Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
The BBC really need to correct themselves, this story is simply wrong. |
I've just officially
complained about that story via the BBC Website.
This whole fuss about the 55% rule is nonsense, & many stories & comments about it appear to be inaccurate and - in my opinion - highly misleading.
I admit that the proposal could perhaps have been explained more fully in the Coalition Agreement, but the fact of the matter is that it did *not* mention Confidence and did specifically mention Dissolution. For people to be claiming that this change would enable Cameron to stay in power even if the coalition fell & the resultant Tory Minority Government lost the Confidence of the House is extremely ridiculous.
It is also rather pathetic that certain people in Labour are trotting out how this is allegedly undemocratic & hands more power to the Tories, when it is THE SAME THING LABOUR DID FOR THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.
A fixed-term Parliament must have stability, & must not have the PM's power to dissolve it at will hanging over it like the Sword of Damocles.
This change takes the dissolution power from the PM and gives it to Parliament.
And despite what many seem to claim, it would not prevent a Tory Minority Government from being ousted following the collapse of the Coalition: Although the combined anti-Tory vote (53%) would not be sufficient to dissolve Parliament (55%), it would still be more than enough to pass a Motion of No-Confidence (simple majority of 50% + 1 MP), which would cause Cameron to have to resign & his Government to fall, given that you can only be PM if you can "Command the Confidence of the House".