach couldn't work anyway, because if the PM lost one he couldn't advise the Queen etc etc
3) Parliament - well, the House of Commons - gets a NEW power to advise the Queen to dissolve itself (so the power is Parliament's rather than the PM's). Because it is a new power, it can have whatever rules Parliament decides it can have.
4) It's 55% so that (a) the Tories can't cut and run to the country (b) neither can the LibDems (c) neither can the LibDems in conjunction with all the other parties together. Which pretty well ensures a fixed term Parliament unless there are rebel Tories or broad consensus, which is what the policy objective is.
5) the Commons can't just change the rule and re-vote because this will be an Act of Parliament rather than the old Commons convention, so changes will need approval from the Lords - and by the time they have that the fuss will have died down.
Just watching Question Time now and its reaffirmed my belief that the public and the voters are just as fickle and gullible as the politicians. They harp on for decades that they want politicians to work together, that they want a more representative government. Guess what, the current government is more reflective of public opinion than any government for decades and the yet public are pissed off that they are working together. I hope this QT is not reflective of the voters.
Nicktendo86
Member
Empty said:
Her and that bloke from the New Statesmen were particially irritating. Was a good show though. Did anyone watch the week or whatever it's called after? God Dianne Abbott gets on my nerves, notice the way she looks up when she answers questions. Not sure why but that really annoys me.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Anyone remember the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 - the so-called 'Abolition of Parliament Act' in which Labour tried to allow Ministers to make any legislation whatever without the need for a Parliamentary vote or even a consultation - probably the most draconian and illiberal Bill ever introduced to Parliament since the Commonwealth, but thankfully watered down by those great guardians of liberty the unelected House of Lords so it could only be used to remove a 'burden'?
Well, wouldn't it be sweet justice if Nick'n'Dave made use of those powers to sweep away the rest of the oppressive legislation that Labour put in. They could do it tomorrow, and I would love to see the look on the opposition faces as they realised they were hoist by their own petard.
I suspect the new government has - or at least wants to be seen as having - more respect for Parliament than that. But it's a nice thought all the same.
Well, wouldn't it be sweet justice if Nick'n'Dave made use of those powers to sweep away the rest of the oppressive legislation that Labour put in. They could do it tomorrow, and I would love to see the look on the opposition faces as they realised they were hoist by their own petard.
I suspect the new government has - or at least wants to be seen as having - more respect for Parliament than that. But it's a nice thought all the same.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Chris Addison was great on Have I Got News for You this week...
he was really sticking it to Julia Hartley-Brewer and other journalists on their behaviour over
a) Gordon Brown remaining PM until there was a government ready to take over and
b) the papers complaining about 'two-timing' Clegg trying to get the best deal for his party (and what he believes best for his country)
c) the papers not understanding how two different parties can work together in a coalition
It was as though he was channeling exactly what a lot of us think.
Oh and Ian Hislop is a smug, self-important, self-righteous, preaching mother fucker. I can't stand him anymore.
he was really sticking it to Julia Hartley-Brewer and other journalists on their behaviour over
a) Gordon Brown remaining PM until there was a government ready to take over and
b) the papers complaining about 'two-timing' Clegg trying to get the best deal for his party (and what he believes best for his country)
c) the papers not understanding how two different parties can work together in a coalition
It was as though he was channeling exactly what a lot of us think.
Oh and Ian Hislop is a smug, self-important, self-righteous, preaching mother fucker. I can't stand him anymore.
Melanie Philips and that person from the New Statesman were blatently biased and they sucked. I can't believe how much they both sucked. And I'm ashamed at the ignorance of the people who clapped to the nonesense they both spewed.Empty said:
The electorate voted in such a way that gave Cons the most seats, short of majority. Lib Dems not many seats but enough to make a majority only with the Cons, and Labour with not enough seats even in a coalition (except an unworkable one consisting of many different parties).
The Lib Dems choice is a pointless coalition with Labour, which it seems Labour didn't care about anyway (probably because it's pointless and would make them even more unpopular), leaving the Cons to a minority government that is less stable, and will implement exactly 0 of the Lib Dem's exclusive policies, or coalition and have a government that will not only implement some of the Lib Dem policies (or at least a step towards, like a referendum on AV), but also take the edge off of some of the Tory policy. And on top of that, some Lib Dems instead of the Cons in cabinate and ministerial positions.
It's a very simple choice in my eyes, at least retrospectively, and Nick Clegg even very clearly said he'd seek to form a coalition with the party who gains most seats, which was almost certain to be the Conservatives from what we saw in the polls.
People who voted Lib Dems in general would have preferred a Lib Dem majority, but of course that's not going to happen. And the outcome, if you prefer that, was definitely going to be much worse than you wanted. But out of the options displayed as a result of the election, Lib Dems forming a coalition with the Conservatives was the best thing they could have done out of a bunch of unfavourable (compared to a Lib Dem majority) outcomes... and people complain at it. I don't like the Conservatives, but I'm happy the Lib Dems propped them up.
Politicians working together, and now people hate it.
Parl said:
Give it time, everyone is used to adversarial politics for such a long time, its going to take a long time to break the Tribal nature of our politics, the longer this coalition is in power, the quicker tribal politics will disappear.
People are just annoyed at the possibility that they'd have to talk and work together with other tribes, thats all.
Over time I'm sure we'll change to a more european mindset on politics, but until then theres going to be angry people.
Nicktendo86
Member
I think this whole 55% vote thing has really been blown out of proportion. As I understand the old 50% + 1 confidence vote still applies, this new measure is to ensure that the PM cannot simply dissolve Parliament and call a new election when it suits him. This measure could be very good for our democracy but it needs constructive debate, idiotic comments from the likes of the unelected Lord Adonis are not very helpful.
Lib Dem David Howarth on the BBC:
He said critics had got "entirely the wrong end of the stick" adding: "This dissolution vote, the 55% for a dissolution, is not the same as, for a vote of confidence."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said the old rule would still apply to no confidence votes - but should a government be defeated, it would not automatically trigger an election, a 55% vote would be required to dissolve parliament.
Lib Dem David Howarth on the BBC:
He said critics had got "entirely the wrong end of the stick" adding: "This dissolution vote, the 55% for a dissolution, is not the same as, for a vote of confidence."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said the old rule would still apply to no confidence votes - but should a government be defeated, it would not automatically trigger an election, a 55% vote would be required to dissolve parliament.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Parl said:
Just watched it on iplayer and I could not agree more.
The brazen, primordial (and unchallenged) assumption that every single person who votes agrees with every single manifesto pledge of the party they vote for and is betrayed by anything even an dishcloth short of it shows a woeful misunderstanding of the nature of politics and the nature of people. Just because a political party thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean that magically 6 or 8 or 10 million people will immediately roll over and praise it. We can only vote with the one cross for the best, or the least worst, of what we are offered.
I'm overjoyed with this coalition, and will not put up with people telling me that I ought to feel betrayed because a couple of parties have compromised on some policies that I didn't necessarily agree with in the first place.
I suppose they have papers to sell, but I bet their circulation is nowhere near the votes for even the lib dems - so it is probably confined to the lunatic fringes.
(I don't know why I put the word dishcloth in that paragraph - must be losing it.)
If they were going to have someone from the New Statesman, or at least a contributor to its pages, they should have had John Gray. The man has the potential for unanswerable, abrasive commentary and a steady philosophical brain.
It is not a shadow of the magazine it was. Shame. I'm reading a biography of Kingsley Martin at the moment, and I've been reading the obituaries of Alan Watkins (rest his blessed Welsh soul). Nor is the Spectator since glorious Boris sought and captured office.
It is not a shadow of the magazine it was. Shame. I'm reading a biography of Kingsley Martin at the moment, and I've been reading the obituaries of Alan Watkins (rest his blessed Welsh soul). Nor is the Spectator since glorious Boris sought and captured office.
Dr Zhivago
Member
phisheep said:
Yes, this has always annoyed me - as if the election was a referendum on every single line of the manifesto. I can't remember the details, but there was a particularly annoying one after the 92 election where the Tories implemented some controversial legislation claiming it was a 'manifesto pledge' - despite their tiny margin of victory.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sage00 said:
Sir Fragula said:
Blimey, doesn't it occur to anyone that he might be, well, an example of a nice Tory?
The logic seems to go:
- Tories are nasty
- There's a nice Tory
- Ah, that doesn't count, he's not really a Tory
- Oh, look, there's another one
- He doesn't count either
...and so on
Keep going on like that and you'll find there's only a handful of 'real Tories' - just enough to fit in an ordinary-sized pub - and the rest of us are perfectly normal thankyou.
Keyser Soze
Member
Stephen Timms, a Labour MP, got stabbed in the chest in London says Sky News
:/
:/
Keyser Soze said:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...imms-MP-is-stabbed.html?OTC-RSS#ixzz0nv61Yb00
crazy. My first thought was he got mugged or something.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
Nexus Zero
Member
Oh Newham
PJV3
Member
Nicktendo86 said:
We are having a 5 year parliament because as Hestletine e.t.c say ' to go to the electorate before then would see both parties destroyed'. We now have a 55% rule which magically is just about the right figure to keep the tories in.
At the next election there will be new constituency boundaries which will broadly favour the conservatives.(do we see a pattern forming)
Makes sense. My exposure to her, and that other irrational looney, were them on this Question Time. And on that, they both sucked massively.Atrophis said:
They're meant to be journalists - a career where it seems that the type of people who are precisely poor at being journalists, are journalists.
blazinglord
Member
So 60% of voters approve of the coalition, and more interestingly 69% of LDem voters support it. Seems to confirm my theory that the allegedly disgruntled LDems voters who claim that the coalition is a 'betrayal' are probably Labour supporters. Speaking of which, only 25% of Labour voters support the coalition. :lol
Stephen Timms stabbed twice in the stomach: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8683596.stm
Ed Milliband commits to running for Labour leader. It's on like Donkey Kong: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm
Ed Milliband commits to running for Labour leader. It's on like Donkey Kong: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm
The 55% rule applies to dissolution of parliament only, not confidence in the government. If 50%+1 vote against a confidence bill the government has to resign.
This is not a new or unusual thing: in Scotland 66% MPs are required to dissolve parliament.
I agree with everyone's comments about Melanie Philips and Mehdi Hassan, holy shit they were so opinionated and bitter.
This is not a new or unusual thing: in Scotland 66% MPs are required to dissolve parliament.
I agree with everyone's comments about Melanie Philips and Mehdi Hassan, holy shit they were so opinionated and bitter.