Nick Clegg sought to draw a line under the debate about the rules for a dissolution of parliament in his first speech as deputy prime minister today.
Nick Clegg sought to draw a line under the debate about the rules for a dissolution of parliament in his first speech as deputy prime minister today. After weeks of confusion, debate and dissent from Conservative backbenchers such as David Davis, Mr Clegg insisted the coalition’s proposals were “not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government”.
He said:
“It’s just wrong that governments can play politics with something as important as a general election; cynically picking the date to maximise their own advantage. So this government has already set the date we think the next election should be: May 7th 2015 – no matter who is where in the polls.
“That is unless parliament votes to dissolve itself first. As we legislate to fix parliamentary terms the details will of course need to be worked out; but we believe that the support of 55% of MPs or more should be required for parliament to opt for an early dissolution. That is a much lower threshold than the two thirds required in the Scottish Parliament…
“This is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing unchanged powers of no confidence. We’re not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government; we’re taking away government’s right to throw out parliament.”
Yet, by not opting for a two-thirds majority, as in Holyrood, it remains possible for a future prime minister with 55 per cent of seats in the Commons to do precisely what Mr Clegg abhors: namely to “play politics” by “cynically picking the date” of future elections. As the graph below shows, on eight occasions since the war, a government has achieved this threshold, while on no occasion has it had 66 per cent of seats.
The proposed changes, if implemented, will have done nothing to curtail the powers of Attlee, MacMillan, Wilson, Thatcher (twice) and Blair (three times) to call an election at the time of their choosing – the most powerful post-war prime ministers would have been free to carry on as they pleased and ask the Queen for a dissolution whenever they felt, subject to their MPs voting with the whip.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “Clegg: Commons no confidence powers “unchanged””
Modicum
@Thalia:
I agree. If that rule were adopted for the UK Parliament there might be no need for a 55% rule.
In Sweden the Riksdag has a fixed four year term. This means an “ordinary” election must happen every four years. The government can hold an early “special election” if it wants but that won’t have any effect on the date of the next ordinary election.
This means that the government has very little incentive to call an early election, and in practice in Sweden early dissolutions are very rare. There is no need for a supermajority requirement to dissolve parliament.
I think the same rule applies in Scotland: an early general election doesn’t change the date of the next regularly scheduled election.
Clegg: Commons no confidence powers “unchanged” « The best Labour blogs
[…] More… […]
Great Reform Act? Have I missed something? « My Political Ramblings
[…] it would still not promote an ideal of ‘new politics’. Left Foot Forward have an interesting blog on this, where they state: “Yet, by not opting for a two-thirds majority, as in Holyrood, it […]
John Nor
Via @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/aaoP4s Explanation of why the 55% mentioned in #Clegg speech isn't really a great idea #noto55
Joe Cassels
RT @JohnNor: Via @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/aaoP4s Explanation of why the 55% mentioned in #Clegg speech isn't really a great idea #noto55