There’s no precedent for it, it’s never happened before: it’s unconstitutional, it’s immoral, it’s unethical, it’s possibly illegal, the Daily Mail reckons it’s crashing your house prices and giving you cancer - and it’s coming to a commons vote near you. It’s - a 55% majority in order to force a disillusion of parliament. I know, I know - it’s hard to go and man the barricades over five measly percentage points, but we really ought to try as the newspapers are working very hard to turn this into a big deal for our lovely new coalition government - so let’s pay some attention and take it seriously, ok?
The 55% rule is in effect a very pragmatic trade off for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative parties to try and ‘lock in’ their brand spanking new coalition partnership. It is, to continue a rather strained analogy to the point of destruction, a pre-nuptial agreement that states that neither party can just give up and go home whenever they feel like it.
The Liberal Democrats want fixed term parliaments, ending the rather anachronistic tradition of having the sitting Prime Minister decide when the next general election is going to be held. This is not just a point of principle for the Lib Dems: it’s also a highly practical way of securing their place in the new coalition. Under the current system if things are going well for the Tories, David Cameron can just call a General Election on a whim - and go and ambush some nice juicy Lib Dem marginals to get a genuine overall majority in the commons. Removing this power from the PM helps lock the Liberals into the coalition government.
Which is all well and good for Cleggolas and Co, but what about the poor old Tories? Should a dissolution of parliament be decided by a simple majority of votes in the House of Commons - as everything else is - the Conservative Party could be abandoned by their Liberal allies during the hard times ahead, pulling a snap election with the votes of Labour and the other opposition parties in support. Why on earth would the Conservatives agree to such a one-sided arrangement?
The 55% rule makes it impossible for this to happen. This way, the Tories can’t dump the Lib Dems during the good times, and the Lib Dems can’t dump the Tories during the bad times. Like all good marriages, these are the vows: for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...
And so to the constitutional brouhaha that this most sensible of arrangements has brought about. There has never been a time in the history of the Commons where any matter has been decided by anything other than a simple majority, and so this change, as the Spectator points out, pushes lots of good old fashioned Tory buttons - being an essentially progressive move that further ties up the LibCon alliance.
The Labour Party too are suddenly up in arms about the constitution and our democracy under threat. Jack Straw, never previously a great defender of Parliament’s rights, is uneasy about these ‘undemocratic’ changes (although his son doesn’t seem to mind it too much). This is natural partisanship - the best that Labour can hope for over the next few years is to drive a solid wedge between the happy couple, jumping on whichever side deepens the division the most.
The most disturbing aspect of all of this is the inability of most of our news media and politicians to understand the nature of our democracy. Many seem to have conflated the dissolution of Parliament with a vote of no confidence in the government. Two completely different things: the latter requires, both at present and in the future, a simple Commons majority. The former is based currently on the ‘one man, one vote’ system - the one man in question being the serving Prime Minister, who can pretty much ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament on a whim. Any change from this system has to be regarded as a good thing; it’s better for the country if the stability of a government couldn't depend on just one man throwing a massive wobbly.
The dissenters also seem to believe that the disconnect between the majority for a vote of no confidence and a super-majority for a dissolution will create a nightmare scenario. David Davis brings forth the spectre of some sort of ‘crippled government’; too weak to pass legislation, yet not weak enough for the parliament to be dissolved. Disaster, chaos, pale horsemen, all the usual malarkey will follow, surely?
Probably not: a Parliament that cannot constitute a government in any form will almost certainly dissolve itself out of sheer embarrassment. Can you really conceive of anyone wanting to hold on to ‘power’ (a rather loose term in this hypothetical) when this arises? The government would more likely vote along with the rest of the House for its own dissolution - or possibly attempt to resolve the differences that had caused the coalition’s collapse in the first place. In either situation, Parliament would hardly be left in limbo - our politicians would seek to form a brand new government, shore up the old one, or finally ask the country what they think by asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and holding a general election.
The current system does not give a coalition enough breathing space to flex in its formation, no possibility for negotiation between two poorly integrated parties. It also offers tremendous powers to the Prime Minister and heavily favours the party in government. Thee 55% super-majority is a step towards fixing some of the inequalities in our flawed system of democracy. If anything, 55% is too low - Will Straw reckons a two-thirds super-majority would be much more workable. Perhaps he should get on the phone to his dad...
The 55% rule is in effect a very pragmatic trade off for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative parties to try and ‘lock in’ their brand spanking new coalition partnership. It is, to continue a rather strained analogy to the point of destruction, a pre-nuptial agreement that states that neither party can just give up and go home whenever they feel like it.
The Liberal Democrats want fixed term parliaments, ending the rather anachronistic tradition of having the sitting Prime Minister decide when the next general election is going to be held. This is not just a point of principle for the Lib Dems: it’s also a highly practical way of securing their place in the new coalition. Under the current system if things are going well for the Tories, David Cameron can just call a General Election on a whim - and go and ambush some nice juicy Lib Dem marginals to get a genuine overall majority in the commons. Removing this power from the PM helps lock the Liberals into the coalition government.
Which is all well and good for Cleggolas and Co, but what about the poor old Tories? Should a dissolution of parliament be decided by a simple majority of votes in the House of Commons - as everything else is - the Conservative Party could be abandoned by their Liberal allies during the hard times ahead, pulling a snap election with the votes of Labour and the other opposition parties in support. Why on earth would the Conservatives agree to such a one-sided arrangement?
The 55% rule makes it impossible for this to happen. This way, the Tories can’t dump the Lib Dems during the good times, and the Lib Dems can’t dump the Tories during the bad times. Like all good marriages, these are the vows: for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...
And so to the constitutional brouhaha that this most sensible of arrangements has brought about. There has never been a time in the history of the Commons where any matter has been decided by anything other than a simple majority, and so this change, as the Spectator points out, pushes lots of good old fashioned Tory buttons - being an essentially progressive move that further ties up the LibCon alliance.
The Labour Party too are suddenly up in arms about the constitution and our democracy under threat. Jack Straw, never previously a great defender of Parliament’s rights, is uneasy about these ‘undemocratic’ changes (although his son doesn’t seem to mind it too much). This is natural partisanship - the best that Labour can hope for over the next few years is to drive a solid wedge between the happy couple, jumping on whichever side deepens the division the most.
The most disturbing aspect of all of this is the inability of most of our news media and politicians to understand the nature of our democracy. Many seem to have conflated the dissolution of Parliament with a vote of no confidence in the government. Two completely different things: the latter requires, both at present and in the future, a simple Commons majority. The former is based currently on the ‘one man, one vote’ system - the one man in question being the serving Prime Minister, who can pretty much ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament on a whim. Any change from this system has to be regarded as a good thing; it’s better for the country if the stability of a government couldn't depend on just one man throwing a massive wobbly.
The dissenters also seem to believe that the disconnect between the majority for a vote of no confidence and a super-majority for a dissolution will create a nightmare scenario. David Davis brings forth the spectre of some sort of ‘crippled government’; too weak to pass legislation, yet not weak enough for the parliament to be dissolved. Disaster, chaos, pale horsemen, all the usual malarkey will follow, surely?
Probably not: a Parliament that cannot constitute a government in any form will almost certainly dissolve itself out of sheer embarrassment. Can you really conceive of anyone wanting to hold on to ‘power’ (a rather loose term in this hypothetical) when this arises? The government would more likely vote along with the rest of the House for its own dissolution - or possibly attempt to resolve the differences that had caused the coalition’s collapse in the first place. In either situation, Parliament would hardly be left in limbo - our politicians would seek to form a brand new government, shore up the old one, or finally ask the country what they think by asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and holding a general election.
The current system does not give a coalition enough breathing space to flex in its formation, no possibility for negotiation between two poorly integrated parties. It also offers tremendous powers to the Prime Minister and heavily favours the party in government. Thee 55% super-majority is a step towards fixing some of the inequalities in our flawed system of democracy. If anything, 55% is too low - Will Straw reckons a two-thirds super-majority would be much more workable. Perhaps he should get on the phone to his dad...
No comments:
Post a Comment