UK Politics VII - Going down on Downing Street

[Slick Mongoose]

I'd assume that in this case, getting a motion to dissolve parliament passed wouldn't be a problem.

In all probability yes. But theoretically, not necessarily.

[DJDonegal]

So what happens if the new attempted governments lose confidence votes as well?

Exactly.

The BBC article I read earlier (which seems to have opted for other quotes now) I'm sure had someone saying that the vote of confidence will always take precedence and be 50% plus 1, but as you say, if only a minority government can be formed, and they face a vote of no confidence, in the current parliament, nothing can be done about it!

I don't like fixed terms because I like the no confidence vote. If more than half of an institution believes in something, then it's the needs of the many taking precedence (and in this case, 62% of the voters).

[DJDonegal]

So what happens if the new attempted governments lose confidence votes as well?

Exactly.

The BBC article I read earlier (which seems to have opted for other quotes now) I'm sure had someone saying that the vote of confidence will always take precedence and be 50% plus 1, but as you say, if only a minority government can be formed, and they face a vote of no confidence, in the current parliament, nothing can be done about it!

I don't like fixed terms because I like that if more than half of parliament has lost faith in government then we can go back to the people at any time and see what they think.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Maybe we could have fixed term but a no confidence vote will lead to a general election. IE current government can not call an early election.

Although this does not stop them creating a bill designed to get a no-confidence vote so they can call an election.

[Daeric]

The real first test if the coalition will work is going to be the emergency budget in about 48 days now I think it is. Theres bound to be a number of things in there that both parties MPs are going to reject to, I forsee the whips going into mass overdrive.

[VarysTheSpider]

The real first test if the coalition will work is going to be the emergency budget in about 48 days now I think it is. Theres bound to be a number of things in there that both parties MPs are going to reject to, I forsee the whips going into mass overdrive.

Don't forget the election saw one of the biggest intakes of new MPs in history. You couldn't crack a whip in Parliament at the moment without hitting lobby fodder.

[The Marquis de Leech]

In all probability yes. But theoretically, not necessarily.

Yep. This 55%-to-have-an-election rule is a recipe for a farcical theoretical situation where as each government is no-confidenced in turn, you end up having to turn to the minor parties to form governments (a Plaid Cymru-Green coalition, anyone?).

[HT Reddy]

I don't mind the idea of fixed-term parliaments (though I'm wholly against the 55% rule, as blatant a bit of gerrymandering as you'll ever see - no coincidence that it's suggested by a party with 47% of the seats), but I do wonder why five years. The devolved parliaments all have fixed terms of four years. Quite apart from the inconsistency, this means the elections will be out of synch: once every 20 years they'll coincide, then the gap will be one year, then two, and so on. It's kind of stupid, and telling as well - the attitude is clearly that devolved elections aren't important enough to affect the scheduling of Westminster elections.

Why ought they to be in synch?

[mormont]

Why ought they to be in synch?

Because people are people, and the timing of elections affects results.

In a year when the two sets of elections coincide, the coverage of the devolved elections will suffer somewhat and voters will be more liable to confusion over which vote counts for what. They will also be more likely to split their ticket, as voters do when given the chance. In short, it'll be a media circus that will count against the local parties in the Westminster election and for them in the devolved parliaments. It'll also be a practical nightmare: trying to make the counts work, balancing the election coverage, etc.

The next devolved elections will be a year before the Westminster vote and inevitably will be pored over for omens by the media looking for a giant opinion poll, and may indeed be treated as such by voters. The next two rounds will be in the middle of the Westminster cycle, which is probably the best place. Then you'll have a devolved election right after the UK election, which could depress turnout. Then you're back to chaos as you try to run them both simultaneously again.

The ideal solution is to have all elections on a four-year cycle with the devolved elections in year two of the Westminster cycle.

[DJDonegal]

Ed Miliband is standing.

And I have it on good authority Jon Cruddas is announcing that he'll be running for the leadership come Monday.

[Slick Mongoose]

It's not a very inspiring selection, is it?

[GoN]

BALLS OR BUST

:box:

[Lummel]

BALLS OR BUST

:box:

Eh? Is Yvette Cooper busty then?

[DJDonegal]

Seems I was wrong about Cruddas - he announced he wouldn't run.

Still just a brotherly affair.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Sorry if already posted, but I just found out about this.

FUCK labour if true. Seriously.

[mormont]

SNAY, a period of blaming the previous government for running up and concealing enormous spending commitments, debts, etc. and generally ruining the economy is perfectly normal practise at the best of times: in the current climate, with enormous cuts inevitable, it's pretty much compulsory. It may be true to some degree, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously. ;)

ETA - to clarify, I don't doubt that Labour spent a heck of a lot in an effort to get re-elected and that this was a Bad Thing. I mean that the shock and outrage of the incoming government over this fact shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

But if it is true, then the previous government has deliberately sabotaged the country simply in a bid to retain power, or conversely damage the opposition. In a fucking economic crisis no less.

I've never heard of it happening here before. Maybe it has, but if thats true, I'm pretty damn angry about it.

[mormont]

But if it is true, then the previous government has deliberately sabotaged the country simply in a bid to retain power, or conversely damage the opposition. In a fucking economic crisis no less.

I've never heard of it happening here before. Maybe it has, but if thats true, I'm pretty damn angry about it.

Depends what you mean by 'true'. The truth in dispute isn't the figures, it's the narrative. The incoming government want to put forth this narrative about these spending commitments being (as the article has it) 'scorched earth' tactics, etc. But if you look at the figures, it's hard to portray £420m worth of schools building as the sort of thing that could 'deliberately sabotage' the economy.

Remember, Labour openly fought the election on a platform of spending £6bn more than the Tories this year, a plan some economists supported. The firm spending commitments actually detailed in that article (excluding the tanker aircraft programme) are about a third of that figure, which is in turn a very small fraction of annual government expenditure, which is in turn less than half of GDP. And most of the money mentioned would actually have been spent over a few years at least. (The tanker programme would probably have been over 25 years.) It's very hard to see these commitments as making the difference between economic recovery and economic armageddon. It's even harder to suggest that the Labour party was concealing a deliberate wrecking of the economy, seeing as they were entirely open about spending larger sums than this.

Further, some of the complaints appear disingenuous at best. Willetts complains that no substantial work had been done to prepare for the cuts in HE - but all parties, including his own, agreed before the election to bury the issue of HE funding by having a review. If Mandelson had done detailed planning on the cuts before that reported, Willetts would doubtless have complained about him pre-judging matters instead. And the article doesn't differentiate between spending that was discretionary and spending that was unavoidable or part of normal government business, nor between capital spending and recurring spending.

As I say: this isn't about the money, it's about the narrative. It isn't coincidental that the article is laced with warnings about how deep the coming cuts will be. We are being softened up.

[Doran Doran]

Elsewhere I ran into this bemusing distinction between the gentlemen Cameron & Clegg:

"But they are not the same species of posh. David Cameron is Eton-Oxford-country- clubby-cutglass-shooting party sort of posh, whereas Nick Clegg is Westminster-Cambridge- metropolitan-foreign-glottalstop-trustfund sort of posh. Cameron is upper-upper-middle class with a dash of English gentry, but Clegg is middle-upper-middle class with a hint of European aristocracy."

And while it sounds fun, I can't help to wonder if this actually conveys any meaning to you island chaps? If so, who is the most posh and distinguished if this characterization is correct?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Eton-posh is our highest level of posh. Its the old-fashioned posh, whereas Clegg comes off as the sexed up posh we like to export to other countries.

Clegg is far more distinguished really. He's more of an intellectual than Cameron.