Nimbos.net

84 year-old goes for a quick drive

Yesterday was the State Opening of Parliament – the one time in the year when all three parts of our legislative system are all in the same place at the same time.  The commentators tell us that there are symbolic messages behind the ceremonial and serious political debate follows.  However, as it promised to be a gorgeous late spring day, and a good photo opportunity, I took the day of work and met my Dad to point and click.  You can find the results on my Flickr pages.

This was always going to be a more promising opportunity as the ceremony normally happens in November with November weather.  The only time it is set at other times is the Opening immediately after a general election.  Assuming the new bill to give us fixed-term Parliaments goes through, then every five years we’ll also have a nice spring day to watch.

We now have a shiny new government in the UK.  To me, at least, the coalition does feel new and exciting allowing for the best from the two parties while tempering each of their excesses – natural Tory selfishness and rabid Liberal Democrat Europhillia.  If they can hold it together (and it is a big if), and deliver on their promises, I think it will be well worth-while.

Now the Government has started to publish its programme, there is one issue in particular which seems to be causing a stir – especially on Twitter and in the blogosphere; the new 55% rule.

This has been reported as a change to the rule on votes of no-confidence in the House of Commons – in some places reported as a change in the threshold from a simple majority to 55% being needed before a government falls.  As I see it – this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Currently there are two ways in which a dissolution of parliament is triggered:

1. The Prime Minister requests a dissolution from The Queen
2. The Government loses a vote of no-confidence in parliament
   (addendum – this does not trigger an automatic dissolution. The Government would fall, however, and if another could form with the confidence of the Commons then that would be the case)

Usually these would be triggered in different circumstances number 1 when the PM and government wishes it and number 2 when the government is weak enough for this no-confidence motion to be won by the opposition.

The proposal from the new coalition government is to change the constitutional convention on point 1 and just point 1. So, instead of the PM having the power to dissolve parliament on whim, he must get a  motion passed by the Commons in favour of that dissolution.  This is a transfer of power from the PM to Parliament – very much a good and democratic thing.

This is very different from a vote of no-confidence which would (usually) be instigated by the opposition and, to my understanding, is not due to change.

I’m all in favour of fixed-term parliaments, as long as they do not result in lame-duck governments which have no choice but to limp on to the end of their term (as fixed-term US administrations seem to).  So keeping the current no-confidence rules and supplementing with the transfer of power to Parliament for the requesting of a dissolution seems a very sensible safeguard.

So today we go to the polls.  Finally.  It has felt like a long-time coming.

I’d say that I am a political animal and the machinations have been fun to watch, but the inevitable descent into negative campaigning is also depressing.  It seems to happen earlier and earlier with each election campaign.  That said, it now seems we are heading for a hung parliament – it’s going to be fun watching one party or other furiously back-pedalling their way towards a coalition with those they slagged off as entirely untrustworthy just days before.

Our politics should be based far more on consensus and cooperation, and frankly anything which allows our MPs to vote more with their consciences and the representation of their constituents has got to be a good thing. The media keeps telling us that the man in the street is disillusioned with politicians and maybe that is true but I believe it’s the parties which are the problem.  The parties have become all together too powerful and it’s been at the expense of proper debate in parliament, and the kind of consensus which is only possible if MP’s affiliation is far more loose.  Is it too idealistic to think that our representatives should decide based on local views and needs and through persuasive argument rather than the whip?