Fixed term parliaments,what happens if ?

[beorhthelm]

So lets do this way CMD,Dup,Ukip are in charge with a total of 310 M/Ps and CMD says right it's Euro referendum time and lets say they as a 'pact' say lets leave,but they lose the referendum vote,would that bring him down ?

1922 committee, or in layman's, his own back benchers. we have to remember that the PM post is, by tradition, the leader of the largest party. if the party kick their leader out (or they resign the leadership) then the party elects its new leader and that person de facto becomes PM.

all this is totally seperate from the term of the parliament. whats interesting is the pundits are saying that the fix term legislation was a bit rushed and kludged, and its possible there would be a move to repeal it if the fix term caused a government to linger on. there's also something to consider, the possibility of government continuing on without a majority, not getting it legislation through except the budget. you dont actually *need* new legislation to pass to maintain a government.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Exactly, so in a bizarre circumstance a parties own MP's could vote against their own Government for a General Election if that is wanted / needed to pass the 2/3s majority.

That's not at all bizarre. In 1966 and in October 1974, the party in power decided that they had a good chance of increasing their majority if an election was held. So an election was called. I'm sure a minority government would encourage it's own supporters to bring about an election as soon as they thought there might be a reasonable chance of winning it.

 

[happypig]

If on May 8th there is no outright winner so it's coalition time again and maybe this time with more then two parties i/e Tories/Libs/Dup/Ukip (?) as seen in Guardian,what happens if one of the 'partners' walks-out ? Can a vote of confidence be called for ? How does it work in a fixed term parliament ? Could we be voting again this year ? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection

As I understand it, if there is no overall majority and no formal coalition agreement to reach a majority, then the largest party would form a minority government. They would then put forward a Queen's Speech, setting out their policies and intents. If the vote on the speech is defeated, then the (minority) government effectively folds and the next largest party forms a minority government. If the same happens again then they would have no choice but to vote for a new election.
The SNP have already said that they will vote against any Conservative Queen's Speech, irrespective of any disagreement with Labour over a formal coalition.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

That's not at all bizarre. In 1966 and in October 1974, the party in power decided that they had a good chance of increasing their majority if an election was held. So an election was called. I'm sure a minority government would encourage it's own supporters to bring about an election as soon as they thought there might be a reasonable chance of winning it.

Yes, but they never were dissolved by a bankbench 'revolt', the Government called that on their own accord, and it didn't matter who supported them.

 

[GT49er]

All of which goes to show it was (yet another) crap idea by the tories. Cameron's attempt to promote himself as an all time great along with those who came up with the ideas of the poll tax and the flogging off all the national assets.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

It's a shame they are too childish to actually work TOGETHER to govern, even if they don't get into power. They choose to bicker and deliberately hamper the other side's ability to govern instead.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Parliament can vote for a dissolution... if no one is able to govern. However, I am sure the larger parties would be pretty keen to avoid being seen to be responsible for such a decision.

Not sure about this. Imagine a situation where the Tories were the largest party but because of their lack of natural allies couldn't form a majority-forming coalition and were forced to continue as a minority government. In that situation Miliband might look back to the situation in 1974 when Harold Wilson came close but not close enough to having a majority and forced a second election with an effective 'let's finish the job off' message.

The situation isn't exactly the same because as Prime Minister Wilson was in a position simply to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. Effectively though, Ed M would have great political strength. Just as Clegg in 2010 was able to argue (fairly I think) that it was more appropriate to join a resurgent Tory Party than a fading Labour one, so the Labour leader could bring down the government by joining the SNP in a no confidence motion and then say to the country "Look we almost did it on May 7. Now the year is out you the people can us get over the line." The English, seeing the Conservatives as yesterday's men and the SNP as extremely irritating interlopers, would respond as they did 41 years ago. Possibly.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

He will hold - with a reduced majority.

Yorkshire Post is reporting that the latest Ashcroft poll done in the past week has Nasty Nick lagging 2% behind his Labour opponent in Sheffield Hallam.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Yorkshire Post is reporting that the latest Ashcroft poll done in the past week has Nasty Nick lagging 2% behind his Labour opponent in Sheffield Hallam.

Sad how the English just have to have a pantomime villain. Clegg brought a degree of stability to the country's affairs at a difficult time by going into coalition with the party that had been the more successful of the two main ones fighting the election. Of course he had to give up some of his pet policies - that's how peace treaties and coalitions work. The alternatives for Clegg were to do nothing or join the discredited Labour Party. He did what he felt he had to and I respect him for that.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Sad how the English just have to have a pantomime villain. Clegg brought a degree of stability to the country's affairs at a difficult time by going into coalition with the party that had been the more successful of the two main ones fighting the election. Of course he had to give up some of his pet policies - that's how peace treaties and coalitions work. The alternatives for Clegg were to do nothing or join the discredited Labour Party. He did what he felt he had to and I respect him for that.

Be very careful. There's no reason for reason in British politics.

 

[Gwylan]

Sad how the English just have to have a pantomime villain. Clegg brought a degree of stability to the country's affairs at a difficult time by going into coalition with the party that had been the more successful of the two main ones fighting the election. Of course he had to give up some of his pet policies - that's how peace treaties and coalitions work. The alternatives for Clegg were to do nothing or join the discredited Labour Party. He did what he felt he had to and I respect him for that.

He was also the leader of a very pro-EU party who went into coalition with a pro-EU prime minister. Unfortunately, the prime minister was such a weak leader that he got frightened of a small minority party and shifted his own stance on the EU, leaving Clegg in an unfortunate position.

As part of the coalition agreement, Clegg also got Cameron to promise reform of the House of Lords: a promise that Cameron promptly reneged on (although Cameron was more burned by this as it meant the Lib Dems failed to support constituency reform, a move that has certainly cost the Tories about half a dozen seats).

Given the shifting sands, Clegg has done pretty well to keep the coalition together and deserves a bit more credit.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Sad how the English just have to have a pantomime villain. Clegg brought a degree of stability to the country's affairs at a difficult time by going into coalition with the party that had been the more successful of the two main ones fighting the election. Of course he had to give up some of his pet policies - that's how peace treaties and coalitions work. The alternatives for Clegg were to do nothing or join the discredited Labour Party. He did what he felt he had to and I respect him for that.

He made his own bed and has to lie in it. He'll only be remembered for being Cameron's poodle.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Yorkshire Post is reporting that the latest Ashcroft poll done in the past week has Nasty Nick lagging 2% behind his Labour opponent in Sheffield Hallam.

IMHO - He will hold. It's one poll by Ashcroft.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Sad how the English just have to have a pantomime villain. Clegg brought a degree of stability to the country's affairs at a difficult time by going into coalition with the party that had been the more successful of the two main ones fighting the election. Of course he had to give up some of his pet policies - that's how peace treaties and coalitions work. The alternatives for Clegg were to do nothing or join the discredited Labour Party. He did what he felt he had to and I respect him for that.

He made a huge mistake taking the role of DPM and not choosing to control a major ministry. He would have had more power and impact to implement some of his own party's policies. Instead he become a figurehead for disgruntlement with people who voted for the LDs.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

IMHO - He will hold. It's one poll by Ashcroft.

But it confirms what Labour have known for a while from their own private polling. Clegg is looking very much like the Coalition's sacrificial lamb.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

But it confirms what Labour have known for a while from their own private polling. Clegg is looking very much like the Coalition's sacrificial lamb.

I replied on the other thread

 

[Lincoln Imp]

He made his own bed and has to lie in it. He'll only be remembered for being Cameron's poodle.

Given that if he had failed to support the Tories in 2010 another election would have probably happened fairly quickly and the Tories would probably have won it, what would you have done?