Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rochester & Strood by-election

55% is reported right across the media. Google it. There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.
 
55% is reported right across the media. Google it.
you don't need to be tiresome, it's your claim.

There's no mention of 55% in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The no confidence provision reads

(3) An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a) the House of Commons passes
a motion in the form set out in
subsection (4), and
(b) the period of 14 days after the day
on which that motion is passed ends
without the House passing a mot
ion in the form set out in subsection
(5).
(4) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no
confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

so what is this 55%?

There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.

What actually happened was that Clegg/LD credibility collapsed after tuition fees and the tories had a majority of voting intentions until the end of 2011. That's without any maneuvering by Cameron to attempt to position his party for a snap election. If Clegg hadn't made fixed term parliaments a condition of the coalition agreement he knew he's be out on his ear as soon as Cameron saw the opportunity.
(see http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~tquinn/Quinn_Coalition_Agreement_JEPOP_2011.pdf and plenty of journalistic sources)
 
55% is reported right across the media. Google it. There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.

Not quite right, it was a bit more subtle than that. The provision for a VoNC was not actually altered; that remains, as it always was, a simple majority, (as in the fall of Callaghan etc.). What was changed, within the the context of fixed terms, was the provision for Parliament to decide upon a motion for an early GE, short of the fixed 5 year term. The threshold chosen was actually 2/3, (66%), of the total number of seats in the Commons (434 out of a House of 650). The idea being that a VoNC in the Govt. within the fixed term would 'normally'* lead to the formation of a new Govt. (coalition?) within the elected house, and only very extraordinary circumstances would see a GE called before term.

*within 14 days of the VoNC; if no other administration could be formed that would = a VoNC in any Govt. within the parliament.
 
Last edited:
wiki points to this NS article as evidence that there was initially a proposal that a VoNC should have a 55% majority. But it wasn't passed like that, despite the bluster that "55% is reported right across the media".
 
wiki points to this NS article as evidence that there was initially a proposal that a VoNC should have a 55% majority. But it wasn't passed like that, despite the bluster that "55% is reported right across the media".
Yeah, yeah...but the substantive point that Nino was making was a valid one; namely that, in addition to the fixed term, the chances of a VoNC precipitating a GE was also interfered with. No need to quibble over a few %.
 
no it wasn't. I posted the law above, nothing about a VoNC changed except it was put on a statutory footing.

What did change was another provision for a motion to be passed “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”, but that's not the same as a VoNC, despite you merging the two in #138

it's all irrelevant anyway, especially as MoTD is on
 
no it wasn't. I posted the law above, nothing about a VoNC changed except it was put on a statutory footing.

What did change was another provision for a motion to be passed “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”, but that's not the same as a VoNC, despite you merging the two in #138

it's all irrelevant anyway, especially as MoTD is on
No, it really was substantially changed from a position in which a VoNC would 'normally' precipitate a GE to a situation in which a VoNC will herald a two-week window of 'horse-trading' to build a new coalition, and only give the electorate the chance to elect a new government if that process dissolves.
 
you don't need to be tiresome, it's your claim.

There's no mention of 55% in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The no confidence provision reads



so what is this 55%?



What actually happened was that Clegg/LD credibility collapsed after tuition fees and the tories had a majority of voting intentions until the end of 2011. That's without any maneuvering by Cameron to attempt to position his party for a snap election. If Clegg hadn't made fixed term parliaments a condition of the coalition agreement he knew he's be out on his ear as soon as Cameron saw the opportunity.
(see http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~tquinn/Quinn_Coalition_Agreement_JEPOP_2011.pdf and plenty of journalistic sources)
I'm not being "tiresome".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682959.stm
And
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8678222.stm
And
http://www.demsoc.org/2010/05/13/no-confidence-in-55-percent/
And
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...term+parliaments+and+the+55+rule/3648492.html
 

I'm more bothered that he repeatedly linked immigration to 'an increase in benefit claimants' which as well as being demonstrably untrue is again an attack on those receiving benefits. I suspect Crosby gave them the nod to say this, whilst the party can publicly distance itself from his comments. Disingenuous shits.

I've noticed that they've started to include child benefit claimants as a subset of 'bad people', especially if there is a need to play the 'thieving immigrants' line, saying x amount are 'in receipt of benefits' and include this, suggesting they're not paying in. You could attack many sections of society on the basis a certain percent receive child benefit.
 
No, I'm not. I was basing my position on the information that I found. I didn't realise that it hadn't been enacted. As far as I was aware, it was practically impossible to remove this government through a vote of no confidence. Okay?
Tiresome
 
I'm more bothered that he repeatedly linked immigration to 'an increase in benefit claimants' which as well as being demonstrably untrue is again an attack on those receiving benefits. I suspect Crosby gave them the nod to say this, whilst the party can publicly distance itself from his comments. Disingenuous shits.

I've noticed that they've started to include child benefit claimants as a subset of 'bad people', especially if there is a need to play the 'thieving immigrants' line, saying x amount are 'in receipt of benefits' and include this, suggesting they're not paying in. You could attack many sections of society on the basis a certain percent receive child benefit.
thats what happens when you remove the universality, it becomes a tool for division
 
Back
Top Bottom