Here’s how it ends …

Willing to put a timeframe on that? And are you imagining somehow that Labour regains the trust of the English electorate? Presumably to do so they would have to carry on the Blair plan of pretending to be the Tories, yet at the same time be different from the actual Tories. Otherwise, you just get the Tories again…

Sounds good to me.

Chris: Unnecessarily Machiavellian. William Hague is in charge of foreign policy. Its inevitable. Then Britain can be in the wonderful position of Norway, or Switzerland. Forced to implement all the EU laws, but unable to influence them in any way.

But Chris, that assumes that Europe is a bigger thing for the Lib Dems than PR. If they have sense they’ll shrug their shoulders and try to stay in for the big prize (and will realise pretty fast that jumping ship without at least AV will only hurt them). Moreover, it’ll be hard to pick fights with Europe when the big issues are Eurozone ones and so the Brits will be able to stand on the sidelines chortling.

The big danger of course is that those sneaky blaady-Argies start demanding a share in the all-English oil just discovered off the Falklands and – urgh – that England win the World Cup. Cameron might become PM for life…

Assuming that the 5 year fixed term parliament is enshrined in law as appears to be the intention, I think Rob is right (pending the details, as he says) . Of course the Conservatives could (cause the LibDems to) break the coalition simply by being unreasonable. But they could not then go to the country without changing the law, and I don’t see why they would win the vote in the house to do so, if the result would be an election which the Conservatives would win.

If after coalition breakdown the opposition forces a successful vote of no confidence then the PM would be obliged to resign in favour of anyone able to form a Government; this could only be the Labour leader supported in or out of coalition by the LibDems and assorted others. If the Labour leader could not form a government either, then I presume the House would vote to repeal the 5 year term legislation, to prevent chaos. At which point, yes, there would be an election. But the Conservatives would be going in with a record of losing a vote of no confidence, which surely leads to electoral disaster. If for some reason the Conservatives were still riding high in the polls, then LibDem and others would at the least agree to support Labour in no confidence votes, and the Labour leader would then become a minority Prime Minister. Ergo, no electoral gain for the Conservatives in busting the coalition.

Oh, and the motive is soft, too. Surely the best way to avoid implementing voting reform is to hold a referendum on it, and campaign vigorously for a NO vote. And hedge yourself by making the referendum on a voting reform that is the least like PR of any you can find, so that even if you lose, you do not lose anything important. Conservatives 1 LibDems nil, on this point.

All in all, my bet is that this Government will be more stable than we might have predicted a few days ago. The other interesting thing about the 5 year term is that the Government has given up the advantage of surprise in the timing of the next election. I’m going to book my day off on Friday 8th May 2015 now, in anticipation of a very interesting contest the night before…

But with real fixed-term parliaments, Cameron can’t just call an election even if the Lib Dems do walk out. At very least he’d have to lose a confidence vote. How would he arrange that? Does he get the Tory whips to send the backbenchers through the “no” lobby while the payroll vote goes through the “yes” lobby and everyone else sits back, laughs and abstains? Even then, as I said above, it may be that the requirement to trigger an emergency election is that nobody is able to form a government. In that case Cameron might have to go to the palace and advise the Queen to give Miliband (or whoever) a go at forming a traffic-light coalition. Of course it might be a different story if Labour wanted an election, too. But I think the chances of both wanting one at the same time are slim.

How would a referendum on voting reform work? Would there be a single proposal, which would have to win a majority of the “national” vote; or would it instead have to win in each country of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, NI); or would it have to win a majority of the parliamentary constituencies? Could more than one proposal be simultaneously up for vote? If so, and one of them won a plurality, would that one be considered the winner and replace the current rule?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I didn’t take the 5 year thing as intended to be legislated. I took it as part of the coalition agreement. Both parties intend to maintain the coalition for the full length of a normal parliament. But we’ll see when we hear the Queen’s Speech.

As a practical matter, once the new government starts with slash and burn (next week?) its popularity will plummet (see Thatcher 1979-1981). There will be little incentive, on either side, to break up the coalition, and no hurry to call another election.

If, as the BBC are saying, the Tories are going to lift the threshold for a ‘no confidence’ vote to 55% instead of 50% then the Lib Dems literally can not force them out. This implies that the Tories are more worried about a forced election than the Lib Dems are.

It seems to me, however, that a no confidence vote is not a magic threshold, but a proxy for ‘we can’t pass legislation any more’, and a party which can not command 50% of the House can not operate as a Government.

Oh boy: This really calls for a loooong blogpost. (The sound you hear is the noise of political scientists booting their computers). But here are some scattered thoughts:

1.Yes, all parties are in untested territory – but you shouldn’t underestimate the viability of government coalitions.

1a. Earlier UK coalitions have come about following internal splits in the Liberals and later Labour. This one hasn’t.

1b. Note that the Cons and LibDems have announced that they will both field candidates in the delayed election. That is one way of saying: “This is a parliamentary, not an electoral alliance”.

2. The UK isn’t Germany, but if the SPD had any hopes of breaking the FDP in 1982-1983, they were disappointed in 1983 even if a part of the FDP did break away and the party lost heavily in the 1983 election. And the SPD was out of office until 1998. (Yes, the UK is not Germany but still: Labour grandees should take a long hard look at what happens to Social Democratic parties which get smug and complacent in opposition by thinking that they by definition represent “the people”).

3. Any talk among Labour MPs and activists about “it is good that we are out of office and have the time to regroup” must end immediately. If necessary, unleash Alastair Campbell and Lord Mandelson in their full force on anybody uttering such ideas. Labour must be seen as a party wanting to be in charge. (In case anybody needs added arguments: Look at the Danish Social Democrats in 1982. They went out of office for a decade after taking a similar stand)

4. Labour should support a vote on AV and go out all guns blazing and then some in favour of electoral reform in the referendum campaign. In the long term, a new system of representation will raise Labour’s chances of getting into government.

5. Labour should also learn from the mistakes of the Conservatives 1992-2005 and remember that the party will primarily be fighting an electoral and parliamentary battle; it should not aim to please an imagined core constituency.

I don’t understand it either. It is at 11.50 here (URL below) , and I am trying to keep up with multiple developments so I am not confident I understand what is happening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

I know. How can you make an arrangement like that? Is it just a gentleman’s agreement that the Lib Dems will support any and all Tory legislation so long as this threshold is maintained?

If a government faces a majority opposition that can’t get a no confidence vote, that opposition can hijack any new legislation and add all kinds of amendments, including e.g. one that reverses any supposedly raised threshhold. It makes no sense.

In the long term, a new system of representation will raise Labour’s chances of getting into government.

But lower their chances of getting into government alone.

A new system of representation will probably mean that nobody gets a majority again, except *maybe* in the most exceptional of circumstances, and you’ll wind up like Germany, with some kind of coalition having to be formed every election (although it’s possible for some groups of parties to have quasi-stable alliances).

There’s a strong case that this isn’t bad for the country — Germany seems to be getting by alright — but it might very well be bad for *the existing major parties*. Which is why the prospect torpedoed the Lib/Lab potential coalition and everyone suspects the Tories will find some way to poison the pill before delivering on their coalition-forming promise.

I don’t think you can assume that Walt. The coalition negotiaion agreement says. “The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”

Therefore the Tories are at present commiting to immediate binding legislation which means they stay in power until 2015 unless the opposition can command 55% of the House. Numerically, does this mean that the Lib Dems have renounced the ability to remove the Tories?

Alison, I meant something closer to “for the sake of argument”.

So, the Lib-Dems can walk out of the coalition, but Cameron can’t ask for an election.

There’s nothing to stop the Tories voting for a dissolution if they think it would suit them. In fact, given that there is no other feasible coalition which would give them (or anybody else) a majority, I imagine they would. Which again raises the question, what’s the point of this?

FWIW, the reporter on the BBC’s web feed just said that no-confidence votes will require 55%.

It is of course also entirely possible that we will have a couple of years of spinning this or the other controversy until everybody is so bored that they vote Boris Johnson for PM, just to be entertained (or at least have that perception).

But the fixed-term parliament is the bit that stops Cameron ‘asking’ for a dissolution, presumably? He doesn’t need a vote as things stand.

The no-confidence threshhold is surely supposed to prevent this Con government being forced out. To get them out, the Lib Dems would have to join a legislative coalition to reverse their own legislation in an amendment. Or in theory they could form an opposition legislature to block or hijack Conservative legislation. Still seems pretty rum to me.

So if the Tories want an early election they will have to get either the Lib Dems or Labour to agree. Then if the coalition falls apart and only one party wants an election there would have to be a minority government of some sort, even if nobody wants to do it. That sounds like a recipe for instability, though it may provide an incentive to the coalition partners not to bring that situation about. A future government with 55%+ of seats would be able to call elections at will, even without removing this provision, presumably because the Tories hope to be in that situation after 2015.

Perhaps they can pull a Jim Hacker and unite the people of the UK in defence of the British sausage. Damn those bureaucratic Bonapartes of Brussels!

The Lib Dem vote collapses as those who oppose the coalition’s record vote Labour and (Labour supporters, burned by Clegg this time, refuse to vote tactically again).

Project much? It was Labour that showed they had no interest in governing, and there’s nought that Clegg could do about that. And it’s Labour who have the most to lose from the demise of tactical voting that they are trying to bring on with their shabby charade. There are something like sixty seats where Labor have a majority of less than 10% and the Lib Dems are third with at least half of their national vote share. With another quarter of their seats forfeit, this looks like the end for Labour.

Surely the problem the Conservatives have now is that if the alliance seems to work well enough, it defuses many worries about future alliances and makes of referendum of potentially quite radical electoral reform more plausible. If it doesn’t work and breaks down then it makes the Conservatives and Lib Dems look bad and after a year or two Labour might end up back in.

The utter failure of Lib-Dem talks with Labour suggests that very serious differences exist between these two parties. These differences both involve policy (Labour is hostile to voting system reform–despite what its manifesto suggests, is more Euroskeptical, is less civil libertarian, etc) and political culture/class (the sense that Nick, Dave, and their parties are posh, while Gordon and his party isn’t runs pretty deep…despite New Labour’s reworking of the party’s class image).

Labour’s behavior yesterday also reflects a deep fear of, and hostility toward, coalition politics in Britain. Germany was quite willing to have SPD and CDU/CSU spend over a month putting a government together a few years ago. Forty-eight hours into the process in Britain and everyone was already beginning to freak out. There’s a chance–just a chance–that a stable, Lib Dem-Tory coalition that governs differently from the Tories would have will change that attitude (and without endorsing either the accuracy or the desirability of that document linked above, I’d agree with chris y that “it’s not a straight Tory document with orange decorations.”) I’ve been surprised at how virtually all British pundits seem to think that political “horsetrading” between parties is a more behind-closed-doors and less democratic process than policy making under the one-party government that Britain has had for over half a century. As an outside observer, I’m not at all convinced that this is true.

The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have given up the biggest weapon in their electoral arsenal, which is their capacity to wear a different hat in every constituency.

Yes, because we all know how it would be beneath Labour to run yobbish in Oldham East and bien pensant in Islington North.

Yes, because we all know how it would be beneath Labour to run yobbish in Oldham East and bien pensant in Islington North.

Ho ho ho. And there I was thinking that Lib Dem supporters were proud of their long history of two-faced dirty tricks in local politics and by-elections as part of their campaign against an unfair system.

This is one of the most fascinating things about the whole election. Of course, the 55% threshold is possible within the context of a piece of legislation on fixed term parliaments. It is analogous to rules which many bodies have requiring a super-majority for various actions (e.g. in my firm, to elect a new partner). But rules can always be changed – parliament can not bind itself. Even the current ‘5 year maximum term’ rule is a just a law parliament made, and can change at any time (it’s in the Parliament Act, I think)

So this being the ‘no written constitution, just precedent and tradition’ UK there seems to be 2 scenarios
1. This, or a near future coalition, breaks down, there is a 51% (say) no confidence vote, which brings down the Government, eg by voting down the budget. No other party can form a government, so Parliament repeals the fixed term law, allowing the Prime Minister to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament.
2. The 50-55% issue doesn’t arise for some years, a lot of years. Then 55% becomes ‘practice’ and in 50 years time the text books read, “in theory, Parliament could…but by convention this does not happen, and all parties accept that 55% is the minimum needed for a vote of no confidence. On the one occasion where a sitting Govermnent lost a confidence vote on a 51% majority, Parliament immediately voted again, with the opposition abstaining so the government could continue in office.”

(seem to have got some rogue formatting in this; sorry I’m not good with html tags)

@58 – if Scotland started in the East Midlands, and anything published north of the Trent had to be written in Gaelic, then we might have a chance of becoming Belgium. Meanwhile, not so much.

@59 – all the provisions of the British ‘constitution’ can be changed by primary legislation; that’s the real sovereignty of the ‘crown-in-parliament’. The HoC could vote itself out of existence as easily as it voted the hereditary HoL out of existence. It could abolish the monarchy by a simple one-line Act [assuming the royal consent… but not to get that would spell the end of the monarchy as a modern political institution anyway]. It could unilaterally abrogate all its treaties with the EU, restore the death penalty, and set up camps for undesirables. It could vote to lower income tax to 10% and give everyone two months’ paid holiday… Doing any of these things would, of course, be mad, but that does not make them ‘un-doable’.

“A new system of representation will probably mean that nobody gets a majority again, except maybe in the most exceptional of circumstances, and you’ll wind up like Germany

Or Belgium.”

Or indeed most countries that are neither the US nor the UK.

And if all countries were a little bit more like Germany or Belgium, the world wouldn’t be a worse place, at all. Just count the amoung of people living under bridges.

alex 61: your examples are mad but real-world examples aren’t that hard to find. E. g. the abolition of the London city council by Thatcher, where else would this be possible? (Washington DC actually, but that’s for different reasons). Legislation allowing detention without trial is another example, or the infamous ASBOs. Most countries would require constitutional amendments to revoke major civil rights, Britain only requires a simple majority vote.

“It could abolish the monarchy by a simple one-line Act [assuming the royal consent… but not to get that would spell the end of the monarchy as a modern political institution anyway]”

They’d also have to get approval from the Crown to even discuss the Crown in Parliament.

Most countries would require constitutional amendments to revoke major civil rights, Britain only requires a simple majority vote.

In the US, meanwhile, major civil rights can apparently be revoked at will.

In the US, meanwhile, major civil rights can apparently be revoked at will.

By the Unitary Executive, of course, which by act of wingnut faith is clearly established by the text of the Constitution (I imagine you have to use Joseph Smith’s translation stones to read that particular article). So it’s all OK.

Not to mention the long and comical (or in many cases tragic) history of written constitutions that have been completely ignored in practice, a game that perhaps originated during the French Revolution and has had many players since. Tradition and precedent can actually be more powerful safeguards than words on paper , as the UK demonstrates.

“There’s never no government; the sitting PM and his cabinet are in charge until the new PM takes office.”

Yes but there seems to be no provision to elect a new PM if the sitting PM loses the confidence of parliament. The only choice seems to be dissolution.

“It’s worked pretty well — with some modifications — for longer than most of those other countries have been in existence.”

Yes but I would argue that political continuity can be both a strength and a weakness. At the moment, the constitutional arrangement in the UK is a patchwork. The UK now tries to be both a federal and a unitary state, with a Scottish but no English parliament etc. It pretends to guarantee basic human rights (by “adopting the ECHR into domestic law”) but then rescinds those same rights by simple majority vote. It is a de facto multi-party system but uses a voting system suitable only for a two-party arrangement, etc. It may have worked for a long time but I’m not sure it’s still working.

mds, since you’re “over here in the US”, why do you feel it necessary to rant in such a bitter tone? It’s not as if the UK has suffered a coup d’etat or something. Chill. Labour wasn’t doing any good any more, but the great day may still come, sibling.