i think fixed term may not be a bad thing for government, but i think five years is quite a long time. while it puts less power into the hands of the PM for calling elections etc, i think that in the long run, a five year coalition isn't great for the country...
also this 55% for a vote of no confidence is better for the partieas in coalition than it is for the country - as it reduces the chances of it happening, if the two parties are really committed to making this government work
Five years is certainly too long for a fixed term government in the UK where our tradition has tended to be towards government that lasts for just over four years.
Also, the introduction of a 'super-majority' on this issue only without a written constitution to protect it seems unworkable. Surely, the law that creates the 'super-majority' could itself be overturned by a simple majority within parliament and hence seems slightly ridiculous.
What happens if some years down the line a government with 47% support in the House cannot be kicked out by Parliament in a vote of no-confidence but cannot pass any legislation whatsoever.
Finally, whilst the prime minister is somewhat correct that he is giving up a power to call a general election at the time of his choosing, this is ultimately a power grab by the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch. This and future governments are guaranteed to stay in office no matter how bad they are as long as they have 358 loyal MPs.
And dont even get me started on the creation of new peers just to get this bill through Parliament!!!
Nice idea if you are a new prime minister without much of a mandate and leading a shaky coalition but could lead to huge problems further down the line. This may work in other countries but the changes required to make it work here are far more reaching than passing a single bill.
i think fixed term may not be a bad thing for government, but i think five years is quite a long time. while it puts less power into the hands of the PM for calling elections etc, i think that in the long run, a five year coalition isn't great for the country...
ReplyDeletealso this 55% for a vote of no confidence is better for the partieas in coalition than it is for the country - as it reduces the chances of it happening, if the two parties are really committed to making this government work
Five years is certainly too long for a fixed term government in the UK where our tradition has tended to be towards government that lasts for just over four years.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the introduction of a 'super-majority' on this issue only without a written constitution to protect it seems unworkable. Surely, the law that creates the 'super-majority' could itself be overturned by a simple majority within parliament and hence seems slightly ridiculous.
What happens if some years down the line a government with 47% support in the House cannot be kicked out by Parliament in a vote of no-confidence but cannot pass any legislation whatsoever.
Finally, whilst the prime minister is somewhat correct that he is giving up a power to call a general election at the time of his choosing, this is ultimately a power grab by the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch. This and future governments are guaranteed to stay in office no matter how bad they are as long as they have 358 loyal MPs.
And dont even get me started on the creation of new peers just to get this bill through Parliament!!!
Nice idea if you are a new prime minister without much of a mandate and leading a shaky coalition but could lead to huge problems further down the line. This may work in other countries but the changes required to make it work here are far more reaching than passing a single bill.