The Tory Dictatorship!

[Westdene Seagull]

I find it remarkable how negative people are after just a few days. loads of mention of things like this that in reality is unlikely of ever need to be used.

On the otherhand no mention of the positives like the scrapping of the daft idea that was HIPs or the agreement to get rid of the ID cards.

I think people need to grow up and understand where we are. It was noticable on Question Time last might how professional and level headed both Hesiltine and Hughes seemed but let the stupid the daft Daily Mail bint and the equally idiotic New Stateman guy seemed shouting about betrayal etc.

What on earth is wrong with concensus politics ? It means compromises yes but it actually shows a change from the childish bickering that goes on between the right and the left.

I for one am glad we have a coalition government.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Get in by hook or by crook, then pull up the drawbridge and sod any time-honoured conventions whilst doing so; all very Enabling Act...watch out for mentally-unstable Dutchmen heading towards the Palace of Westminster with boxes of matches next.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

But I suppose the idea is that if you are going to have fixed term parliaments, which many suport, then you have to have some extra reassurance that the parliament will last for that long. The PM has given up his right to call an election at any time he pleases so there is some logic in saying that the oppoosition shouldn't be able to do the same.

I admit though that my initial reaction to it was hostile but do now understand why

 

[Trufflehound]

..watch out for mentally-unstable Dutchmen ...

 

[Pavilionaire]

Isn't the key stat that the Tories presently hold 47% of the seats in Parliament, so the others hold 53%? Therefore, at least 14 Tories would need to side with a united opposition, including the Lib Dems, to bring the coalition down.

I agree that the 55% proposal is a BAD idea and 50% plus 1 has to stay.

 

[Gritt23]

I don't see the point in the 55% bit anyway, because 50% +1 can always force an election, simply by opposing and therefore defeating ALL Bills that the Government put forward, until they accept they do not have the majority support of Parliament, and accept the need for another election.

Unless of course this change is also coming with an amendment that 55% opposition to a Bill is required to defeat it.

 

[ROSM]

What on earth is wrong with concensus politics ? It means compromises yes but it actually shows a change from the childish bickering that goes on between the right and the left.

I for one am glad we have a coalition government.

I am happy we have a coalition - it's clearly what the public voted for in terms of how their votes counted within the rules of the election, but this isn't about consensus politics - it's about fundamentally changing the way in which governments operate. I agree with fixed term parliaments with some checks and balances.

How long should the fixed term be?
What are the methods for dissolving parliament early?
What happens when legislation can no longer be passed due to lack of majority?

The Conservatives offered the all party panel to examine voting reform before giving a referendum so where's the one to cover this?

Historially minority governments have existed in many guises (John Major, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson) but only Jim Callaghan actually lost a vote of no confidence. Why change what we have then especially as the coalition has a majority of 80+ at the moment?

 

[larus]

I voted Tory and I don't think this is a good idea, irrespective of the reasons. 50% + 1 is good enough for me. The logic about a 'fixed' terms is good as it stops the major party in the coalition doing the dirty on the minor party.

However, the petty snide comments (from some people who's views I used to respect) are pathetic. Dictatorships, not trusting his own MP's. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that every party has factions/rebels/mavericks, yet some people can't wait to whinge because their party lost. Grown up for F***s sake; you really are making yourselves out to my spoilt kids.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I am happy we have a coalition - it's clearly what the public voted for in terms of how their votes counted within the rules of the election, but this isn't about consensus politics - it's about fundamentally changing the way in which governments operate. I agree with fixed term parliaments with some checks and balances.

How long should the fixed term be?
What are the methods for dissolving parliament early?
What happens when legislation can no longer be passed due to lack of majority?

The Conservatives offered the all party panel to examine voting reform before giving a referendum so where's the one to cover this?

Historially minority governments have existed in many guises (John Major, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson) but only Jim Callaghan actually lost a vote of no confidence. Why change what we have then especially as the coalition has a majority of 80+ at the moment?

Because the PM has given up his right to call an election when it is tactically right for him. You clearly can't have a situation where a Government has no support whatsoever so there has to be a trigger, but I can see the reasoning behind wanting to have a higher test for an election to be called.

Remember that 75% of Government work is done outside of legislation, but if Government were going to lose a Finance Act (the budget) or a Queens speech debate then I think the PM would probably admit defeat and abstain from voting so prompting a general election.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Look you whingeing lefties, you lost!

As the bloke on 'Have I Got News For You' said last night,'give it a chance', the coalition has been in place for just over 2 days. Surely you cannot judge it in that time.

More interestingly, Alex Salmon(d) of the F.R.I.S.P. Indepedence Party is already claiming that the coalition has no mandate in Scotland. Maybe, maybe not. But whilst we are all going to see massive cutbacks in public spending and tax rises, he wants an extra £700 million from Westminster for the barbarian hordes north of the border.

F**k right off!

Oh, and the Taffs want an extra £300 million by the way.

 

[BLOCK F]

How anyone can accuse the Tories of Dictatorship after suffering 13 years of the most authoritarian Government this country has ever seen,is quite beyond me.
More CCTV cameras that any other 'free country' in the world,ID cards,abuse of anti terrorist laws by councils,abuse of anti terrorist laws by Government,compilation of mega databases,politicisation of the police 'service',thought crime almost becoming a reality,over the top politcal correctness,new powers given to yet more government lackies to enter an individuals property and how many new laws have they passed during 13 years?..can't remember ,but one hell of a lot more ways of criminalising the citizens of this country have been created......one could go on and on.........

 

[ROSM]

Because the PM has given up his right to call an election when it is tactically right for him. You clearly can't have a situation where a Government has no support whatsoever so there has to be a trigger, but I can see the reasoning behind wanting to have a higher test for an election to be called.

Remember that 75% of Government work is done outside of legislation, but if Government were going to lose a Finance Act (the budget) or a Queens speech debate then I think the PM would probably admit defeat and abstain from voting so prompting a general election.

My posts on this have said I remain to be convinced and I feel that there should be more investigation and research on this. Why 5 years and not 4? why 55% and not 50% +1 or 60%?

This is not a whinge about the Tories - it's a concern that I would have whoever would have proposed this.

 

[drew]

I think the 55% thing is well intentioned by Mr Cameron, but could be open to abuse in the future. On balance, I prefer the 50% + 1 as used elsewhere.

I have to disagree about the intentions. Any leader of any colour that alters the constitution to favour them keeping power is wrong.

It would mean that we wouldn't be back at the polls in 3 months time, as you well know. The point is, no-one has an overall majority, and the numbers mean that any ruling coalition will only have a small overall majority, and a relatively minor revolt within the party would leave the governing coalition in the minority. Do you honestly think it would be beneficial to the country, the economy or the population for us to be going to the polls every 3 months for the next 2 years, and swapping between a Lab-Lib coalition and a Con-Lib one?

With the coalition, we wouldn't be back at the polls in 3 months anyway so that is not an argument. Also it is childish to suggest that we would be back at the polls every 3 months with power swapping between major parties.

Altering things to suit themselves-has Archer started advising the tories?

Exactly.

If Labour had implemented it this board and most of the press would have gone absolutely ape shit about it.

Exactly, and if they had, my first post would have been exactly the same.

As I would have done if they'd implemented AV without a referendum and indeed I did when they ratified the Lisbon treaty. There is currently a major review of why Labour fared so badly and as I understand it, Lisbon plays very high in that.

Personally, I would suggest that the main reason Labour failed was the public perception of Brown. Had he gone and they had a better leader, they might have secured another 20 odd seats which, assuming they weren't from the Liberals, would have meant a Lib/Lab pact more likely.

not that i agree with it, but some of the reaction is way over the top. knee jerk reaction to change. "Constitutionally immoral"? dont other countries have similar conditions in areas of voting? I know theres a US rule whereby 75% backing cannot be delayed by the upper house. It needs to be debated, and presumably wiill require primary legislation and a vote in the commons. but let not start the debate from a position of comparing it to dictatorships.

Unfortunately, it is a step in the wrong direction. It is hardly democratic and totally at odds with the Tory support for FPTP.

I find it remarkable how negative people are after just a few days. loads of mention of things like this that in reality is unlikely of ever need to be used.

On the otherhand no mention of the positives like the scrapping of the daft idea that was HIPs or the agreement to get rid of the ID cards.

I think people need to grow up and understand where we are. It was noticable on Question Time last might how professional and level headed both Hesiltine and Hughes seemed but let the stupid the daft Daily Mail bint and the equally idiotic New Stateman guy seemed shouting about betrayal etc.

What on earth is wrong with concensus politics ? It means compromises yes but it actually shows a change from the childish bickering that goes on between the right and the left.

I for one am glad we have a coalition government.

The problem is the change was not something voluntarily and pro-actively entered into, it was forced on the Tories. Yes, the coalition might work but don't think for one minute the attitude of many Tory and Libdem backbenchers have changed overnight. Exactly as in 1997, not all Labour MPs saw themselves as 'New Labour'. As for childish bickering, who was the main protaganist during PMQs?

But I suppose the idea is that if you are going to have fixed term parliaments, which many suport, then you have to have some extra reassurance that the parliament will last for that long. The PM has given up his right to call an election at any time he pleases so there is some logic in saying that the oppoosition shouldn't be able to do the same.

I admit though that my initial reaction to it was hostile but do now understand why

We have a maximum parliamentary term of 5 years. They could change that to 4 but you still need to be able to vote a government down, especially a minority one which cannot get any bill through parliament and therefore to all intents and purposes is impotent. How good for the economy is that.

I don't see the point in the 55% bit anyway, because 50% +1 can always force an election, simply by opposing and therefore defeating ALL Bills that the Government put forward, until they accept they do not have the majority support of Parliament, and accept the need for another election.

Unless of course this change is also coming with an amendment that 55% opposition to a Bill is required to defeat it.

People will be able to cling to power for longer which would damage the economy.

I am happy we have a coalition - it's clearly what the public voted for in terms of how their votes counted within the rules of the election, but this isn't about consensus politics - it's about fundamentally changing the way in which governments operate. I agree with fixed term parliaments with some checks and balances.

How long should the fixed term be?
What are the methods for dissolving parliament early?
What happens when legislation can no longer be passed due to lack of majority?

The Conservatives offered the all party panel to examine voting reform before giving a referendum so where's the one to cover this?

Historially minority governments have existed in many guises (John Major, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson) but only Jim Callaghan actually lost a vote of no confidence. Why change what we have then especially as the coalition has a majority of 80+ at the moment?

Firstly, the public didn't vote for a coalition, it wasn't an option on the ballot paper. What we have is compromise. As for the length of a fixed term, this cannot exceed 5 years but can you honestly see them agreeing to reducing it to 4? And how can you describe it as fixed if you also have a means of dissolving it.

Because the PM has given up his right to call an election when it is tactically right for him. You clearly can't have a situation where a Government has no support whatsoever so there has to be a trigger, but I can see the reasoning behind wanting to have a higher test for an election to be called.

Remember that 75% of Government work is done outside of legislation, but if Government were going to lose a Finance Act (the budget) or a Queens speech debate then I think the PM would probably admit defeat and abstain from voting so prompting a general election.

People would argue that even with his majority, Brown should have gone sooner than he did as leader. Human nature of those that seek to lead is that, as someone once said, 'power corrupts'. Well, it might not necessarily corrupt but it would probably distort your view of your own capabilities (see the aforementioned Brown).


The Tories have always steadfastly supported FPTP and now they are moving the goalposts. There have been plenty of well intentioned bills in the last administration that have then be used for different purposes, eg the Anti Terrorist Bill and the subsequent spying on parents to see if they live in the correct catchment area.

 

[drew]

How anyone can accuse the Tories of Dictatorship after suffering 13 years of the most authoritarian Government this country has ever seen,is quite beyond me.
More CCTV cameras that any other 'free country' in the world,ID cards,abuse of anti terrorist laws by councils,abuse of anti terrorist laws by Government,compilation of mega databases,politicisation of the police 'service',thought crime almost becoming a reality,over the top politcal correctness,new powers given to yet more government lackies to enter an individuals property and how many new laws have they passed during 13 years?..can't remember ,but one hell of a lot more ways of criminalising the citizens of this country have been created......one could go on and on.........

politicisation of the police 'service'. Exactly how do you think this will change with the proposals to have elected Chiefs of Police?

 

[Danny-Boy]

The other side of the coin is that this does stop a PM calling an election early if he/she thinks there could be an advantage in it.

That's prbably why the LD's backed it. They would gain most from a prolonged time in the government.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Look you whingeing lefties, you lost!

As the bloke on 'Have I Got News For You' said last night,'give it a chance', the coalition has been in place for just over 2 days. Surely you cannot judge it in that time.

More interestingly, Alex Salmon(d) of the F.R.I.S.P. Indepedence Party is already claiming that the coalition has no mandate in Scotland. Maybe, maybe not. But whilst we are all going to see massive cutbacks in public spending and tax rises, he wants an extra £700 million from Westminster for the barbarian hordes north of the border.

F**k right off!

Oh, and the Taffs want an extra £300 million by the way.

So it wasn't a rainbow coalition, more a begging bowl one

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

If Labour had implemented it this board and most of the press would have gone absolutely ape shit about it.

Like it currently is - although correct me if I am wrong here but didnt the Labour run Scottish Parliament when it was established implement a requirement for a 66% majority to dissolve the Scottish parliament?

 

[Dandyman]

And in addition to trying to prevent themselves being chucked out on a vote of confidence and/or preventing an election in times of crises. the Tories are also seeking to gerrymander constituencies to reduce the number of working class seats and inflate the number of Tory suburban and shire seats.

 

[Mtoto]

An important point that's easy to miss is that a motion to dissolve is not the same as a no-confidence vote. It is the opposition that moves for a division that will, in effect, be a vote of confidence in the government since it is on a key issue of policy. That will still be 50pc plus 1.

A motion to dissolve is brought by the ruling party, allowing for an election whenever they think they are likely to win. Making it harder to win means it will be more likely that the administration will serve the full five-year term. It's good news for the LibDems, but gives Cameron less wriggle room.
In practice, it is very hard to believe that any prime minister - or party - would be stupid enough to try to cling to power using this mechanism following the loss of a no-confidence vote. If he can't command a majority on a major issue, he has to resign. His own MPs would not let him get away with such an act of political suicide, never mind anyone else.

 

[withdeanwombat]

My MP based his campaign on "Labour cannot win here.Vote for me to keep the Tories out." Two faced shower of turd.Is it undemocratic? Possibly.Did he get 55% of the vote?Err,no.Did the Tories get 55% of the vote.Hang on,I'll check.Err,.No.

5 years ? 4 years ?

It's already been too long.