Britannia Radio

Backbenchers gear up for first rebellion over 55% Commons plan

Unrest over plan to require backing of 55% of MPs before parliament can be dissolved – rather than a simple majority

Thursday, 13 May 2010

TAGS: 

• NATIONAL NEWS

The government was tonight facing its first potential backbench rebellion over a Liberal Democrat-generated plan to require a vote of 55% of MPs before a five-year fixed-term parliament can be dissolved.

It is understood that some senior Tory backbenchers plan to oppose the idea if it comes to the floor of the Commons, saying it will be the government's first defeat.

Two former Labour home secretaries, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, also condemned the plan today, saying it was entirely unprecedented and undemocratic in parliamentary procedure.

However, one of the idea's creators, former Lib Dem MP and law professor David Howarth, defended the plan.

Howarth, who stood down at the election, stressed that under his proposal the 55% majority would only be required for a fixed-term parliament to be dissolved, but not for a vote of confidence in a government. Any confidence motion would still require only a simple majority to be passed, or for the government to fall.

He argued that if a government lost a confidence vote then it would be dissolved, but parliament would continue until a new government capable of commanding a Commons majority was found.

The House of Commons library said there are no occasions when anything more than a simple majority or a majority of one is required.

The Tories opposed the idea outright only two years ago, with one backbencher, Christopher Chope, saying a fixed-term parliament "would give the incumbent party an even greater unfair advantage".

Blunkett said: "This is a profoundly anti-democratic move by the proponents of what is supposed to be the 'new politics'. The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

"This is nothing less than a stitch-up by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to overturn historic precedents for their own advantage. If Labour had attempted something like this in government, the Lib Dems in particular would have been incandescent."

Jack Straw, another former home secretary, said the idea was completely unworkable, anti-democratic, and a fix. He said: "What if 51 % of the Commons was against any confidence in the government and it was not possible to pass legislation: you would be in the extraordinary position where parliament cannot be dissolved because Liberal Democrats were scared of losing their seats, but parliament was unable to work."

Howarth proposed a fixed-term parliament bill in 2007, arguing the prime minister's right to call an election at a time of their choosing is "rather like having a 100-metre race in which one of the runners has the starting pistol and can occasionally use it to shoot one of the other runners".

The Tories opposed Howarth's bill and a pressure group at the time released a poll of MPs showing only 25% of Conservative MPs at the time, 41% of Labour MPs and 88% of Liberal Democrat MPs supported fixed-term parliaments.

In a briefing paper for the political website Left Foot Forward, Robert Hazell said the move "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% of the votes in the Commons".

Opposition was also growing outside parliament, with a website, "No to 55%", campaigning against the measure, while a similar Facebook group had more than 2,500 members by this afternoon.

However, lawyers said the proposals would have no power to bind future parliaments and would not change the constitution because a motion introducing the change could be amended or repealed by a simple majority.

Jeffrey Jowell QC, professor of constitutional law at UCL, said: "There is nothing wrong with this provision constitutionally, parliament can legislate as it wishes. But a statute providing for a 55% majority could be amended next year with a simple majority."

"How would this bind?" asked Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University. "It seems no more to me than a commitment of honour. Parliament can do what it likes, but if the political exigencies dictate a breaking-up of the coalition, this legislation could be repealed by a simple majority."

There were calls, however, for the measures to be abandoned as undemocratic.

"I think this is tinkering," said Richard Gordon QC at Brick Court Chambers, the author of a recent book on the constitution, Repairing British Politics. "There is certainly a constitutional benefit in fixed-term parliaments – they remove the lottery-type effect and huge dysfunctional imbalance built into a prime minister being able to choose election on the basis of opinion polls. But we are still constitutionally in a system where we have first past the post, and this finds its force in a just-over-50% majority providing the majority.

"55% locks you into something that's in danger of being undemocratic. It props up a government that doesn't ordinarily command an overall majority. In truth, this is short-term expediency to keep the coalition going for five years and sets a dangerous precedent for other constitutional changes."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2010