Cinderellas at the ball

Scorned and neglected for ninety years by the two ugly sisters parties, the Lib-Dem Cinderellas are now enjoying the ball.

The invitation was irresistible, chauffeur driven cars, plush offices, red boxes and a slice of power. No wonder they look so pleased with themselves. For a few sweet months they will be  inebriated with joy and incapable of rational thought.  For all spectators of the political drama, the ConDem love-in is novel and fascinating. They will be forgiven for almost everything for a month or two.

Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote. There is no argument for this except party advantage to the Tories. It's a shameless, blatant  denial of democracy. 

When they sober up, the LibDems morphing into Con'Dems will remember their past indignation at alleged Labour sins on democracy and freedoms during the past thirteen years. The Con-Dems  have proved their mettle. 

They have slashed a basic tenet of democracy within thirteen hours.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

From TODAY's Daily Mail

'They will be judged not as Lib Dems but as government candidates and collaborators. They will be stuffed' - Labour MP Paul Flynn on the Tories' new coalition partners.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/election/article-1277936/ELECTION-2010-Lord-Ashcroft-starts-blame-game-Smell-The-Coffee-update.html#ixzz0nqyCznys

Comments

[Jamie]

This blog post is incorrect, it is not 55% for a confidence vote, it is 55% for the dissolution of Parliament.

This gives a power to Parliament previously only held by the Prime Minister.

This is MORE democratic than the previous situation.

Information for reference at: http://bit.ly/bJT1TA

Perhaps you would like to retract this article?

[Ad]

Same thing. Insurance against a parliament challenge. Over 50% is democratic. 55% is arbitrary and self serving.

[DR]

"It's a shameless, blatant denial of democracy."

Remind me, what did Labour set the percentage in Scotland?

66%

Clutching. At. Straws.

[Paul Flynn]

The 55% is a crude cynical calculation made for party advantage. there will be gerrymandering of constituency seats for the same purpose. In a pretence of equalising the numbers of voters constituencies will disappear. They will be mainly labour held seats. Watch how the rural seats will be protected. The new reformers are sinking into the political mire.

The ConDem coalition is a pantomine horse. The Tory head will get the applause. The LibDem rear will deliver the crap.

[DG]

Paul, I didn't cast my vote for you last week for you to spend your time doing nothing but b'tching about the new government - especially to the Daily Mail, of all people.

The situation is what it is, and Labour MPs aren't the only ones worried about their jobs/seats. If you're worried about the impact on representation, get behind the PR campaign.

Can we please get back to discussing other policies now? People are worried about where and how the upcoming cuts are going to affect them. We need you to be worried about that too.

[Paul Flynn]

The comment was NOT made to the Daily Mail. They picked it up from yesterday's blog or possibly the Guardian Podcast I did with Michael White. Current political are so sensational, they cannot pass without comment.

Thanks for your vote DG. It was not wasted. The alternative would have disappointed you and infuriated me.

Watch this spot. Life in opposition is always interesting and productive.

[Mes]

If Labour politicians had put as much energy into preventing extraordinary renditions from British soil, stopping the outrageous extensions to detention without trial and erosion of civil liberties during their own term as they currently are to nit-picking through the coalition deal, maybe they wouldn't be in the position they currently are.

[David]

As others have pointed out, the majority for a confidence vote will not be 55%, it will be 50% as it always has been.

If you are unable to understand this fundamental point, then why should we take your views seriously on anything?

By the way, I presume you rebelled when the Scotland Act was passed by the Labour government, setting the majority for a dissolution in Scotland at 66%? No, thought not. Hypocrite.

[Jane]

I listened to R4 this morning when a constitutional expert confirmed the views expressed by David above. The 55% relates to dissolution and not a vote of confidence.

I do think that we need to change the rules now that we have a coalition government. We the electorate do not want to have to go to the polls again - we need a stable government to reduce our massive deficit and to reassure the markets. I would have thought the 55% vote protected the weaker part of the coalition so I am in favour of that.

I also heard this morning that all devolved assemblies have such a rule - indeed as someone above wrote some two thirds or 66.33 of MSP's are required to desolve the Scottish Parliament.

On the positive side - the new PM has given up his right to call an election at his convenience. I do like the idea of fixed term parliaments.

We have certainly changed and this will take some getting used to. I read that boundaries would be reviewed in line with reducing the number of MPs to ensure that the system is fair to all parties. This is eminently sensible to me as I do not see why representation from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should not be reduced given that they have their own governments. I prefer FPTP but also acknowledge that this disadvantages smaller parties. I will await the debate and then study all options. I read an excellent article in the Independent recently http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tim-luckhurst-the-english-question-is-still-unanswered-1969247.html which raises sosme interesting questions which we will have to address in the years ahead. I thought of the article this morning when I listened to The First Minister who intends placing financial demands on the new government never mind that the country is in a mess. It is important to represent the regions interests but surely at a time of national crisis everyone should work together.

I am hopeful that the new government will succeed. There will be difficulties ahead but they have the goodwill of the electorate if polls are to be believed. I loathe the sour grapes attitude and believe that both parties have acted in the interests of the country. It is all rather refreshing - I like it!! I think the links between citizen and one particular political party to one party are weakening. Coalition may be the future - we must get the legislation in the coming years. This is democracy! We have not had much of that in the past week when unelected people were trying to influence decision making. Ugh!!!

[Phil Ruse]

This is a shockingly inaccurate blog (no confidence vote is still 50% + 1MP) and considering the Labour Party had fixed term parliaments in it's own manifesto, incredibly two-faced.

A "fixed term" parliament has to have a dissolution set at higher than 50% (in Scotland it's 66%, as voted for by Labour) otherwise it would be rendered pointless (circumvented) by any majority government.

[Paul Flynn]

Good to see my pal and best Tory pitching in, 'Tory MP Charles Walker hit out at the Lib Dem-Conservative plan, which will mean that 55 percent of MPs must approve such a move to get it through the House of Commons.

Mr Walker told the Herald: “I am very concerned about it. I hope it is withdrawn and never sees the light of day again. It removes power from Parliament.”

He added: ““This is perhaps just a little too much for our unwritten constitution to bear.”

He added: “We have a quasi-presidential system here, without the checks and balances. This would be the loss of an enormous check.”

Charles had a chance of being the new chair of the Public Admin Committee. This comment may finish that. The Pantomine Horse will not tolerate Charles' independence.

This is a retreat from best democratic practice to conform the present situation with a no-overall majority for the Tories.

The rules of the Scottish and Welsh bodies were an advance in democracy - both bodies were designed by Labour with a strong element of PR. Without that, the Tories would have secured only one seat in Wales in the first election. That was about devolving power. This Cameron stunt is designed to strengthen the grip of the executive over parliament. They will not get away with it.

[Daniel]

Paul read the first commentators post.
Will you do the honourable thing, admit you were wrong and retract the statement?

[Charles Ward]

It should be pointed out that under the current system it doesn't matter how many MPs vote for dissolution in the House of Commons (50%, 55%, 95%) it still won't happen because only the PM can call for one.

Given that under the new system it will still be 50%+1 for a no confidence motion could you explain to me how the new system would be less democratic?

[lesshaste]

This may a little too obvious, but won't it still only need 50% plus one to change to amend 55% law (as in any other law) thereby making the whole argument rather pointless? Or is the whole parliamentary system also going to be changed to make this a specially protect law of some sort?

[HuwOS]

I don't really see the problem myself, but acknowledging that others see this as a problem perhaps the balance needed is that if a government cannot procure a vote of confidence within a set period of time after a government loses a no confidence motion then that would trigger dissolution. Somewhere between 1 week and 1 month perhaps?

[Mark Pack]

Paul - the Labour Party manifesto at the general election included a commitment to legislate for fixed-term Parliaments. That's meaningless unless the majority required for forcing an early election is more than the usual 50% (because then there's nothing fixed about it).

So how do you reconcile your views now with the manifesto you were just elected fighting for?

Were you always against that part of the manifesto (though I've not seen any examples of you saying that)?

The cynical view of course would be that you think it's good when Labour does it and bad when someone else does. Seems to me you're very close to backing yourself into that corner?

[Thalia]

Shameful to see Paul hasn't even bothered to correct the original misleading statement about 55% applying to no confidence.

The Big Lie indeed.

[Paul Flynn]

What a gift Thalia has for missing the point. It was answered.

[Thalia]

Not very impressive Paul. You have it wrong in this blog post, and then you have attempted to deny there is any difference between dissolution and confidence in the follow-up.

It's just pathetic propagandising on this point, given that 1) Labour used 66% in Scotland (rightly in my view) 2) it is easy enough to add a safeguard of a 28 day cut off for forming a new government (as you also did in Scotland) and 3) Labour also campaigned for fixed terms.

Also you're ignoring the precedent of Baldwin's 1924 confidence vote which didn't lead to an election but to a new government. Which makes the distinction extremely clear.

Presumably you like fixed terms if they work for you, but not if they might work against you.

I voted Labour this time. The petulant, dishonest reactions of Labour figures to a number of the coalition's actions are currently making me wonder if I will again.