And that's that!
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 12:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanSo, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 07:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 07:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 07:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 08:10 am (UTC)As to not having a written constitution, it's only partially unwritten. The entirety of Statute, case law and the English Common Law, together with custom and practice make up the constitution. Just because it is unwritten, as in not written in a single document, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily unclear, especially in such matters. There are other, more obscure aspects of the constitution that are more unclear, because they are rarely needed.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 08:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 11:12 am (UTC)I think they are now going for 55% rather than the old 51% when it comes to the vote of no confidence thingy.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-12 11:24 am (UTC)