Skip to main content

Cameron plans on making parliaments fixed term, 5 years to be precise.  The idea is that everyone knows when the next election will be, thereby allowing governments to devise long term plans, as well as short and medium terms.  Sounds like a good idea to me, however as an opposition party I can understand how 5 years seems like a long time before Labour gets another chance at winning an election.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A vote of no confidence only required 1% before the Con/Dems changed it. Crafty, to say the least. We`re stuck with them for 5 years unless there`s a revolt...which I doubt. That`s democracy for you. The shape of things to come. Hold on to your hollyhocks folks..it`s gonna be a bumpy ride.


Edit: No confidence..there`s a difference.
Scotty
Last edited by Scotty
Five years of phoney catalogue boys Cameron and Clegg fills me with absolute dread.



Five years is a long time as it usually is around four.  Thatcher and Blair both went to the country after 4 years. 



A fixed term allows governments cynically spend in years 4-5 and tax in years 1-3.  Five year boom/bust cycles will become the norm.  Additionally, the maximum time is five years now so a government is free to plan on that basis if it wishes.



Fixed term parliaments don't add anything to democracy and I wish the LibDems would stop taking voters for mugs and pretending they do.



Far more cynical is that is this venal coalition's plans to prop up a potential minority Tory government  by making it impossible to remove them with less than 55% of MPs - an arbitrary figure, but not so 'arbitrary' when considering the Tories have 47% of seats.



50% has always been enough and this is anti-democratic.  Designed for sole purpose of keeping a minority Tory government in power for its whole term.



This policy, like so many others, rubber stamped from the so-called liberal party of electoral reform. 











Carnelian
Reference Dame_Ann_average Today at 17:01:
Quite a few Tory back benchers are not so happy with the proposals also and neither was Cameron, seems Cleggs getting most of his own way
This definitely sounds like the case. As you say, much of the opposition to this idea is coming from Tory MPs  - not just Labour. They're concerned that it would take power away from MPs and give it to the Government. The thing is, Cameron (as you imply) previously appeared to agree with them - during the election campaign, he said he wasn't happy about introducing fixed-term parliaments. This was very much a Lib-Dem idea.
Eugene's Lair
Reference:
This definitely sounds like the case. As you say, much of the opposition to this idea is coming from Tory MPs  - not just Labour. They're concerned that it would take power away from MPs and give it to the Government. The thing is, Cameron (as you imply) previously appeared to agree with them - during the election campaign, he said he wasn't happy about introducing fixed-term parliaments. This was very much a Lib-D


I agree, I was surprised at the thread title, it seems there is quite a bit of unrest in the Tory camp about this proposal. Just my opinion, but the honeymoon period seems to be ending sooner than I thought. More bumpy days ahead I think.
Dame_Ann_Average

**sings - 'There may be trouble ahead....'**
Well, that's inevitable. It' s a coalition. One must get used to this way of doing things - and of course, give it a fair chance.
With a shift of power in the House of Commons, if we think of a 3plus-party system (rather than an old-fashioned 2-party system), then I think 55% on a vote of "no confidence" is quite reasonable.
**sings - 'Let's face the music and dance.**

brisket
Reference:
Crafty, to say the least
I think it's absolutely disgusting! I read this in the Lib Dem/Conservative agreement a few days ago and thought it was crafty..... but that's before I saw the figures. There are not enough rival MP's (even if you count the Lib Dems) to vote to dissolve parliament.

It's a bleeding coup is what it is!

David Cameron is apparently defending it by saying the Scottish parliament have a higher threshold. But (and correct me if I'm wrong Scotty) they have PR.....and this kind of thing is designed to protect coalitions under a PR system!

Fine.... if DC wants to change the voting system them by all means raise the threshold ....but until then..... it's just a dirty trick to ensure they stay in power.

I'm seriously angry about this! I freely admit I'm a Labour supporter (with tendancies towards the LDs) and wasn't actually swinging from the light fittings about the thought of a Tory government ..... but I'm a reasonable (and generally optimistic) person, and I was looking forward to seeing how this coalition panned out.

I didn't expect to be angry enough to protest in the streets on day three!
Ducky
Reference: brisket
With a shift of power in the House of Commons, if we think of a 3plus-party system (rather than an old-fashioned 2-party system), then I think 55% on a vote of "no confidence" is quite reasonable.
Apparently, the vote of no confidence threshold will remain the same (a simple majority), but dissolution of parliament will require 55%.

It's all a bit confusing!
Blizz'ard
Reference:
**sings - 'There may be trouble ahead....'** Well, that's inevitable. It' s a coalition. One must get used to this way of doing things - and of course, give it a fair chance. With a shift of power in the House of Commons, if we think of a 3plus-party system (rather than an old-fashioned 2-party system), then I think 55% on a vote of "no confidence" is quite reasonable. **sings - 'Let's face the music and dance.**
  In all seriousness,  I have to say that all this negativity  so early, is starting to smack  just a little of sour grapes.....  
Baz

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×