Here’s how it ends …

by Chris Bertram on May 12, 2010

So how will the new Tory-Lib Dem coalition work out? Here’s my prediction. The Tories are supremely political, and they will be looking for an opportunity to go to the country again and secure an overall majority for themselves before they have to implement voting reform. Easier said than done, of course, if you are in the middle of implementing unpopular spending cuts. But Europe could provide an issue: pick a fight with Brussels over “British sovereignty” and force the Lib Dems to take a pro-European stand and bring the coalition down. Then have the election on the single issue of Britain versus Europe. Result. 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).

{ 76 comments }

1

alex 05.12.10 at 7:23 am

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…

2

chris y 05.12.10 at 7:30 am

Alex, Chris is not saying that Labour would win an election under those circumstances – they might do very badly indeed. As I read it he’s suggesting that the Lib Dems would be fatally squeezed, and the Tories would be returned with a working majority. You’re not rebutting that. After all, to a first approximation, all three parties are now pretending to be the Tories.

Timescale? Um, I’ll put a fiver (not more) on October 2011.

3

Peter Briffa 05.12.10 at 7:52 am

Sounds good to me.

4

Rob Brewer 05.12.10 at 7:57 am

There are some fairly strong rumours (and we may see confirmation later today, or in the Queen’s Speech in a week or so) that a fixed-term parliament is part of the deal. This was Lib Dem policy and allows them to get in without the danger that Cameron will pull the plug as soon as he thinks he can get a majority. Maybe Cameron would still be able to trigger an “emergency” election at a time more or less of his choosing, but he wouldn’t just be able to call it; he might at least have to risk letting a traffic-light coalition in for a few days and trying to defeat it on a confidence measure. But we shall see what the deal is.

5

Chris Bertram 05.12.10 at 8:20 am

Ah, but here’s how it works Rob. The Tories take a stand on some Euro issue that is completely unacceptable to the Lib Dems, forcing _the Lib Dems_ to walk out on the coalition, forcing an election ….. Cameron doesn’t pull the plug in this scenario, he engineers it that Clegg does.

6

Phil Ruse 05.12.10 at 8:30 am

Not entirely sure how Labour supporters were burned by Clegg given that he always said he’d talk to the largest party? Very entertaining, you just stopped short of those evil Conservatives starting/joining a war on spurious/engineered ‘information’ in order to please their allies… oh…

7

Cian O'Connor 05.12.10 at 8:31 am

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.

8

Rob 05.12.10 at 8:42 am

Chris – with fixed term Parliaments, I’m not sure that the consequences of a Lib Dem – Tory disagreement would be as great as they would have been without. I think, though I might be wrong, that under fixed-term Parliaments it would be possible for the government to lose a vote, even on something important, and still remain the government until the election (which may be years away). A lot will depend on the details, but Cameron may not be able to engineer an outcome that demands a general election.

If he did, he would have his coalition partners campaigning against him in the election, leading to a return to the 1997 tactical voting pattern. It would be suicide for him.

9

Ciarán 05.12.10 at 8:44 am

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…

10

ajay 05.12.10 at 8:57 am

The Conservatives haven’t mentioned PR. They’ve said they’ll have a referendum on AV, which they will feel free to campaign against. So: no electoral reform.

11

Andrew 05.12.10 at 9:16 am

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…

12

John Meredith 05.12.10 at 9:17 am

Ajay is right, you are forgetting about the referendum. I think the tories are relying on winning a referendum once the country has had a good look at what life under a PR system will be like. And I think they are probably right.

13

Rob Brewer 05.12.10 at 9:29 am

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.

14

Chris Armstrong 05.12.10 at 9:40 am

I like the general theory – that Cameron will try and drive the LibDems away at some point and go for Total Power ™ himself – but I’m not sure if Europe is going to be the issue. After all there are a number of pro-European tories, including a subset who are principled enough to stand up and shout about it, and even potentially wreck things; the leader usually kowtows to them to a CERTAIN extent by trotting out a line about how the govt is going to lead from the centre in Europe, get in there and work constructively but also defend the national interest vigorously etc etc. I’m not sure Hague is Eurosceptic or unprincipled enough to manufacture a fight about this particular issue. I could well be wrong.

15

marcel 05.12.10 at 10:59 am

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?

16

Tim Wilkinson 05.12.10 at 12:08 pm

Insufficiently Machiavellian. No need to aim directly at engineering a split. Just sideline the Lib Dems to the extent that they try to do anything unwelcome, delay their legislation on the pretext of economic emergency, and if they want to hang around regardless, so much the better. If they don’t, call an election, reluctantly, due to the LD’s selfish impatience and failure to concentrate on the necessary job of raiding the welfare state.

17

jim 05.12.10 at 12:12 pm

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.

18

Walt 05.12.10 at 12:41 pm

I don’t understand how the fixed term question. As it stands now, does it require a majority in Parliament to call an election? Then passing a law doesn’t do anything, right? Or can the Prime Minister call an election on their own?

19

Alison P 05.12.10 at 12:51 pm

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.

20

chris y 05.12.10 at 12:56 pm

Walt, HMQ is obliged to call an election within 5 years of the last one. At any time during that period that he feels like it, the PM can tell advise her to do so, but she has to do it by the end of five years. If Parliament votes no confidence in the government (rejecting the “Queen’s Speech”/Legislative Programme for the coming year, the budget or any vote the government has made an issue of confidence) the PM will under normal circumstances ask for a new election, because it will no longer be possible to govern.

Technically what happens is that the PM asks for Parliament to be dissolved. After that, the law requires a new one to be elected within a few weeks.

21

Jacob Christensen 05.12.10 at 1:05 pm

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.

22

chris y 05.12.10 at 1:06 pm

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.

I don’t understand this proposal – are they going to legislate it? the Commons doesn’t take kindly to having its procedures legislated. If not, and it’s just introduced by consent of the present parliament, I can’t see it lasting. And what’s in it for the LDs?

Also, suppose they do impose this rule, and are duly defeated next year by 336 to 308 (everybody bar the Speaker and the Shinners), what are they going to be able to pass through a hostile house after that?

23

Alison P 05.12.10 at 1:10 pm

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/

24

jim 05.12.10 at 1:14 pm

The 55% makes no sense. If the House refuses Supply, even by 50.01%, then the government must fall.

25

Alison P 05.12.10 at 1:19 pm

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?

26

Adam Roberts 05.12.10 at 1:25 pm

21: “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)

I don’t see the Danish parallel. The Tories will now, inevitably, have to preside over an austerity economy, at least for the next few years. A lot of people will feel the pinch. Come the next election, with a shiny new leader and the chance to buff themselves up a little, Labour might well generate a ‘remember how cushy things were under the last labour government’ electoral push.

27

Tim Wilkinson 05.12.10 at 1:32 pm

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.

28

John C 05.12.10 at 2:31 pm

Britain’s constitutional arrangements make fixed term parliaments a bad idea. Any political system needs an individual leader with a reasonable degree of executive authority. In the US, the president performs this role and — notwithstanding his/her inability to legislate without congressional cooperation — has considerable autonomy in military, security, and foreign affairs. In Britain, the prime minister exercises those powers but can only do so effectively so long as s/he has the support of a sufficient group within parliament. Consequently, a prime minister who does not have the support or confidence of a working majority of MPs lacks the necessary executive power and the country’s national security is compromised. It is entirely possible to conceive of a situation in which the Lib Dems would be unable or unwilling to provide the necessary guarantees of support to the leader of either of the other two main parties. In that event, a fixed term parliament would leave Britain with a dangerously compromised executive which could conceivably block or delay any legislation necessary to accelerate the date of the election that would be needed to create a more stable arangement.

29

chris 05.12.10 at 2:41 pm

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.

30

Walt 05.12.10 at 2:43 pm

chris y: Assuming they don’t change the threshold to 55%, what’s the actual effect of the law? If Parliament must vote 50% to hold an election, then the Tories still need the Lib Dems, whether or not they pass the law.

31

Alison P 05.12.10 at 2:52 pm

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?

32

chris y 05.12.10 at 3:01 pm

I think we’ll see what happens the first time the House refuses Supply by 52%. (Walt, sorry – the first time the Commons vote down the budget, so that the government has no new income.)

Quoth Auntie, “The Lib Dems have called a special conference on Sunday to allow their membership to vote on the coalition agreement. It’s already been approved by the powers at the top, but in a statement the Lib Dems say they “remain a democratic party, and we believe it is right to consult our membership on this momentous occasion in our party’s history”. It’ll be fun when the rank and file tear it up and flush it. What then?

33

Walt 05.12.10 at 3:03 pm

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

34

Style 05.12.10 at 3:04 pm

The Government will fall if it loses a confidence matter by 50%. The legislation couldn’t change that. But the PM can’t ask the Queen for an election unless 55% of the House supports this. So, the Lib-Dems can walk out of the coalition, but Cameron can’t ask for an election. That seems to strengthen the Lib-Dems power considerably.

35

chris y 05.12.10 at 3:13 pm

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?

36

Style 05.12.10 at 3:25 pm

Well, it’s legislation, so it would persist longer than this coalition. Whether the Lib-Dems will be able to find an alternative coalition (possibly Labour-Lib Dem coalition with supply and confidence from others) in this Parliament is relevant but not determinative.

37

Walt 05.12.10 at 3:26 pm

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

38

nick s 05.12.10 at 3:41 pm

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.

I don’t see how that passes any kind of constitutional muster. It’s a different situation from Canada, but the one election there since the passage of C-16 used the exceptional circumstances clause.

39

Earnest O'Nest 05.12.10 at 3:48 pm

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).

40

Iain Scott 05.12.10 at 3:50 pm

@33: Nothing would stop the tories voting in favour of dissolution, but if the Lib Dems have walked out and Labour are still down in the polls, why would anyone else support the Tories? The Tories themselves dont have 55% of the house… There are two slightly situations to be considered here: A) the PM wants to call a (snap) GE to capitalise on, say, a Shot Victorious War, and B) a PM loses a confidence vote and wants a GE as an alternative to resigning and letting the leader of the opposition in. It sounds to me as if the proposed 55% would make A more difficult, while still allowing B to trigger a GE as presumably both the PM and the Opposition would want one in those circumstances.

41

Tim Wilkinson 05.12.10 at 3:50 pm

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.

42

jim 05.12.10 at 3:57 pm

For this coalition, the five year parliament is the other side of the coin from starting slash and burn immediately (or at least by July). Actual cuts are unpopular (as opposed to “deficit reduction”). So if they’ve come together to impose actual cuts, they need to agree to stick together until the immediate unpopularity of those cuts has passed.

The legislation is another matter. I’m sure there will be lots of discussion of it in due time (if it even sees the light of day once someone asks a parliamentary draftsman to put it together).

43

Rob Brewer 05.12.10 at 4:00 pm

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.

44

Matt McGrattan 05.12.10 at 4:07 pm

45

Eamonn Rorke 05.12.10 at 4:25 pm

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!

46

chris y 05.12.10 at 4:35 pm

Matt, the Beeb was linking to something they’ve now taken down, so it’s out there and that’s probably it. Interesting, yes, because it’s not a straight Tory document with orange decorations which we’d all expected. But I still wouldn’t vote for any party that ran on it.

47

aretino 05.12.10 at 4:42 pm

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.

48

nick s 05.12.10 at 5:24 pm

With another quarter of their seats forfeit, this looks like the end for Labour.

Project much? There are a lot of seats where the Tories scraped in over Labour, with the Lib Dems also-rans, that require a tiny swing to go the other way. As long as Labour spends its time in opposition constructively, recovering from the basic exhaustion of an extended period in government, I think your predictions of its demise are going to look somewhat premature. 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.

49

Stuart 05.12.10 at 6:41 pm

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.

50

chris 05.12.10 at 6:44 pm

There are a lot of seats where the Tories scraped in over Labour, with the Lib Dems also-rans, that require a tiny swing to go the other way.

How many Lib Dem supporters tactically voting for the not-Tory that might win brought Labour within striking distance?

How many seats did Labour narrowly *win* because of the same tactical voters?

Projecting this into the demise of Labour probably goes too far, though. A drop in tactical voting would lead in the short term to a large Tory majority, which would likely lead non-Tories to close ranks again in some form. Demise of one of the non-Tory parties would certainly be one way to do so, but it’s not the only way and I don’t see why you would predict that the larger of the two parties would be the one to be destroyed. (Of course in case of merger, neither party would really be destroyed as such.)

51

Ben Alpers 05.12.10 at 6:58 pm

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.

52

nick s 05.12.10 at 8:51 pm

The utter failure of Lib-Dem talks with Labour suggests that very serious differences exist between these two parties.

I don’t think you can discount the reporting that described a number of senior Labour ministers as ‘knackered’ and ‘disengaged from their jobs’ — there was an obvious and understandable enthusiasm gap in negotiations between a party in extended government and one in extended opposition. (Though I’ll agree that there’s a deeper Labour-LD mistrust, which owes plenty to Tory-LD partnerships in many Labour MPs’ local councils.)

I’m frankly impressed by the joint civil liberties platform, and would hope that Labour would get on board as part of its post-election rebuilding, though I worry how much of it will survive the Daily Mail treatment if Dacre decides it’s not to his liking.

53

Tomboktu 05.12.10 at 9:32 pm

54

jim 05.12.10 at 10:01 pm

Thinking some more about the 55% thing. I don’t see a problem once there’s legislation (apart from the wisdom of it, of course), but I do think there’s a problem with applying it to this parliament. The only precedent for a House of Commons declaring on its own that it will not be dissolved except with its own consent is The Long Parliament, which I’m not sure anyone intends to invoke. There’s no precedent for dissolution requiring a supermajority.

55

aretino 05.12.10 at 11:43 pm

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.

56

Alex 05.13.10 at 12:55 am

The Conservatives haven’t mentioned PR. They’ve said they’ll have a referendum on AV, which they will feel free to campaign against. So: no electoral reform.

Thanks for allowing me to vote.

57

nick s 05.13.10 at 1:03 am

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.

58

Tom T. 05.13.10 at 4:07 am

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.

59

Andrew 05.13.10 at 7:48 am

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)

60

Andrew 05.13.10 at 7:57 am

ok perhaps i’ve not got rogue formatting…just in the preview

61

alex 05.13.10 at 8:16 am

@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’.

62

Tony Sidaway 05.13.10 at 8:28 am

One way of looking at this is by the observation that, unlike 80 years or so ago, MPs are professional politicians with a salary. Fixed terms would make career planning a lot easier, certainly. I can well imagine that, as a fait accompli, this kind of stability could benefit from back bench inertia even if later Prime Ministers (for whom it represents the surrender of a tactical advantage) wanted to turn back the clock.

Losing the opportunity of a governing party to go to the country for a bigger mandate to govern (tried by Harold Wilson’s Labour Party in 1966 and in the second election of 1974) is a fairly heavy price to pay, but it would make more sense in the context of a move to a more representative voting system where parties with an absolute majority would be rarer and the stability of coalition government more important.

63

Guido Nius 05.13.10 at 8:39 am

“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.

64

piglet 05.13.10 at 5:30 pm

One of the absurdities of the British parliamentary system (at least viewed as absurd by much of the rest of the world) is that the leader of the government is not elected but (as I understand it) appointed by the Queen. The speculations about 55% vote thresholds, fixed term parliaments etc. rest on the fact that there is no real constitutional provision for the current situation. In Germany, the leader of the government is elected by simple majority of MPs and can be brought down by vote of no confidence with a simple majority for a different candidate. That system enforces that there cannot be no government, and any acting government is legitimized by a majority vote. That rule was developed in response to the Weimar experience when governments were regularly brought down.

65

piglet 05.13.10 at 5:37 pm

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.

66

NomadUK 05.13.10 at 7:39 pm

piglet@64: There’s never no government; the sitting PM and his cabinet are in charge until the new PM takes office.

I mean, yes, it’s a bit odd, perhaps, and, yes, one could update it, but I don’t see it as ‘absurd’. It’s worked pretty well — with some modifications — for longer than most of those other countries have been in existence.

67

Alex 05.13.10 at 7:56 pm

“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.

68

Stuart 05.14.10 at 1:36 pm

One of the absurdities of the British parliamentary system (at least viewed as absurd by much of the rest of the world) is that the leader of the government is not elected but (as I understand it) appointed by the Queen.

Nope, the Queen has nothing to do with it (she has a role in the process, but she has no choice). The British parliamentary system is about electing representatives that go to parliament and represent you. The next Prime Minister is then anyone that can get enough backing out of all of those representatives to win a vote for the Queen’s speech (or supply bills, i.e. anything to do with spend cash, for example budgets).

69

ajay 05.14.10 at 1:47 pm

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.

70

alex 05.14.10 at 2:05 pm

@67: Like the Queen could stop them… send in the Beefeaters, maybe? Time-honoured politeness is one thing, real constitutional power another.

And @64 – how many other western countries are monarchies? Quite a lot if you count them up. Anywhere that has a hereditary ‘head of state’ will at least nod to the person, for historical reasons, in the process of govt formation. I give you, e.g. Spain, according to Wikipedia:

“Spain is a constitutional monarchy, with a hereditary monarch and a bicameral parliament, the Cortes Generales. The executive branch consists of a Council of Ministers presided over by the President of Government (comparable to a prime minister), nominated and appointed by the monarch and confirmed by the Congress of Deputies following legislative elections. By political custom established by King Juan Carlos since the ratification of the 1978 Constitution, the king’s nominees have all been from parties who maintain a plurality of seats in the Congress.”

Or the Netherlands:
“The monarch is the head of state, at present Queen Beatrix. Constitutionally, the position is equipped with limited powers. The monarch can exert some influence during the formation of a new cabinet, where they serve as neutral arbiter between the political parties. … Depending on the personality and qualities of the king and the ministers, the king might have influence beyond the power granted by the constitution.”

Ironically, as both the Spanish and NL examples indicate, if the UK had a written constitution, spelling out the monarch’s role might actually strengthen it… But right now the Commons is supreme.

71

Steve LaBonne 05.14.10 at 2:12 pm

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.

72

chris y 05.14.10 at 2:19 pm

By the Unitary Executive, of course

Oh? I thought it was done by the Fourth Branch of government, introduced into the constitution by James Madison’s old mucker, Dick Cheney.

73

piglet 05.14.10 at 4:12 pm

“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.

74

mds 05.14.10 at 4:50 pm

Tradition and precedent can actually be more powerful safeguards than words on paper , as the UK demonstrates.

Well, used to demonstrate. I seem to recall Cameron squealing that he had first crack at forming a government because he won almost 36 percent of the vote, Clegg his bumlicking collaborator yammering on about how right and proper it was to negotiate with the Tories first, and various media outlets using the term “squatter” to refer to Gordon Brown. So tradition and precedent about the established sequence involved in forming a new government were jettisoned so that the Tories and their Orange Book f*ckbuddies could howl about their undoubted mandate to rule the country. I mean, look at the bond markets; of course they are the anointed ones.

And it’s turned out over here in the US that far more of our system relies on tradition than most of us probably thought. It seems that Executive Branch compliance with duly-enacted laws, Congressional subpoenas, etc, were largely a matter of inertia. An absolutely shameless administration such as the previous one can defy the law and legislature with impunity. Of course, that’s why we have our own no-confidence vote known as impeachment, but Madison’s presumption that this power would be exercised frequently and responsibly fell afoul of factionalism in a hurry. So, defy Congress all you want, as long as at least one third of the Senate are your unquestioning partisans. (None of which will keep a lower House once more under the control of Republicans from impeaching President Obama for a charge to be filled in later.) This is what makes the 55% threshold so worrisome; it seems to be an attempt to ensure the government’s survival even if a majority revolt. Stephen Harper no doubt wishes he had thought of that, and had a compliant-enough coalition partner to make it happen.

75

alex 05.14.10 at 5:14 pm

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.

76

alex 05.14.10 at 5:20 pm

Oh, and BTW, the 55% thing is a threshold for a vote to dissolve Parliament – that’s something the govt can do at the moment without a vote AT ALL. The threshold for a vote of no confidence, which would lead to the ousting of the govt by the sitting Parliament, is still 50%+1. You can very easily construct an argument that this gives the elected representatives as a whole MORE leverage over govt, not less. If you can get a majority for a N/C vote, you have the makings of a new govt.

Comments on this entry are closed.