The General Election Thread

[DaveBrigg]

Indeed. I hope it's not all bad news. On the subject of poetry, can I try to cheer you up with one of my own, inspired by your earlier works on the subject of the fickleness of Mr Clegg.

There was a young strumpet named Nick,
Who turned an electoral trick,
But despite all the calls
He didn't want Balls
And ended up choosing a pretty different candidate altogether.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Nigel, will you please put us out of our misery

It's not that bad really.

The government agency for which I work has, under pressure from its host Department, decided to move much of its headoffice from its current location - a Nash Terrace on Regent's Park - to a 1970s office building in the middle of Swindon. The shock would have been too much for me, so I elected for redundancy. There was also the small matter of a 3.5 - 4 hour daily commute if I dont move house.

Being the public sector however, the process is very leisurely - my notice doesnt run out until the end of the year- and the terms quite generous, but with two boys at private school I will need to get another job before I can afford to retire. Tried unscuccessfully for an NHS trust finance director role. Now thinking of becoming an "interim" as up-market temps prefer to style themselves. Like undertakers and hairdressers, I am fairly confident that my finance skills will be in demand in spite of the economic downturn

 

[Pford75]

And ended up choosing a pretty different candidate altogether

Indeed. Simon Hughes said on Question Time last night that from the negotiations, it was clear that the Conservatives were far more 'progressive' than Labour...who seemed unwilling to compromise on any of the key elements the Lib Dems were looking for.

 

[Nigel Watts]

STOP PRESS Setting the threshold for a no confidence vote at 55% would be a "constitutional outrage" says Lord Adonis, the unelected Labour peer.

 

[biffvernon]

Very funny, but I think there is a practical difficulty. If 51% of the MPs wanted to end the government and force an election they could just vote nay at every opportunity and the existing government would be able to enact zilch. A simple majority is much more, er, simple.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Biff I entirely agree with you, but I couldn't resist the cheap joke.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've read that the 55% figure has been chosen to prevent the Conservatives from calling a general election, thus breaking up the coalition, but for a simple 'no confidence' vote then the 50%+1 ruling will remain.

It makes sense to me. The conservatives are tied into a 5-year commitment (and I generally agree with fix terms anyway) but can be thrown out on a vote of no confidence as always. Otherwise they could enact all the good news first )if there is any :wink: ), call a snap election in the Autumn and (hopefully for them) be returned with an overall majority.

Seems like a big fuss over nothing, but I guess that's what oppositions are for.

Anyway, as Biff rightly says, if 50%+1 vote against the government then it's dead in the water whatever the other general election rules might be.

 

[Nigel Watts]

You will never take the politics out of constitutional reform, but what I object to is constitutional change based on very short term political expediency. Blair did this all the time and created a terrible mess. Was this a price the extracted from the Tories by the Liberals perhaps, or an olive branch offered the other way round?

 

[Feltwell]

[I admire your generosity to the restauranter Feltwell but forgive for saying I think you're only looking at one side.

And I have to say that I admire your very eloquent response!

The tailor and wine producer can still be in trade by the Bullingdon going out and drinking but without breaking anything, admittedly perhaps the decorator doesn't get the trade. The restauranteur? Well, he or she doesn't get much choice really as to if they like it or not, unless they invited them!

The comparison I see is, on one side, a group of drunk young men smashing things up for fun. And on the other side, a group of drunk young men smashing things up for fun. Vandalism / Criminal Damage is just that, no matter how you dress it up.

Best agree to differ I think!

This wasn't a comment in relation to our dear PM by the way - purely about the Bullingdon.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I've read that the 55% figure has been chosen to prevent the Conservatives from calling a general election, thus breaking up the coalition, but for a simple 'no confidence' vote then the 50%+1 ruling will remain.

I don't understand this. Presumably the Conservatives aren't planning a vote of no confidence in themselves in order to call a snap election. And even if they did, they couldn't even reach 50%, let alone 55. However, a 55% threshold would prevent the LibDems jumping ship and joining with the oppostion to kick the Tories out. Discounting the speaker and the non-attending Sinn Fein members, an opposition vote of no confidence including the LibDems would get 53% of the vote. How convenient that this is just below the 'arbitrary' figure chosen by Mr Cameron.
Rather than a Tory olive branch, this sounds more like a pre-nuptial arrangement which says much about the level of trust that exists in the coalition, and the confidence its architects have that it will work.

 

[Nigel Watts]

How convenient that this is just below the 'arbitrary' figure chosen by Mr Cameron. Rather than a Tory olive branch, this sounds more like a pre-nuptial arrangement which says much about the level of trust that exists in the coalition, and the confidence its architects have that it will work.

On this occasion, I agree with Dave!

 

[Feltwell]

It does sound like this proposal is receiving a lot of criticism from all sides. The fixed term arrangement is good and long overdue, but this 55% change does smack of the Conservatives trying to amend the rules to ensure their own safety.

Presumably it would need to be voted in? It would be extremely embarrassing for Cameron if one of his first changes was not voted in.

 

[middi]

The same political system has served this country very well over the centuries but like all old beatifull buildings the time has come to confine it to grade I listed status. WE HAVE TO EVOLVE AND CHANGE and that includes the political system.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Charles Moore is as perceptive as ever. On the Clegg-Cameron double act in the rose garden:

A bit of "personal chemistry" is all right, but this flirtatious encounter teetered on the edge of biology. There was too much "aren't we clever?" about it, too much of the instant complacency which is the unattractive flip side of ruling-class confidence.

Speaking as one Etonian to another, I want to pass on to the Prime Minister something I have observed about the 99.999 recurring per cent of humanity who did not attend that famous establishment. They can take our alleged charm only in very small doses. A public-schoolboy all by himself may help break the ice at parties, but once two of them get together and start laughing at each other's jokes, it begins to look like a conspiracy.

It was like that on Wednesday, as youngish OE joshed with youngish Old Westminster – self-congratulatory, male, clubby, posh. To the puritanical British mind, the sight of privileged people enjoying themselves is repellent. During an economic crisis, puritanism is in the ascendant.

A Cambridge man by the way. My college too. I think we must have just overlapped. I bought his house in the early 90s.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Regarding the 55% threshold to dissolve parliament earlier than the fixed limit of 5 years.

It is already a higher limit in all the devolved administrations - 66% in Scotland. But a confidence motion in the Government/Assembly administration is still 50%.

It provides for stable, predictable government terms - particularly important as all the devolved administrations are elected by PR and thus much more likely to produce coalition or minority administrations. The SNP would not be able to govern Scotland effectively for 4 years as a minority; they would be susceptible to ambushing by the other parties for political expediency - leading to short-termist policy and more elections. Stability is important when many of our problems need longer term solutions.

Cameron has given up the right to go to the country unilaterally. He is the first PM to do so. Raising the threshold (to less than it has been elsewhere) is a sensible way to protect smaller coalition partners from unscrupulous major partners. It is part of the new grown-up politics, not the cynical old ones.

That Labour should be criticising it now and not when it was introduced under their watch in Wales, Scotland or Ulster is cynical. That the Tory hard-right are criticising it now shows that they would cut and run on the Lib Dems.

Cameron is brave and right on this one. Parliament is still supreme via a confidence vote.

 

[Flyfisher]

All about the 55% proposal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682959.stm

 

[DaveBrigg]

It provides for stable, predictable government terms

But it will lead to a bizarre situation when the LibDems back out of the coalition. A minority government, unable to win a vote in parliament, unable to resign and call an election and unable to be removed by a majority opposition. The stability and predictability would come only from the fact that the country would be suffering parliamentry constipation, with nothing passed for years. Even more bizarrely under these rules, if Clegg decided to change partners there would be a secure PM and cabinet, unable to govern, with the Commons being run by the majority opposition and shadow cabinet.

Cameron has given up the right to go to the country unilaterally. He is the first PM to do so.

I suspect that this was a key LIbDem demand; the only way they could be certain that he wouldn't call an election and ditch them as soon as he thought it possible. Michael Heseltine used the ability to call a fresh election as a threat when being interviewed during the negotiations.

Raising the threshold (to less than it has been elsewhere) is a sensible way to protect smaller coalition partners from unscrupulous major partners. It is part of the new grown-up politics, not the cynical old ones.

I agree with your assessment of the Tories as unscrupulous, but isn't it democracy that needs to be protected first and foremost, and let the LibDems sink or swim as the country sees fit. This coalition has come about because the country voted the way it did. They didn't vote to put one party securely in parliament. If the coalition works, fine. There will be no need for rule changes. If the coalition doesn't work then it needs to be changed, not propped up by rewriting the rules.

That Labour should be criticising it now and not when it was introduced under their watch in Wales, Scotland or Ulster is cynical.

A major criticism of any LibLab pact last week was that by themselves they still wouldn't command a commons majority. Would you be calling Gordon Brown 'brave and strong' if he went ahead anyway, and then changed the rules so that his government, despite being a minority, couldn't be brought down by a vote of no confidence?

The most telling fact is that despite the record deficit, 'Broken Britain' and the host of problems allegedly caused by Labour, Cameron's priority in parliament seems to be fiddling with the constitution, something not even in the Tory or LibDem's manifestos. As you so clearly put it yourself Robin "we need a government focussed on the economy and difficult decisions, rather than on short-term electoral advantage."
Can anyone explain why this is such a priority?

 

[DaveBrigg]

Mystic Meg award. None of us before the election predicted a ConDem coalition, but this insightful comment was at least partly right.

Vote Clegg, get Brown! :shock:

Whereupon they'll gerrymander our electoral system to ensure we have permanent LibLabbery.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

A minority government, unable to win a vote in parliament, unable to resign and call an election and unable to be removed by a majority opposition. The stability and predictability would come only from the fact that the country would be suffering parliamentry constipation, with nothing passed for years. Even more bizarrely under these rules, if Clegg decided to change partners there would be a secure PM and cabinet, unable to govern, with the Commons being run by the majority opposition and shadow cabinet.

Er no... as I understand the proposal, a confidence vote of 50% +1 still holds and the government falls. This just prevents parliament being dissolved earlier than the 5 year term without Parliament's consent. Parliament has never had the power to request a dissolution - this has always been in the power of the PM. It is no longer in their power - and Parliament now has a mechanism to request a dissolution if sufficient MPs request it. This is an important additional power, but in the world of partnership governments it is necessary to build in safeguards for stability too.

Would you be calling Gordon Brown 'brave and strong' if he went ahead anyway, and then changed the rules so that his government, despite being a minority, couldn't be brought down by a vote of no confidence?

Um... I guess not (but maybe the left would be happier?) :lol: except that my understanding of this is that it is not about preventing the fall of a government, as the confidence threshold is 50%+1 remains. This is about protecting the integrity of fixed term parliaments and stable government, and guaranteeing Parliament's right to bring about an early dissolution if they desire - a new power for Westminster that Scotland, Wales and Ulster already have at a 66% threshold.

Acknowledging the concerns being raised (and in the spirit of the "new politics"!!) I would expect the detailed proposals to set out all the safeguards against constitutional constipation, including where no party can command a majority after a vote of no confidence that HMQ can agree to a dissolution request from a defeated PM without the 55% vote. This could provide security for coalition partners, without propping up defeated governments for 5 years.

The most telling fact is that despite the record deficit, 'Broken Britain' and the host of problems allegedly caused by Labour, Cameron's priority in parliament seems to be fiddling with the constitution, something not even in the Tory or LibDem's manifestos. As you so clearly put it yourself Robin "we need a government focussed on the economy and difficult decisions, rather than on short-term electoral advantage."
Can anyone explain why this is such a priority?

The economy is clearly the first priority of the new government. Is this change Cameron's priority? I doubt it - it just happens to be the issue the press have picked up from the Coalition Agreement document. That document set out all the priorities.

Addressing these problems will require longer-term solutions and thinking than the usual politically expedient shenanigans, and fixed term parliaments are a good way of providing security for longer-term policymaking. By taking this route, Cameron is denying the cut-and-run options usually available to minority/coalition PMs.

I am happy to wait the detail before passing final judgement, but at present I'm content that these proposals are sensible safeguards for governing in the national not party interest.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Mystic Meg award. None of us before the election predicted a ConDem coalition, but this insightful comment was at least partly right.

Vote Clegg, get Brown! :shock:

Whereupon they'll gerrymander our electoral system to ensure we have permanent LibLabbery.

:lol: Well spotted Dave!

TBH I think the Lib Dems could easily be split 50:50 between Fabian Liberals and Orange Bookers, so a Vote Clegg get Blue is not the total surprise it seemed!

I would argue in favour of much of the political reform suggested (fixed term parliaments, reduced size of HoC, equalised constituency sizes, a largely elected HoL (even with PR so the revising chamber reflects the national vote more closely).

On electoral reform I will oppose full PR for HoC if proposed by Cameron/Clegg as strongly as I would have it it was Brown/Clegg trying to gerrymander it. Something not fully proportional like AV is worth examining to see if we can increase engagement within single-member constituencies, but only if subject to a referendum before enactment. This is something a LibLab coalition would not have allowed us.

I think I'll stop there or Biff will correctly point out this is nothing to do with period property.