If you are discussing the fixed-term parliament act, along with the 55% dissolution proposal, it was drawn up by a Lib-Dem, and agreed by the coalition, so calling it Cameron's "Enablement Act", is at best, disingenuous, and at worst, smearing.
btw, from the
BBC
Quote:
But former Lib Dem MP David Howarth, a legal academic who drew up the original Lib Dem plans for a fixed-term parliament, told the BBC the vote of confidence and dissolution of Parliament were "entirely different things" and said Mr Straw was "totally confused".
In other countries with fixed term parliaments, if a government lost a vote of confidence the parties would have to try to work out a new government within the fixed term, he said.
He said critics had got "entirely the wrong end of the stick" adding: "This dissolution vote, the 55% for a dissolution, is not the same as, for a vote of confidence."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said the old rule would still apply to no confidence votes - but should a government be defeated, it would not automatically trigger an election, a 55% vote would be required to dissolve parliament.
She said the details would all be debated and voted on in parliament and the former Labour government had put through the fixed term legislation in Scotland which requires a 66% vote to dissolve parliament.
|
So it was OK for Labour to propose and implement it in Scotland (at a higher threshold), but not for the ConLibDem's to do the same for the whole of the UK?
What's that funny smell - oh yes, it's the pungent reek of double-standards....
