Friday, 14 May 2010

The 55% solution?

Hm. Well, this was an interesting issue. The Lib Dems have evidently found more common ground with the Tories on fixed-term parliaments than on proportional representation. in order to make it more difficult for the sitting Prime Minister to call an election at an opportune moment rather than the end of the fixed term (when they could be at the mercy of "events"), the Lib Dems have proposed that such a call for an early "voluntary" dissolution would have to attract the support of 55% of the Commons.

In other words, by accepting this, Cameron actually makes it harder to call an election at a time that suits him.

But either because they're stupid or because they're tribalist baboons (or both), lefties have been screaming blue, sorry, red murder about Cameron trying to stitch up democracy. Maybe they're already thinking ahead to the time when they might be in charge again and how this would fuck them over, but I doubt it. It really looks like straightforward FUD-spreading to me, trying to tar Cameron with a gerrymandering brush.

Look, you don't need to make shit up. Cameron's got more than enough flaws that you can slaughter him for that you don't need to make shit up. Pick on the things he's actually doing wrong and you'll get more sympathy. Here's some stuff to be getting on with. How liberal does that yellow-tied twat sound now?

At the moment, you just sound like a bunch of angry, desperate losers. Yes, Tom Harris, I'm looking at you.

Assuming iDave is honestly casting the Limp Dumbs a bone here, one thing that nobody has explained to me is: why do we want fixed-term parliaments anyway? What is a fixed-term parliament going to give us that we, as voters, actually want or care about? How often do we have a substantially shorter than 5-year parliament anyway and what difference would it make to us if we always had a 5-year parliament?

This sounds like changing the rules for the benefit of some politicians, certainly not something that's going to help us at all.

Update: This.


Weston Bay said...

And of course if 'NuLab' had pulled a stroke like this you'd be calling for all out civil fucking war wouldn't you!

Obnoxio The Clown said...

But they wouldn't have gone for something like this, because they ruled with a majority. It isn't in the interests of the largest party to have this arrangement.

I would certainly hope that I'd be able to see it equally clearly if it were Labour doing this.

john miller said...

The problem that the LibDems and NuLab have is that they have to try and spin that losing a lot of your parliamentary seats is irrelevant, but that winning 100 instead of 120 is a complete disaster.

bayard said...

All this argument about fixed-term parliaments looks to me like displacement activity whilst avoiding the really hairy problem, the deficit.

Kingbingo said...

“one thing that nobody has explained to me is: why do we want fixed-term parliaments anyway?”

Well voters don’t obviously, they don’t give a toss. The Lib Dems want reassurance that if they go into collation they will not be dropped the instant the constituencies are redrawn and the first good poll for the Tories comes out.

Fair enough really, the Tories get their 10 point deficit from Labour removed when the jocks & city types have to live in the same sized constituencies as the rest of us. Lib Dems get 5 years of having a man drive them from the office to a drinks party. We all get rid of the monocular mentalist, win, win, win.