Sunday, 16 May 2010

55% VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IS UNDEMOCRATIC!

Having spent the last three days in hospital with an irregular heart beat and having not read any other blogs, I am not sure if this subject has been done to death but I have a lot of disquiet over the proposed 55% rule for a vote of no confidence.

If you look at the numbers and taking into account that SEIN FEIN don't take up their five seats in the commons even if everybody else including the Libthingies voted against the Tories the most votes they could muster would be 338.  If you take 55% of the 650 seats in the commons that is 358.  So therefore to topple a Tory Government, 20 of their own number would have to vote in the vote of no confidence against their own administration to change it and trigger another election.

Now I've heard of turkeys voting for Christmas, but that is ridiculous!  Therefore we are stuck with a Tory government whether we like it or not,  for the next five years.  Now as it turns out, although I want SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE, I would rather see a TORY LED COALITION IN WESTMINSTER than those shower of TALENTLESS FUCKWITS, LABOUR  and I might just have a tenner or two at the bookies on the Government being in power for 5 years.

11 comments:

Prospero said...

Well, DL, you are beginning to make me think that there is at least one Scot who did not have their brains sucked out by Labour at some point during the 1980s - along with any capacity for independent thought other than blaming "the Tories" for everything. I suppose they must have missed a few.
Anyway, I sort of agree with you about the 55%. I can see why the Lib Dems wanted it - they were taking a big risk, and needed the assurance that a "special resolution" would be required for dissolution. But I think that this sort of constitutional change really needs to be in a mandate at an election.
That said, the Labour squeals of confected outrage about the subject are pure hypocrisy. You would know better than me, but my understanding is that when Labour set up the Scottish parliament, it inserted a 65% requirement for dissolution, for exactly the same reasons.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Nick Cameron has promised us a new type of politics with this coalition. But with the 55% rule (which curiously is not being put to the public in a referendum) it seems like the same old sleazy in-it-for-themselves money troughing type of politics to me. Bunch of cunts, the lot of them.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

p.s. Hope you are feeling better.

wee boaby said...

Hope you're feeling better DL. I thought you must have been poorly.

Yes I was thinking about this 55% thing aswell and something occured to me about it. Although you can't vote them out they won't be able to get any policies through as that would still only need a one vote opposition majority to stop it. Not the 55 % to get them out.
So presumably no laws would be passed although they would still be in power. All very bizarre.
I notice Scotland has 66% majority required to kick out the governemnt in the Scottish parliament. According to a report I saw the other day.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Prospero, I am flattered! Not only did I vote Tory in the 80's I was also a member and I might be once again when Scotland is independent. I think the 55% rule should be put in a referendum along with the 5 year rule. I also think that a proper constitution along the line of the U.S. one should be drawn up so everybody knows exactly where they stand. Yes Labour put in the 66% rule in the Scottish Parliament because they did not ever expect to be out of rule and it came as a bit of a shocker for them when the SNP got in and are making a better job of it.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Honourable Fred, thanks I am if not completely fit yet as I still have a erratic heartbeat but as long as it doesn't give me to much angina, I'll put up with it at the moment. They've changed my medication so we'll see. Aye, they would give you the impression that they are the same sleazy bunch but as far as am concerned as long as they're not Labour, I don't give a fuck!

Dark Lochnagar said...

Boabs, thanks I'm no too bad. It is a strange law to try and pass. Once you know more or less how a Parliament is going to be made up it seems a bit naughty to pass a law by which you can't be voted out! That sounds a bit South American to me!

Father MacKenzie said...

This is part and parcel of having fixed term limits. The government would fall if (Due to SF not turning up) 323 MPs vote against them, it just wouldn't trigger an election.

Say for example that 1 year down the line, Milliband is popular with the press, bring Labour much more in line with the Lib-Dems pre coalition positions, and have a couple of resounding by-election victories against the Tories. With the 55% rule, it is possible for the LibDems to leave the Tories and help to form a "rainbow coalition" when Labour have got their act together.

If such a system had been in place at the time then John Smith could have been PM.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Faither, certainly the rest could vote down some legislation if the Libthingies left the coalition but they could not force a vote of no confidence which would force the Government to resign because that would require a vote of 358 MPs and they most they could muster if SF don't participate is 338. So therefore 20 Tories would have to vote against their own Government, which wouldn't be unusual particularly if it was a vote on Europe.

banned said...

Likewise, though I am generally pro the coalition, to usurp the constitution in this way really is naughty though it made me laugh to hear Jack Straw denounce the torylibs of acting unconstitutionally, pot calling the kettle black methinks.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Banned, Aah! Black Jack weasel, a fine upstanding man. If we were MPs we would be just like him. Devious cunts!