|
|
Post by islington on Dec 1, 2020 21:02:15 GMT
I also note that clause 5 roundly assets the control of the executive over prorogation and effectively overturns last year's Supreme Court ruling. I would have no problem with that, provided HMG was clear that prorogation could not be misused - as attempted last September - by a government seeking to shut down Parliament for a lengthy period of time and prevent a Parliamentary majority from imposing itself on the government. (Which would also rule out the Canadian style use of prorogation to avoid defeat on a confidence vote) Well, as it turns out I was looking at the wrong Bill anyway, so my previous comment about prorogation was incorrect.
But I don't agree that a Parliamentary majority should be able to impose itself on the Government.
If the Parliamentary majority wants to express no confidence in the Government, so that the Government is forced either to resign or to call a GE, then that's absolutely fine. But that's not what was happening in the later stages of the last Parliament - the Government's opponents hadn't got the votes for a no-confidence motion, they were too disparate to coalesce around any conceivable alternative Government, and they didn't want a GE because they were (rightly, as it turned out) fearful of the outcome. So they ended up with a disastrous strategy of sustaining the Government in power but trying to use Parliamentary votes to instruct it what to do. That's not Parliamentary government; it's government by Parliament.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,712
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Dec 1, 2020 21:07:34 GMT
 I fear your final sentence will cause the head of the "Parliamentary supremacy at all costs" brigade to explode... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 1, 2020 21:22:50 GMT
If the Government finds itself in that position, unable to get its legislation through but with Parliament unwilling to bring it down, and unable to have a dissolution, the Prime Minister should seek to form a Government on a wider basis. If that is not possible then the Prime Minister should offer the resignation of the Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Dec 1, 2020 21:29:13 GMT
Good to see our manifesto commitment being delivered.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 1, 2020 21:42:30 GMT
Reinstating a prerogative power feels like such a backwards step. Yes indeed it is. That is why I support it so strongly. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Dec 1, 2020 21:43:39 GMT
Good to see our manifesto commitment being delivered. Shame about not keeping the ones on international aid and rural broadband. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 1, 2020 21:56:15 GMT
I also note that clause 5 roundly assets the control of the executive over prorogation and effectively overturns last year's Supreme Court ruling. I would have no problem with that, provided HMG was clear that prorogation could not be misused - as attempted last September - by a government seeking to shut down Parliament for a lengthy period of time and prevent a Parliamentary majority from imposing itself on the government. (Which would also rule out the Canadian style use of prorogation to avoid defeat on a confidence vote) I think we should make it clear that it was not misused with a pains and penalties clause, degrading Brenda Hale from the peerage, removing all academic degrees granted to her and fining the awarding institutions £500 per degree, and banning her from speaking in any university. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 1, 2020 22:29:31 GMT
Good to see our manifesto commitment being delivered. Shame about not keeping the ones on international aid and rural broadband. Excellent to see the diminution of bloody Foreign Aid. Woden rot it and I want to see it killed off forever. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 1, 2020 23:18:56 GMT
That wording comes from the old five year limit. Twice it meant two consecutive general elections taking place more than five years apart (1959-64 and 1992-97). It's interesting that the Bill retains 2 May 2024 as the default date for the next GE (unless called earlier). This is the date on which the next GE is currently due under the FTPA, and sticking to it avoids any charge that Parliament is legislating to extend its own term. It does, however, limit the maximum term of the current Parliament to less than 4 years 5 months.
I also note that clause 5 roundly assets the control of the executive over prorogation and effectively overturns last year's Supreme Court ruling.
Which is strange given the fact that the last election was on 12 December 2019 means that this Parliament could last until December 2024 under the FTPA. However, May and June are better months to hold general elections in the UK. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,712
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Dec 1, 2020 23:24:22 GMT
I would have no problem with that, provided HMG was clear that prorogation could not be misused - as attempted last September - by a government seeking to shut down Parliament for a lengthy period of time and prevent a Parliamentary majority from imposing itself on the government. (Which would also rule out the Canadian style use of prorogation to avoid defeat on a confidence vote) I think we should make it clear that it was not misused with a pains and penalties clause, degrading Brenda Hale from the peerage, removing all academic degrees granted to her and fining the awarding institutions £500 per degree, and banning her from speaking in any university. Ah, Poe... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 1, 2020 23:25:40 GMT
Which is strange given the fact that the last election was on 12 December 2019 means that this Parliament could last until December 2024 under the FTPA. Under s. 1(1)(3) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, "The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." The fifth calendar year after 2019 is 2024, so the polling day under the Act is Thursday, 2 May 2024. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Dec 1, 2020 23:51:43 GMT
Shame about not keeping the ones on international aid and rural broadband. Excellent to see the diminution of bloody Foreign Aid. Woden rot it and I want to see it killed off forever. Those two sentences confirm everything I previously assumed about you. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 2, 2020 2:50:13 GMT
I would have no problem with that, provided HMG was clear that prorogation could not be misused - as attempted last September - by a government seeking to shut down Parliament for a lengthy period of time and prevent a Parliamentary majority from imposing itself on the government. (Which would also rule out the Canadian style use of prorogation to avoid defeat on a confidence vote) Well, as it turns out I was looking at the wrong Bill anyway, so my previous comment about prorogation was incorrect.
But I don't agree that a Parliamentary majority should be able to impose itself on the Government.
If the Parliamentary majority wants to express no confidence in the Government, so that the Government is forced either to resign or to call a GE, then that's absolutely fine. But that's not what was happening in the later stages of the last Parliament - the Government's opponents hadn't got the votes for a no-confidence motion, they were too disparate to coalesce around any conceivable alternative Government, and they didn't want a GE because they were (rightly, as it turned out) fearful of the outcome. So they ended up with a disastrous strategy of sustaining the Government in power but trying to use Parliamentary votes to instruct it what to do. That's not Parliamentary government; it's government by Parliament.
I agree that the situation we ended up with towards the end of the 2017-19 Parliament was unsatisfactory and unsustainable. The opposition and some backbenchers routinely conspired to take charge of the agenda without ever seriously making an attempt to form an executive themselves, which is not a desirable state of affairs. But it was a very specific set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. I don't think we should legislate in haste based solely on that experience. I believe if a Parliament still has years to run and an alternative government can realistically gain the confidence of the Commons, then one should be properly formed and given the opportunity to present a Queen's Speech. Unless, of course, you are Christy Clark after all and I can claim my $5 Canadian. Good to see our manifesto commitment being delivered. Shame about not keeping the ones on international aid and rural broadband. I distinctly recall the leaflet from my local Conservative candidate promising to end the scourge of broadband "not spots" in the countryside at the general election. The 2010 general election, that is. Perhaps if they pledge to do something about them a fifth time, they'll finally fix it during the 2024-29 Parliament. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 2, 2020 7:15:35 GMT
Excellent to see the diminution of bloody Foreign Aid. Woden rot it and I want to see it killed off forever. Those two sentences confirm everything I previously assumed about you. It is always comforting to have one's assumptions confirmed is it not? |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Dec 2, 2020 9:47:08 GMT
Which is strange given the fact that the last election was on 12 December 2019 means that this Parliament could last until December 2024 under the FTPA. Under s. 1(1)(3) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, "The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." The fifth calendar year after 2019 is 2024, so the polling day under the Act is Thursday, 2 May 2024. But i think the new bill implies that 2nd May 2024 date is going so to return it to the old rules parliamant dissolves latest Dec 2024. Also wasn't it the case that if the election had been held prior to the first thursday in May in a particular year the next election was to be held in the 4th(not the 5th caledar year after)? For example if the 2019 election had been in March the next election was scheduled for May 2023. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 3, 2020 12:06:15 GMT
If I recall the FTPA was first discussed following this
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 3, 2020 12:08:45 GMT
Well, as it turns out I was looking at the wrong Bill anyway, so my previous comment about prorogation was incorrect.
But I don't agree that a Parliamentary majority should be able to impose itself on the Government.
If the Parliamentary majority wants to express no confidence in the Government, so that the Government is forced either to resign or to call a GE, then that's absolutely fine. But that's not what was happening in the later stages of the last Parliament - the Government's opponents hadn't got the votes for a no-confidence motion, they were too disparate to coalesce around any conceivable alternative Government, and they didn't want a GE because they were (rightly, as it turned out) fearful of the outcome. So they ended up with a disastrous strategy of sustaining the Government in power but trying to use Parliamentary votes to instruct it what to do. That's not Parliamentary government; it's government by Parliament.
I agree that the situation we ended up with towards the end of the 2017-19 Parliament was unsatisfactory and unsustainable. The opposition and some backbenchers routinely conspired to take charge of the agenda without ever seriously making an attempt to form an executive themselves, which is not a desirable state of affairs. But it was a very specific set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. I don't think we should legislate in haste based solely on that experience. I believe if a Parliament still has years to run and an alternative government can realistically gain the confidence of the Commons, then one should be properly formed and given the opportunity to present a Queen's Speech. Unless, of course, you are Christy Clark after all and I can claim my $5 Canadian. Well, I agree that the situation in the last few months of the last Parliament was highly undesirable, and yes, of course the exact issue at stake - when and whether we were to leave the EU and on what terms - was a one-off. But a major factor was the lack of party discipline. MPs have got into the habit of rebelling, far more often and on a larger and more organized scale than in the past, and there's a plausible argument that this results, at least in part, from the fact that with the FTPA in place Government lacks the nuclear option of calling a GE.
It's still going on now. Habits cultivated during the Brexit process are being carried forward to the handling of the pandemic.
If the FTPA is repealed, maybe over time greater discipline will be restored and Government majorities will be more reliable.
And if you believe that well-functioning and reasonably well-disciplined political parties are good for democracy, then there is some comfort to be taken from the fact that of the huge number (I lost count) of MPs in the last Parliament that took rebellion to its logical conclusion and bolted their parties altogether, not a single one survived into the present Parliament.
As for Christy Clark, can you clarify the exact circumstances? My impression is that her party lost its majority in the 2017 election in British Columbia, and that she wanted a further election rather than allow the opposition parties to take over after they had cut some sort of deal giving them a majority.
Is that right?
For me, the question would be whether she had received the confidence of the newly elected house. If she had, say by passing a Queen's Speech (or whatever is the equivalent in BC politics), then I agree that Lascelles means she was entitled to another election. But if she'd never received the confidence of the new house, then no, I don't think she was entitled - especially if there was a potential alternative government likely to command a majority.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 3, 2020 12:48:40 GMT
And if you believe that well-functioning and reasonably well-disciplined political parties are good for democracy, then there is some comfort to be taken from the fact that of the huge number (I lost count) of MPs in the last Parliament that took rebellion to its logical conclusion and bolted their parties altogether, not a single one survived into the present Parliament. That really is a striking stat actually, made all the more remarkable given the sympathetic media coverage many of them enjoyed. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 3, 2020 22:27:39 GMT
I agree that the situation we ended up with towards the end of the 2017-19 Parliament was unsatisfactory and unsustainable. The opposition and some backbenchers routinely conspired to take charge of the agenda without ever seriously making an attempt to form an executive themselves, which is not a desirable state of affairs. But it was a very specific set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. I don't think we should legislate in haste based solely on that experience. I believe if a Parliament still has years to run and an alternative government can realistically gain the confidence of the Commons, then one should be properly formed and given the opportunity to present a Queen's Speech. Unless, of course, you are Christy Clark after all and I can claim my $5 Canadian. Well, I agree that the situation in the last few months of the last Parliament was highly undesirable, and yes, of course the exact issue at stake - when and whether we were to leave the EU and on what terms - was a one-off. But a major factor was the lack of party discipline. MPs have got into the habit of rebelling, far more often and on a larger and more organized scale than in the past, and there's a plausible argument that this results, at least in part, from the fact that with the FTPA in place Government lacks the nuclear option of calling a GE.
It's still going on now. Habits cultivated during the Brexit process are being carried forward to the handling of the pandemic.
If the FTPA is repealed, maybe over time greater discipline will be restored and Government majorities will be more reliable.
And if you believe that well-functioning and reasonably well-disciplined political parties are good for democracy, then there is some comfort to be taken from the fact that of the huge number (I lost count) of MPs in the last Parliament that took rebellion to its logical conclusion and bolted their parties altogether, not a single one survived into the present Parliament.
As for Christy Clark, can you clarify the exact circumstances? My impression is that her party lost its majority in the 2017 election in British Columbia, and that she wanted a further election rather than allow the opposition parties to take over after they had cut some sort of deal giving them a majority.
Is that right?
For me, the question would be whether she had received the confidence of the newly elected house. If she had, say by passing a Queen's Speech (or whatever is the equivalent in BC politics), then I agree that Lascelles means she was entitled to another election. But if she'd never received the confidence of the new house, then no, I don't think she was entitled - especially if there was a potential alternative government likely to command a majority.
Clark had indeed failed to obtain the confidence of the new Assembly and wanted to call an election only 3 months or so after the last one, because the Liberals had enough money in the coffers to fund a second election campaign and she knew the two other main parties didn't. As far as I'm aware, the proposed legislation in this country in would not permit the monarch to refuse a prompt dissolution in such a scenario. If I'm mistaken, could you please point me to the cause that prevents this? It would be tempting for a governing party to make it as easy as that to dissolve the House whenever they like, but they'd soon regret it as soon as another party came to power and would be able to use the same mechanism for their own ends. I think you are underestimating how much partisan MPs rebelled against the whip before 2019, and how much they've gone back to doing so in recent months without governance collapsing. If you want stricter Fraktionszwang, then I don't know what to suggest other than to look to German practices (where early dissolutions are more difficult, but far from impossible) which, while still parliamentary, would constitute quite a break from Westminster traditions. Backbench rebellions do not generally prevent the British system from functioning; the logical extreme of those rebellions, seen in action last year, did indeed make it dysfunctional. I feel that they were a one-off, though, and that this kind of change to the FTPA isn't needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Dec 4, 2020 3:43:16 GMT
Good to see our manifesto commitment being delivered. Shame about not keeping the ones on international aid and rural broadband. Agree on broadband, though I wasn't aware it was breached. As a conservative, I'm against foreign aid unless it either directly benefits us or is the kind of basic inoculations for polio etc. Cutting it by 4bn is small potatoes. I'd have reduced it further. |
|
I fear your final sentence will cause the head of the "Parliamentary supremacy at all costs" brigade to explode...
