WSJ BLOGS
Iain Martin
On Politics
Labour Leadership Contenders: Is There a Future Prime Minister on the List?Gordon Brown: For Goodness Sake, Have a Holiday
MAY 12, 2010,
The 55% Rule Is Very Dangerous Constitutional Innovation
By Iain Martin
In the document outlining the coalition agreement that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed up to there is a startling little paragraph in the section headed “Political Reform.”“Legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favor.”
If implemented, that would mean that a majority of one on a motion of no confidence in a government is no longer enough to bring it down.
First, this fails the fairness test. It is an idea that has been easily and widely grasped for generations inside and outside Parliament that if you lose a confidence vote by one then, there’s no way around it, you have lost. 50% plus one is enough. This seems such an obvious truth that one wonders why it was not apparent to the two parties negotiators that attempting to change the rules might make them look shifty.
Think of the explosion of indignation if Tony Blair had ever tried it (he never had to, what with his being expert at winning large majorities).
Second, it has slightly sinister sounding connotations, as though a ratchet effect might operate. If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?
It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as “Political Reform.” It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk–out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn’t actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably — when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite.
Jeremy Hunt had a tough time defending it on “Newsnight” on Wednesday — where Kirsty Wark gave him a good grilling. But the reason he struggled to defend the 55% rule is that it is simply an indefensible measure.
I suspect the row will grow. If the new government moves quickly to dump this measure it might just about get away with blaming the post-election tiredness afflicting negotiators. But it will have to be quick
Posts
