I think fixed term parliaments is a good idea. I believe, however, that a government can be brought down if defeated on a "vote of confidence", so if they are very bad all is not lost.

Yes Brisket, 55% of the total vote would be enough to call an early election.  But I suspect they'd have to screw up quite badly before that happened.

Well you never know.....

I think the Americans have the best idea...fixed term sessions and the President(or leader)...can only stand for two terms....and an elected upper house....now that would suit me fine

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.

Although I am not comfotable with the idea of requiring a 55% majority for a vote of confidence to be lost, I can understand the Con/Lib point of view as it reduces the risk of the coalition collapsing if thigs go wrong.

I think that is certainly on the cards now, and why not?

That's the Con's plan, which has nothing to do with them having 47% of the MPs, of course!

At the moment, it takes 50% plus one MP to vote to dissolve parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...-cent-coalition-rule

AaaaaH! I see Blizzie has explained.......I don't like the 55%...although swings and roundabouts for all future governments I suppose

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...ion_2010/8678222.stm

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. 

^^^ What Carnelian said!

I am rather excited about having a coalition, and I think some of the pessimism is premature.
I prefer to be optimistic about it.
I will judge it in performance of course. 

I saw your "shocked" post to me before you deleted it.  Sorry, I didn`t explain it very well. I meant one MP (1%) plus the required 50%.
The same as Blizzie said but not quite.

i thought the five year fixed term as a lib dem policy which clegg had  to convince  cameron about?

the 55% is  a piss take  51 is a majority , i can't see any justification  for 55 ,myself.

I think itwas Tony Benn who said that democracy only works if we can get rid of politicians. "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? ... And how can I get rid of you?" This is some sort of a coup d'etat IMHYCO.

It was the Lib Dems who insisted upon it

Then Tony Benn should have repeated that phrase a little more to his son Hilary who.....I've said too much

Sings....That's you in the corner, that's you in the spotlight, losing your religion..... etc etc.

*Bows, blows kisses etc*

 (damn you! before my edit too)

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

Well said Carnelian  you  can imagine the Tories frothing at the mouth over it if it was Labour etc proposing this,Chipping away at democracy etc.The Lib dems up here in Scotland will be slaughtered in our elections next year.

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.

Nah! I should read things properly in the first place..I didn't delete....I tried to edit and the darn thing went whoosh!

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.

*Agrees with Carnelian*

**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.**

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!

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!

"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for oblivion!"

Thanks for the information Blizzie.I have to admit though - I am easily confused. 
I will leave my previous post unedited with the error in it, so that this correspondence makes sense.

 Same thing happened with my pinky and perky.  

Filth!

Oh look where  I dumped your pic.

So does dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly require 66%?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...ion_2010/8681624.stm

And *breathe* Ducky

  In all seriousness,  I have to say that all this negativity  so early, is starting to smack  just a little of sour grapes.....  

 You should speak with your tuna for your you know what!