The new politics?
Raising the bar for no-confidence votes to 55 per cent
is more like a coup d'etat
Politicians are invariably at their most self-interested and devious when promoting schemes allegedly in “the national interest”. This scam is a classic example. First of all, what does the public gain by having the parliamentary term set at five years? That was already defined as its maximum length 99 years ago in the Parliament Act, so this measure does nothing to limit the time a parliament may sit. On the contrary, by preventing an administration from going to the country after four years, as has been the custom recently, it will in fact extend the length of parliaments.
Then there is the proposal to raise the bar for voting down a failing government on a vote of no-confidence to 55 per cent of MPs. At present, 50 per cent plus one is sufficient. This measure would preserve in power governments that had lost the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons as large as 54 per cent. Since the first vote of no confidence brought down Lord North, on account of certain little local difficulties in the American colonies in 1782, a total of 11 Prime Ministers have been ejected from office in this way.
The most recent was James Callaghan, defeated by one vote in 1979. If the new rules being proposed by Cameron and Clegg had applied, his rotten government could have staggered on for nearly six months more, delaying the advent of Margaret Thatcher and inflicting further damage on the economy. What is democratic about a government commanding the confidence of only a minority, say a fraction over 45 per cent, of MPs remaining in office? This is an outrageous proposal, designed to featherbed failing governments and protect them from the electorate. As such, it is the very reverse of the kind of reform that, post-expenses scandal, the public is demanding.
Any barrier that shields our rulers from an encounter with the electorate is anti-democratic. The obvious effect of this change would be, over any significant period of time, to reduce appreciably the frequency of general elections. Yet the only people who fear general elections are failed politicians. This proposal stinks; it reeks of anti-popular, elitist self-interest on the part of the political class. The guiding principle should be that, to enforce accountability, there must be a limit on the maximum term of any parliament: we already have that, set by law at five years. It is perverse, however, to place any minimum length on parliaments since that obstructs recourse to the ultimate arbiters: the electorate.
This arrogant proposal, to be implemented almost immediately, should ring powerful alarm bells. It is typical of the irresponsible, piecemeal interference with the constitution that, since 1997, has characterised British government. It is also symptomatic of another sinister aspect of the present situation which will become increasingly evident over time: coalition governments take greater liberties than single-party ones. Because, at least initially, they command a larger segment of electoral support, are presumed to be less partisan and more devoted to the public interest, and have the confidence that the blame for their actions will be shared by their erstwhile opponents, they reckon they can get away with measures that would otherwise be too provocative.
It is not necessarily the case that coalitions are less powerful. Only on issues where their policies are diametrically opposed does deadlock restrain them. On matters involving the power and privileges of the political tribe versus the mug punters of the electorate, however, coalition politicians will move shamelessly to protect their interests.
That is why a coalition administration is the worst possible outcome in the wake of the expenses scandal and public demands for accountability. Emboldened by shared – and therefore diluted – responsibility and the strength of numbers, our newly coalesced masters will protect their own interests, while cynically assuring the public that the measures they are taking are designed to meet popular concern. If this measure is passed, it will be the first step towards rolling back the accountability of the political class that momentarily seemed achievable in response to recent public anger.
Posts
