beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,031
while it doesnt fit quite with FPTP, why is it undemocratic? where in democracy theory or philosophy is it required to have a 50% +1 rule?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Tory Dictatorship!
- Thread starter drew
- Start date
while it doesnt fit quite with FPTP, why is it undemocratic? where in democracy theory or philosophy is it required to have a 50% +1 rule?
Eastleigh Seagull
Member
bollocks - all they are stating they will do is redraw the boundaries so there are an even number of people in each constituency as opposed to now where you have the ridiculous situation of 40,000 voter constituencies in the inner cities and 110000 people in places like the Isle of Wight - people move, we should redraw boundaries accordingly.
More importantly they are also pledged to reduce the number of MPs which is great news. If our constituencies were the same size as India for instance we would have 27 MPs. Great news.
More importantly they are also pledged to reduce the number of MPs which is great news. If our constituencies were the same size as India for instance we would have 27 MPs. Great news.
Indeed. Seems everyone is ignoring that...
ROSM
Well-known member
I'm all in favour of reducing MPs and boundary changes already happen now - there is already a process for this and I agree it should be sped up ahead of the next election - perhaps a move to AV+ would need this anyway. Ironically in the 80s and 90s it was claimed it favoured the Conservatives and now we're hearing it favours Labour.
public school boy
Banned
You never know they might adopt a few more.
I'd be quite happy if Cameron banned all other polotical parties, banned the unions and banned general elections. 1000 years of Tory rule wouln't be enough for me
Hopefully, more accountability to the communities they serve and less micromanagement from the Government using the Police 'service' as a tool to bring about social engineering!
Drew,I always respect the clarity of your posts but not necessarily the content,you old leftie!
I think after all the ranting and raving on this board over the last few weeks,I may retire from politics and try and get back to football....or just life in general!
Best Wishes!
- Thread starter
- #47
Hopefully, more accountability to the communities they serve and less micromanagement from the Government using the Police 'service' as a tool to bring about social engineering!
Drew,I always respect the clarity of your posts but not necessarily the content,you old leftie!
I think after all the ranting and raving on this board over the last few weeks,I may retire from politics and try and get back to football....or just life in general!
Best Wishes!
Less of the old if you don't mind. I have only been a voter for 29 years!!!!
As for football, there are still 29 days till we kick off in the world cup. If it's a choice between endless speculation about every single player released becoming an Albion player or the integrity of parliament then I'll stick with the latter.
Still, for two weeks I'll be enjoying the delights of Corfu so hopefully you won't all miss me too much. I'll let you work out when I actually go.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
To be fair labour has spent the last 13 years doing the same thing.
ROSM
Well-known member
are they? The scottish parliament uses a number of different voting mechanisms including absolute majority (50% +1 of the total seats in parliament), pure majority (50%+1 of the voters) and percentage votes. I wasn't aware that in a no confidence motion that it needed to be 66%?
Eastleigh Seagull
Member
Yup - Section 3 of the Scotland Act 1998 - states that parliament can only be dissolved outside of the fixed term should 66% of the MSPs vote in favour of the motion.
ROSM
Well-known member
Interesting I didn't know that (but do now) but I suspect that is the same as congress in the US which doesn't allow early dissolution. The similarity is that neither of them are the fount of democratic legitamcy but they are instruments of a wider sovereign parliament. In terms of the scottish parliament, they are a product of the Westminster parliament.
having done some looking up today, there is no other sovereign parliament that operates fixed term parliaments and the rule of democracy that require anything other than a 50%+1 in a no confidence motion.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
There's a difference between a no confidence vote and a vote to dissolve parliament and hold an election.
Fixed term parliaments can see a coalition government fall because it has lost the confidence of MPs. It's perfectly legitimate then for a new coalition to be put together, without an election. It happens all the time in some countries.
The UK's problem is that nobody has yet got their heads around how coalitions work.
As far as this proposed rule change is concerned, no-one has said that a vote of confidence will need a 55% majority. It's a dissolution that would need 55%.
In Scotland, the rule is 50%+1 for a no confidence vote, two thirds for a dissolution.
ROSM
Well-known member
exactly so what we're saying here is that you can have a vote of no confidence but the direct link to dissolution will be removed. This means that the PM may or may not step down (the coalition agreement is silent on this) and whether the opportunity could then fall to the opposition to do a deal without another election.
Just imagine for the purposes of this that in 3 years time there have been 20 by elections and labour win them all (I said imagine not snigger) so they then have 275 seats, cons/lib dems go down to 342 - a split lib dem party could see 18 people cross the floor and support a no confidence motion. Once voted on, does PM Cameron now stand down? Is he replaced by PM Osborne who then tries to do a deal with the lib dems to come back and stay (a la very paul young).
If he fails but new labour leader Milliband Jr is an attractive proposition and can get all the Lib dems, plus perhaps plaid cymru and SDLP on board and therefore have a majority of 30, does this mean he is now invited to kiss hands without an election? Because based on what we know so far, anything is possible. hence my comment that this needs a thorough review, not something put together on the back of a fag packet by William Hague and Chris Huhne.
Just imagine for the purposes of this that in 3 years time there have been 20 by elections and labour win them all (I said imagine not snigger) so they then have 275 seats, cons/lib dems go down to 342 - a split lib dem party could see 18 people cross the floor and support a no confidence motion. Once voted on, does PM Cameron now stand down? Is he replaced by PM Osborne who then tries to do a deal with the lib dems to come back and stay (a la very paul young).
If he fails but new labour leader Milliband Jr is an attractive proposition and can get all the Lib dems, plus perhaps plaid cymru and SDLP on board and therefore have a majority of 30, does this mean he is now invited to kiss hands without an election? Because based on what we know so far, anything is possible. hence my comment that this needs a thorough review, not something put together on the back of a fag packet by William Hague and Chris Huhne.
- Thread starter
- #54
Sorry, what planet are you on. 'doesnt fit quite with FPTP'!!! It is completely at odds with first past the post. You don't consider it undemocratic for 292 MPs to dictate to 358? Perhaps if you take off your blue tinted spectacles and just think what you would be posting if Labour had, with the majority of MPs as they did have, proposed such a move.
I agree technically with what you are saying with regard to dissolution and no-confidence but normally they are likely to be one and the same. Just because we have a coalition now, doesn't mean that will be the state of play for ever. Also, if this coalition fails, exactly how do you envisage the Tories creating another. Without the libdems, they are dead in the water.
Now, if we have a referendum and we do get some form of electoral change voted for by the country then the likelihood is that coalitions are more likely to happen than not. However, conservatives are certainly not going to vote for it and there may be many socialists that won't either so we could still end up with FPTP.
larus
Well-known member
To even it out so it's fair, unlike the current situation. Labour stonghold seats are (on average) smaller in number of voters than Tory seats. The purpose of the boundary commission is to try to get all seats the same size in terms of population. This is democracy, but as it will work against your party (to remove their advantage), it's wrong.
Thinking back to the Constitution topic for Unit 2 politics, one of the pro's of the british constitution is that because its flexible, we don't have to call elections every five years if the queen and both houses agree that its in national interest (see WWII). The USA had an election during WWII however. Fixed term parliament sessions are not for me. I think having maximum term politics is the best for the needs of our constitution.
Oh do give over!
Every change of government will find this "Politicization".
Thign is, the civil servants are going to change thier views so they get listened to. Trust me, if after 10 years of Con-dem, labour get back in, this point will be raised. Its just that if a civil servant knows somthign will work, they'll word it in a way that will appeal to the current government.