results

[Jon MW]

Liberal Democrat wins:

• Referendum to bring in an alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force legislation for referendum through, but will be free to campaign against reforms before referendum

As AV isn't a form of PR this is not really a win is it. gg LD's

There's little point in changing to AV, hardly seems worth it.

But there are a lot of other details about political reform which are more important which the Lib Dems are getting

[Bongo]

I have just seen someone on Facebook blame the Tories for the NI rise... I'm lost for words.

[relaedgc]

Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system."

[boldie]

I have just seen someone on Facebook blame the Tories for the NI rise... I'm lost for words.

lol. and to think they are allowed to vote.

[redsimon]

Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system."

No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No".

[Jon MW]

Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system."

No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No".

Lib Dems being all political about it, they want PR and they're trying to sell the fact that they could get AV as a victory when it clearly isn't.

On a wider point if this means the concept of changing the voting system becomes accepted then it still leaves open the possibility of PR at a later stage.

[TightPaulFolds]

[Rod Paradise]

Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system."

No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No".

Lib Dems being all political about it, they want PR and they're trying to sell the fact that they could get AV as a victory when it clearly isn't.

On a wider point if this means the concept of changing the voting system becomes accepted then it still leaves open the possibility of PR at a later stage.

I agree. AV's a poor substitute - but it starts the ball rolling.

The move from 50% to 55% for a motion of no confidence is a dirty wee trick though.

[Bongo]

I'm sure I read today that It's not for no confidence, it's for a dissolution by the government. No confidence is still 50% apparently. Looking for the source and I can't find it now :|

[Bongo]

Here we are!

But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:

    “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.

    “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”

from:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/

[TightPaulFolds]

stolen from HIGNFY

[Rod Paradise]

Here we are!

But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:

    “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.

    “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”

from:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/

Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer.

[kinboshi]

Here we are!

But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:

    “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.

    “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”

from:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/

Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer.

It's still not right.

So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party.  As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm

[Jon MW]

Here we are!

But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:

    “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.

    “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”

from:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/

Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer.

It's still not right.

So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party.  As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm

In theory, in practice it wouldn't happen, they would call an election

The 'worst' I'd envisage is that they'd carry on for a bit, but then realise it wasn't feasible. As that would obviously look so much worse than reacting straight away to the no confidence vote then it's much much more llikely that they'd just call a snap election.

[kinboshi]

Here we are!

But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes:

    “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons.

    “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.”

from:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/

Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer.

It's still not right.

So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party.  As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm

In theory, in practice it wouldn't happen, they would call an election

The 'worst' I'd envisage is that they'd carry on for a bit, but then realise it wasn't feasible. As that would obviously look so much worse than reacting straight away to the no confidence vote then it's much much more llikely that they'd just call a snap election.

OK, so why introduce it?  Seems ridiculous.