The Fixed Term Parliaments Act: What does it mean for the Coalition?

With the Conservatives well ahead of Labour in the latest opinion polling (Con 40 (+3) Lab 35 (-1) LD 16 (+1)), some in the Conservative Party would like to see a General Election to be called so that they can govern alone. An election based on that result would give the Tories 313 seats, Labour 286 and leave the Lib Dems on with just 24 MPs. That would leave the Tories just short of an overall majority, but with support from the 8 DUP MPs they could form a workable majority in the Commons.

Would it be possible for the Tories to dissolve Parliament? Short answer – Yes, possibly.

Under Nick Clegg’s own Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 the threshold required for an immediate General Election is 66% of all MPs. The Deputy Prime Minister said this in the House of Commons*:

First, traditional powers of no confidence will be put into law, and a vote of no confidence will still require only a simple majority. Secondly, if after a vote of no confidence a government cannot be formed within 14 days, Parliament will be dissolved and a general election will be held. Let me be clear: these steps will strengthen Parliament’s power over the executive. Thirdly, there will be an additional power for Parliament to vote for an early and immediate dissolution. We have decided that a majority of two thirds will be needed to carry the vote, as opposed to the 55% first suggested, as is the case in the Scottish Parliament.

These changes will make it impossible for any government to force a dissolution for their own purposes.

Could the Conservatives cobble together 66% of all MPs to vote in favor of an immediate dissolution for, as Nick Clegg put it “their own purposes”?

There are 650 MPs – with 5 Sinn Fein MPs who have not taken their seats. 430 MPs would therefore be required for an immediate dissolution. Subtract the Speaker, who by convention votes against a motion in the event of a tie, and you would require 429 MPs.

If we take the Lib Dems voting against any dissolution for granted (They could lose up to 4/5 of their MPs), then it would take all Conservative and Labour MPs to vote to dissolve Parliament –567 of them. That could only happen if both Parties were on a three line whip to support the motion.

With David Cameron seemingly content to keep the Lib Dems in Government to provide a moderating force to the Tory Right, it would be unlikely that the Tories would be whipped in favour of such a motion. It is also worth noting that Labour would be unlikely to support an immediate dissolution if the Tories were likely to win a majority. Labour’s polling numbers at the moment are soft and the Tories would be likely to pull further ahead in the polls. The Lib Dems could be dumped by the Tories in favour of a majority, but it is unlikely to happen.

The potential for a legal challenge to an early election was summarized by the UCL Constitution Unit:

A related question is whether there could be recourse to the courts to enforce the requirements of a fixed term law. The probability is that they would consider the issue to be non-justiciable; an obligation to be enforced in the political but not the legal sphere.

The most likely context for a legal challenge would be an attempt by a government to seek an early dissolution, as happened in Canada in 2008, and in Germany in 1982 and 2005. In the former instance, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge on the basis that section 56.1(1) of the Canada Elections Act 2000 specifically preserved the powers of the Governor General.81 By convention, this extended to the power of the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General about the dissolution of parliament.

With regards to the 1982 early dissolution in Germany, the German Constitutional Court held that in the absence of unconstitutional actions, it would be politically inexpedient to go against the judgments of the President, Chancellor and leaders of the political parties. The Court accepted that Kohl faced general difficulties due to which he could not rely on a consistent majority in parliament. The Court responded similarly to the 2005 episode; the Chancellor’s assessment as to whether continuous governance could be assured was accepted.83

The international experience demonstrates that courts are unwilling to engage with such politically sensitive decisions, and a similar response is to be expected from the British courts.

Unless it was politically expedient for both the Tories and Labour to force a new General Election then an election before 2015 would be unlikely. 81 Tory MPs have shown themselves in the European Union Referendum debate it the Commons to be willing to rebel against their Whips. The Tories would be able to pass their NHS and Welfare Reform Bills, and their Budgets without having the Lib Dems interfering.

That must be tempting for the Tories……

 

* HC Deb 5 Jul 2010 col. 23

 

 

 

 

How to solve a problem like Nick Clegg….

…. and the Liberal Democrats.

I have a confession to make. I’m actually quite impressed with the catch all party Liberal Democrats. I still don’t like them, but they’ve got themselves in Government for the first time since the 2nd World War. A good job, you’d think. They’ve moved away from being the opposition party that is purely opportunistic and has no values, to being a party of Government that still doesn’t have any apparent values, beyond being in favour of them winning and everybody else losing. Cllr Matthew Hulbert, a Lib Dem Councillor, has written a blog on the Lib Dems working with Labour

I guess the question that I’m really looking to answer, is, if the electoral outcome is such, should Labour work with the Lib Dems post 2015.

First of all, let me start with a joke, which is borrowed from Tom Harris MP’s excellent book “Why I’m right and everybody else is wrong”. If you haven’t bought it yet, buy it. But anyway, the joke is this:

A Labour activist is walking along a cliff top. He comes across a Tory and a Lib Dem hanging on to the cliff edge by their finger nails. Who does he push off first?

The Tory, of course. Business before pleasure.

Would you want to work with the Lib Dems? They went into the last election with a very good manifesto, with lot’s of things that I support: Making Britain fairer and greener. Lovely. But what have they done now? Well, first of all, they are propping up a Tory Government. They say that they are getting concessions from the Tories on areas like the NHS, on tuition fees, and assorted other issues. This is true. They are. They also wouldn’t have to be getting those concessions if they weren’t in Government with the Tories. The Tories would not be in such a strong position, and in Government, if it was not for the Lib Dems.

Then again, they needed to actually do something to persuade people to vote for them. They need to show that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a wasted one. How well have they done? Not very. They are on about 9% in opinion polls, and they will almost certainly be decimated at the next general election.

Should we work with them? I am inclined to say no. I have no interest in supporting a minority party, with minority interests and putting them in Government in the process. It should be Labour that appeals to enough people, and can form a broad enough coalition by itself, which we are more than capable of doing.

I would never say that we should never work with the Lib Dems. I wouldn’t want to, and in 2015, we shouldn’t need to.

To any Lib Dems who are uncomfortable with the position of their Government, I would suggest that you visit this link.

Labour in 2011: A Year in Review

Labour has had a pretty mixed 2011. We did very well to gain 857 council seats in the local elections, taking control of an additional 26 councils in may, and 3 more since then.

The Tories had an even better year. They gained more than 20 councils, and had a net increase in the number of councilors.

The Lib Dems, meanwhile, have had an appalling year, but then that’s to be expected. They are Lib Dems, after all.

The 2011 local elections went some way to restoring Labour’s position in local government that had been understandably devastated by 13 years of Government, with both opposition parties being able to make huge gains against Labour across the country, but particularly in the marginal parliamentary seats that Labour needs to be winning to win the 2015 General Election.

I think that it’s pretty easy to say that Labour’s had a good year if you are generally supportive of the present leadership, or that Labour has had an abysmal year, if you aren’t. As the saying goes, anything can be proved with facts, it’s the truth that really matters.

Lots of ink has been spilt on this topic by eminent Labour ‘Comrades’ including Luke Akehurst and Michael Dugher MP . On the other side of the fence sit Peter Watt and Anthony Painter.Take a look at their analysis; I’m going to give my own view.

First, lets start with some facts.

Voting intention.

The first poll of voting intention in 2011 according to ICM* showed that Labour was on 39%, the Tories were on 35%, and the Lib Dems were on 15%.  This gave Labour a 4% lead, which would have left Labour with a 40 seat majority assuming a uniform swing. Nothing to be sniffed at, a year after we narrowly avoided our worst every general election result.

Heading into 2012, Labour is in a radically different position. The Party finds itself either in a statistical tie with the Tories, or barely achieving a small lead in polling intentions.  The final ICM poll, this time for the Daily Telegraph, using an identical system of measurement, Labour would receive 34% of the vote, the Tories would receive 34%, and the Lib Dems would get 14%. This would leave the Conservatives 6 seats short of an overall majority.

There is no way that I can see to say that this is good news, especially when you consider that it is likely that the Labour polling figure is soft, and the Conservatives would have the resources to pump into marginal seats to magnify the swing against Labour. Other pollsters tell a similar story.

Result: C- Must do better.

The next subject to consider is the economy. The economy is undoubtedly the biggest political issue at the moment, and will be the issue that will decide the next General Election. YouGov have helpfully produced a set of compilated data which can be found here.

Who is to blame for the spending cuts?

At the end of 2010, 41% of people blamed Labour for the cuts to spending. 23% blamed the Tories, and 24% blamed Labour and the Tories.

At the end of 2011, 39% still blame Labour. 24% blame the Tories, and 24% blame both.

Pretty poor, considering that we have moved on a year in time, and Labour’s message has been a repetition of the too fast, too far line.

Is too fast, too far working?

Yes and no.

At the end of 2010, 43% of people felt that the spending cuts were bad for the economy. 40% thought that they were good. At the end of 2011, 48% think that spending cuts are bad for the economy, and 35% think that they are a good thing.

That, take alone, would suggest that Labour’s central message is getting through strongly. A 5% reduction over a year in those supporting the cuts isn’t of itself a failure.

The real failure is in convincing people that the cuts are unnecessary. We simply haven’t done it, and the Tories are winning this argument hands down.

At the start of 2011, 55% of people thought that the spending cuts are necessary. 34% think that they are unnecessary.

At the end of 2011, 59% of people think that they are now necessary. 27% now think that they are not.

Pretty terrible, isn’t it? The public agrees that the cuts are too fast, and too far. They think that cutting spending is going to damage the economy. Yet, ultimately, they agree with the Tories. They think that cutting spending and reducing the deficit, whilst painful, is ultimately necessary for the economic well being of the country. The public, unfortunatly, agrees with the swivel eyed fringes Libertarians, and think that public spending should be cut. Shame.

80% of people think that the economy is in a bad position now. At the start of the year, 74% of people thought the same thing. Labour’s message is winning through. But it is being overridden by the Tories. We have failed to convince the public of our credibility on the economy.

Result: D.

Can we salvage our position?

Yes, probably. 2011, has, thankfully, seen the emergence of a really credible alternative to the Government’s economic strategy, and fortunately, it hasn’t come from the Lib Dems. ‘In The Black Labour’, produced by Hopi Sen and Anthony Painter.

I don’t know how you feel after reading the above polling stats. I was pretty shocked at how bad things are. We need a credible position, or frankly, we’re finished. Ed Balls may be right on the economics, but we haven’t convinced the public of that yet.

There is only one really credible alternative at the moment. In The Black Labour provides a radical, and truly Keynesian approach to economics that could restore Labour’s economic credibility. Labour’s polling position, an d the public’s perception of the economic crisis demands that as a responsible opposition, Labour takes all the action necessary to provide a credible alternative to the Government.

Labour’s position is hurting, and it isn’t really working.

What’s next?

*All voting intention figures are based on ICM so as to give the best sense of the change in Labour’s polling numbers, rather than the real figures.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...