As mentioned in my previous blog I am going to discuss the decision to move to fixed term parliaments (5 years) and the changes to the requirements to dissolve parliament (a 55% vote of no confidence, as opposed to 50%). These two measures are intimately linked but I am going to begin by discussing them both individually. In terms of the referendum on AV, I'm hoping to do a pretty comprehensive blog on AV in the coming days.
The first thing to state about fixed term parliaments is that it represents a removal of some of the PMs power. The PM has always held the constitutional right to dissolve parliament and request a general election and fixed term parliaments would remove this right. This Prime Ministerial right is a huge advantage to the incumbent party, examples from the last Government serve to prove this point. There was a general election in 2005 (only 4 years after the previous) called because the Labour party thought they had the greatest chance of victory, which they did. Then in 2007 Gordon Brown took over as PM with the promise of a general election with months, which agonisingly turned into 3 long years.
The move to a fixed term parliament is, therefore, in the interest of the country. It puts an end to all the electioneering that precedes the calling of an election. The USA successfully uses fixed term parliaments for Presidential elections, as do many others around the world. This represents the less controversial element of the proposed electoral reform.
So, now for the controversy. The decision to change the threshold of no confidence from 50% to 55% has caused outrage amongst some. However, I believe it is absolutely essential to the success of this current Government. As David Cameron has pointed the SNP/Labour coalition in Scotland introduced a 66% threshold needed to dissolve parliament. So this kind of measure is not unheard of and is a big step towards stable government. Some say it will lead to an unprecedented level of government power however as discussed in my previous blog the Tories have 306 MPs, or 47% of MPs - this means at least 16 Tories must vote against the government in a no confidence motion. This is definitely plausible and does not represent any kind of 'super' government power. The 55% threshold is essential because of the hung parliament we found ourselves in. At the next election if a Party wins an overall majority (under FPTP) they will have the right to repeal the change as 55% wouldn't be required to maintain a stable majority government.
Now, where the two overlap. Some people say the two are incompatible, that if we have a fixed term parliament then there can not be a vote of no confidence to dissolve parliament. This is not true. For example if the current coalition were to break up with a 55% no confidence vote, having implemented fixed term parliaments, the dissolution of parliament would not lead directly to a general election. The Queen would invite David Cameron back to the Palace in order to try and form a new government. Only when the exhaustive process of finding an alternative has been pursued can a general election then be called.
In conclusion, I feel both of these measures will enrich our democracy and help lead to stable, legitimate government that will hopefully last the course. If the coalition fails to pass either of these pieces of legislation then the coalition is unlikely to last more than a couple of years.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Monday 17 May 2010
Liberal Democrat / Conservative Coalition
I understand why people are outraged that the Liberal Democrats have "jumped into bed" with the Conservatives. However, I do not share this outrage. To best explain why I feel this deal was in the best interests of both the Liberal Democrats and the country as a whole I am going to begin by examining the alternative.
The so-called 'Rainbow Coalition' was a very good idea in principle, in many peoples views simply because it did not include the Conservatives. From a pragmatic point of view though, it was simply unworkable, and furthermore not in the Liberal Democrats interest. The winning post is often referred to as 326, however due to the Sinn Fein MPs refusing to take their seats, Government can usually pass legislation with 321 votes.
So where did the Rainbow coalition intend to get these votes from? Well, Labour themselves have 258 seats and the Liberal Democrats 57, giving a running total of 315, 6 short of the majority required. Many pointed to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and even N.Ireland as a source of the extra seats required. The SNP and Plaid Cymru hold a total of 9 seats between them (and would generally be seen as the same bargaining position) and therefore a Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Plaid Cymru coalition would have 324 seats, a level above the 321 I said would be needed. So in theory it works.
The only opposition to this coalition would be the Conservative party, who have 306 MPs. Given the extremely difficult legislation the current Government is going to have to pass this Rainbow coalition would be extremely unstable, with need for only a few abstainers to stop the Government being able to pass legislation. On top of this question of national stability, there is the question of Liberal Democrat party interest. Had this coalition taken place, then the SNP and Plaid Cymru would have insisted that Scotland and Wales are ring fenced away from the public sector spending cuts we all know are imminent. Labour's promise of immediate electoral reform was extremely tempting but on balance I believe we got a better deal from the Conservatives, and here's why.
The first thing to acknowledge in discussing the Liberal/Conservative coalition is the power differential. Conservatives got 306 MPs whereas the Liberal Democrats got 57, that is to say there is not a level playing field between the two parties and the nature of coalition is that everyone must compromise. This is the coalitions greatest strength, but also its biggest weakness. OK, let's talk policy.
Inheritance tax cut - suspended.
National Insurance rise - scrapped.
No tax up to 10k - Government policy.
Renewal of Trident - to be assessed for cost effectiveness.
NHS - real spending increase year on year.
ID cards - scrapped.
Nuclear power - no more Government subsidy (Lib Dems can abstain any relevant votes)
Pensions - final earning pensions link restored.
DNA database - safeguards for privacy.
All these are policies that Liberal Democrats should be happy with (yes, some of them are an overlap of Tory and LibDem policy) and I am not even going to discuss the political reforms offered by the Conservatives (I will probably do another blog about the AV offer, and why the 55% threshold for no-confidence is a good thing). I am somewhat sceptical about the coalitions commitment to environmental issues and will be watching this over coming weeks. (Again, another blog on this soon!)
Yes. There are some Tory policies that we were unable to remove or dilute, such as a married couples tax break (a nominal £3 a week), a cap on non-EU immigration (not necessarily a bad thing) and the decision to cut public spending this year. But I go back to my point about it never being a level playing field, the coalition was never going to be "half and half" and I think, in policy terms, what we got is weighted significantly in our favour as opposed to the Conservatives. Add to this the fact that Nick Clegg is now Deputy PM, Vince Cable Business Secretary, Chris Huhne Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Danny Alexander Scottish Secretary and David Laws Chief Secretary to Treasury and I think the overall picture is a very strong Liberal Democrat position within this experimental and historic coalition government.
There was of course a third option, the ever present option to "do nothing" which would have forced the Tories to form a minority government, and we'd have had another election a few months down the line. Its like many commentators seem to be saying the PM is using the LibDems to "detoxify" the Tory brand (i.e the further right of his party). The alternative is the non-diluted Tory government and we all know what that means.
Also, a quick comment on Facebook, this group has sprung up recently http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121363511222217&ref=ts, its called "WE WILL NOT ACCEPT LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MPs BREAKING THEIR TUITION FEES PLEDGE". In my opinion this shows a gross misjudgement of the bargaining position the Liberal Democrats (and more generally the country...something about a budget deficit?) found themselves in last week. They were certainly not in the position to insist on a policy that will cost billions of pounds when the emphasis is on saving money. Don't get me wrong I am a student but to condemn the LibDems for not fulfilling this promise is not very fair at all, and after all LibDems are all about fairness, no?
Thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed it.
The so-called 'Rainbow Coalition' was a very good idea in principle, in many peoples views simply because it did not include the Conservatives. From a pragmatic point of view though, it was simply unworkable, and furthermore not in the Liberal Democrats interest. The winning post is often referred to as 326, however due to the Sinn Fein MPs refusing to take their seats, Government can usually pass legislation with 321 votes.
So where did the Rainbow coalition intend to get these votes from? Well, Labour themselves have 258 seats and the Liberal Democrats 57, giving a running total of 315, 6 short of the majority required. Many pointed to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and even N.Ireland as a source of the extra seats required. The SNP and Plaid Cymru hold a total of 9 seats between them (and would generally be seen as the same bargaining position) and therefore a Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Plaid Cymru coalition would have 324 seats, a level above the 321 I said would be needed. So in theory it works.
The only opposition to this coalition would be the Conservative party, who have 306 MPs. Given the extremely difficult legislation the current Government is going to have to pass this Rainbow coalition would be extremely unstable, with need for only a few abstainers to stop the Government being able to pass legislation. On top of this question of national stability, there is the question of Liberal Democrat party interest. Had this coalition taken place, then the SNP and Plaid Cymru would have insisted that Scotland and Wales are ring fenced away from the public sector spending cuts we all know are imminent. Labour's promise of immediate electoral reform was extremely tempting but on balance I believe we got a better deal from the Conservatives, and here's why.
The first thing to acknowledge in discussing the Liberal/Conservative coalition is the power differential. Conservatives got 306 MPs whereas the Liberal Democrats got 57, that is to say there is not a level playing field between the two parties and the nature of coalition is that everyone must compromise. This is the coalitions greatest strength, but also its biggest weakness. OK, let's talk policy.
Inheritance tax cut - suspended.
National Insurance rise - scrapped.
No tax up to 10k - Government policy.
Renewal of Trident - to be assessed for cost effectiveness.
NHS - real spending increase year on year.
ID cards - scrapped.
Nuclear power - no more Government subsidy (Lib Dems can abstain any relevant votes)
Pensions - final earning pensions link restored.
DNA database - safeguards for privacy.
All these are policies that Liberal Democrats should be happy with (yes, some of them are an overlap of Tory and LibDem policy) and I am not even going to discuss the political reforms offered by the Conservatives (I will probably do another blog about the AV offer, and why the 55% threshold for no-confidence is a good thing). I am somewhat sceptical about the coalitions commitment to environmental issues and will be watching this over coming weeks. (Again, another blog on this soon!)
Yes. There are some Tory policies that we were unable to remove or dilute, such as a married couples tax break (a nominal £3 a week), a cap on non-EU immigration (not necessarily a bad thing) and the decision to cut public spending this year. But I go back to my point about it never being a level playing field, the coalition was never going to be "half and half" and I think, in policy terms, what we got is weighted significantly in our favour as opposed to the Conservatives. Add to this the fact that Nick Clegg is now Deputy PM, Vince Cable Business Secretary, Chris Huhne Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Danny Alexander Scottish Secretary and David Laws Chief Secretary to Treasury and I think the overall picture is a very strong Liberal Democrat position within this experimental and historic coalition government.
There was of course a third option, the ever present option to "do nothing" which would have forced the Tories to form a minority government, and we'd have had another election a few months down the line. Its like many commentators seem to be saying the PM is using the LibDems to "detoxify" the Tory brand (i.e the further right of his party). The alternative is the non-diluted Tory government and we all know what that means.
Also, a quick comment on Facebook, this group has sprung up recently http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121363511222217&ref=ts, its called "WE WILL NOT ACCEPT LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MPs BREAKING THEIR TUITION FEES PLEDGE". In my opinion this shows a gross misjudgement of the bargaining position the Liberal Democrats (and more generally the country...something about a budget deficit?) found themselves in last week. They were certainly not in the position to insist on a policy that will cost billions of pounds when the emphasis is on saving money. Don't get me wrong I am a student but to condemn the LibDems for not fulfilling this promise is not very fair at all, and after all LibDems are all about fairness, no?
Thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)