There are fears over the Lib-Con government's 55 per cent threshold for a successful dissolution resolution. But this could be overplayed.
Analysis by UCL’s Constitution Unit suggests that fears over the Lib-Con government’s 55 per cent threshold for a successful dissolution resolution. But a fixed-term parliament of five years would be “long by comparison with most other [parliamentary] systems”.
Yesterday’s coalition agreement of the Liberal Conservative government said:
“legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”
The Guardian today quotes Scott Styles, a senior lecturer in law at Aberdeen University, who described the move as “dangerous”. He went on to say:
“This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution; what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power of the Commons. The British constitution is very simple: he who commands the confidence of the House is PM, he who loses that confidence must resign.
“I simply do not see how such a rule is credible or can be enforced: a majority is a majority is 51%; not 55% or 60% or 80%.”
Meanwhile constitutional expert Peter Hennessy, of Queen Mary University of London University, told BBC News:
“Fifty-five per cent of MPs needed for a government to lose a confidence vote – I am not sure that’s a very sensible change.
“The tradition is that one [vote] is enough and I wouldn’t tinker with that. I would leave that well alone. It looks as if you are priming the pitch, doctoring it a bit. Not good. It’s meant to be a different politics, new politics.”
But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:
“The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.
“Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”
But while fixed term parliaments are becoming “increasingly common”, five year terms would be “long by comparison with most other [parliamentary] systems”. Robert Hazel writes:
“Australia and New Zealand both have three-year maximum terms. The legislatures of Canada and many of its provinces have four-year fixed terms, as do most Australian states. The devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have four-year fixed terms. Ireland’s lower house has a five-year maximum, as in the UK. So a five year term is long by comparison with most other Westminster systems.”
All this begs the question of whether 55 per cent is too low a threshold for a dissolution resolution. If the point of a fixed term parliament is that the governing party cannot dissolve parliament to suit itself, perhaps the threshold should be two-thirds as in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
The Constitution Unit of UCL has prepared a longer briefing note on fixed term parliaments.
99 Responses to “Is 55% too low?”
Don’t waste time on the 55% majority requirement to Dissolve Parliament: it is all about trust anyway | The Wardman Wire
[…] Left Foot Forward […]
Ron Burns
What an excellent post by Elaine above. There a couple of things about all of this which I think are interesting. This strikes me as being one of the more significant items in the coalition agreement, yet there is still a lack of clarity and a great deal of ambiguity about what is written down in the document. The agreement was therefore undertaken in the absence of information of considerable importance. “It will be alright on the night” doesn’t seem to be the strongest argument for a change of this sort, and one starts to wonder how well informed the remainder of the agreement is.
The argument that 55% is too low seems to me to be mind-bogglingly feeble. It admits that the actual figure is arbitrary (but not, of course, random!) so why not 66%? If 66%, why not 77% or 88% or indeed 100%? We could then send them all home and save a fortune in salary and expenses plus using the Palace of Westminster as a hotel.
yet there is no evidence of a presentation The agreement was therefore undertaken in the absence of information which you seem to recognise as being critically important. “It will be alright on the night” doesn’t seem to be the strongest argument for a change of this sort.
Ron Burns
Apologies for the finger-trouble in my previous post. The last paragraph should of course have been deleted!
SadButMadLad
To all the Labour supporting commentors on here, what do you say about the Scottish situation which was imposed by a Labour governemnt. In Scotland the rule is 66% not 55% as it would be in the UK. Typical hypocrisy.
The rule is for the dissolution of parliament and allows MPs to vote for it. Currently only the PM can do this. So its a good thing and puts the power into the hands of the MPs to decide.
A vote of no confidence still only requires a 50% +1 vote. However losing a vote of confidence doesn’t by default to a dissolution. The losing government would have to try and sort out a majority coalition or minority goverment and if it couldn’t do that would MPs be able to vote for a dissolution.
Ron Burns
Had you done the briefest research on this issue rather than post a partisan insult you would have discovered that there is a significant difference in that the Scottish legislation includes a automatic timeout. While you correctly observe that after a vote of no confidence being carried a “losing government would have to try and sort out a majority coalition or minority government and if it couldn’t do that would MPs be able to vote for a dissolution” you unfortunately fail to notice that the said MPs would only succeed on a 55% vote. What if they can’t reach that proportion.