And that's that!

So, after days of no real news, it's suddenly all over. All we need now is the confirmation that the Lib Dems are taking the deal and the names of the Cabinet to be followed by the junior ministers and then, if the deal on fixed five term Parliaments is true, we don't have to vote again unti 6 May 2015.

I want to know more about these 'fixed term' Parliaments. It is a clear step back from Cameron's pre-election position when he opposed them on the grounds that it prevented Parliament from getting rid of unpopular governments. Well, that really depends upon what you mean by a 'fixed term Parliament' doesn't it?

At the moment Parliaments are dissolved by the use of the Royal Perogative as expressed by the Crown in Parliament, like all uses of the Perogative. The Sovereign is only involved insofar as she formally accepts the request for a disollution by the Prime Minister; she doesn't dissolve them because she feels like it, she does so only on request. It is a constitutional convention that the Prime Minister asks for a dissolution no longer than five years after the previous election.

That said, the Motion of Confidence comes into play, too. If Parliament's cofidence in the government is put to a vote and the Government loses, then it is customary for the Prime mMinister to seek dissolution and call a general election.

Now if Cameron was worried that fixed Parliaments would do away with the vote of confidence, I think the obvious answer is to ensure that any change that fixes the length of a Parliament does so only in limiting the use of the Royal Perogative - effectively taking the decision on when to call an election out of the hands of the Prime Minister except where the Government has lost a Vote of Confidence. Then we get the best of both worlds: the ability of Parliament to remove a weak and/or unpopular Government, but otherwise predictable election dates.

Am I missing something? It seems simple, yet Cameron's stance (and he has studied the constitution under no less an authority than Vernon Bogdanor), suggests otherwise.

And that's that!

So, after days of no real news, it's suddenly all over. All we need now is the confirmation that the Lib Dems are taking the deal and the names of the Cabinet to be followed by the junior ministers and then, if the deal on fixed five term Parliaments is true, we don't have to vote again unti 6 May 2015.

I want to know more about these 'fixed term' Parliaments. It is a clear step back from Cameron's pre-election position when he opposed them on the grounds that it prevented Parliament from getting rid of unpopular governments. Well, that really depends upon what you mean by a 'fixed term Parliament' doesn't it?

At the moment Parliaments are dissolved by the use of the Royal Perogative as expressed by the Crown in Parliament, like all uses of the Perogative. The Sovereign is only involved insofar as she formally accepts the request for a disollution by the Prime Minister; she doesn't dissolve them because she feels like it, she does so only on request. It is a constitutional convention that the Prime Minister asks for a dissolution no longer than five years after the previous election.

That said, the Motion of Confidence comes into play, too. If Parliament's cofidence in the government is put to a vote and the Government loses, then it is customary for the Prime mMinister to seek dissolution and call a general election.

Now if Cameron was worried that fixed Parliaments would do away with the vote of confidence, I think the obvious answer is to ensure that any change that fixes the length of a Parliament does so only in limiting the use of the Royal Perogative - effectively taking the decision on when to call an election out of the hands of the Prime Minister except where the Government has lost a Vote of Confidence. Then we get the best of both worlds: the ability of Parliament to remove a weak and/or unpopular Government, but otherwise predictable election dates.

Am I missing something? It seems simple, yet Cameron's stance (and he has studied the constitution under no less an authority than Vernon Bogdanor), suggests otherwise.

Last word (for now)

I absolutely fail to see why so many peaople are afraid of the idea of coalition government. Many of the same people are those who would favour electoral reform, something that could quite conceivably increase the chances of future coalitions.

I can absolutely understand why politicians don't like coalitions - it means that there is someone much closer to them than the public, someone locked into the same isolated little world, who will be acting as a check and balance on their worst excesses, it means that they have to compromise and therefore be far more restrained than otherwise they might.

As to the junior Lib Dem partner in the coalition? Well, it's all worked so well for them in getting their policies over in the last 80 years, hasn't it? Now we can see some of their more moderate policies actually happen and their reputation will be enhanced or otherwise on how those policies play out. As to the minor party taking the fall for the larger if it all goes wrong?

Well, if it is policy failure, with the Tory party outnumbering the other by a factor of five and that being reflected in the balance of Cabinet responsibility, I doubt that the public will be overly gulled by any attempt to load the blame unreasonably. Of course, if the minor party holds the major party to ransom over pointless precedural details, the public will spot that, too.

I for one am on board for a coalition. I should have preferred a few more Lib Dem seats in Parliament, which would have justified a wider representation in Government, but the electorate didn't vote for that and there's no pretending they did. The Lib Dem surge was not refglected in the percentage vote, much less the distribution of seats. Conclusion: there was no Lib Dem surge.

Last word (for now)

I absolutely fail to see why so many peaople are afraid of the idea of coalition government. Many of the same people are those who would favour electoral reform, something that could quite conceivably increase the chances of future coalitions.

I can absolutely understand why politicians don't like coalitions - it means that there is someone much closer to them than the public, someone locked into the same isolated little world, who will be acting as a check and balance on their worst excesses, it means that they have to compromise and therefore be far more restrained than otherwise they might.

As to the junior Lib Dem partner in the coalition? Well, it's all worked so well for them in getting their policies over in the last 80 years, hasn't it? Now we can see some of their more moderate policies actually happen and their reputation will be enhanced or otherwise on how those policies play out. As to the minor party taking the fall for the larger if it all goes wrong?

Well, if it is policy failure, with the Tory party outnumbering the other by a factor of five and that being reflected in the balance of Cabinet responsibility, I doubt that the public will be overly gulled by any attempt to load the blame unreasonably. Of course, if the minor party holds the major party to ransom over pointless precedural details, the public will spot that, too.

I for one am on board for a coalition. I should have preferred a few more Lib Dem seats in Parliament, which would have justified a wider representation in Government, but the electorate didn't vote for that and there's no pretending they did. The Lib Dem surge was not refglected in the percentage vote, much less the distribution of seats. Conclusion: there was no Lib Dem surge.

Beverage Report

I think my coffee belongs to the so-called ‘progressive left’: it is expensive, has gone cold and is increasingly bitter.

That is all.

Beverage Report

I think my coffee belongs to the so-called ‘progressive left’: it is expensive, has gone cold and is increasingly bitter.

That is all.