Fixed Term Parliaments and Votes of No Confidence

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.