Not the Past for a change, but a hypotheical future

[Harry Hayfield]

Question for debate: Could David Cameron game the Fixed Term Parliament Act?

This was borne from a conversation with an American friend of mine who couldn't understand how Cameron can do what he likes with a majority of 10 (which considering she wants to become the Labour MP for Bedford suggests that she doesn't have much chance)

Scenario David Cameron gets his way with Europe and wins the referendum agreeing with his viewpoint (before 2017). A few weeks later the polls give the Conservatives a lead of 20% (Con 43%, Lab 23%, Lib Dem 18%, SNP 3%, Green 8%, UKIP 1%, Plaid 1%, Others 3%). Using Electoral Calculus on the 2013 proposed 600 seat House, the Conservatives would win a majority of 192 (Con 396, Lab 154, Lib Dem 27, SNP 5, Plaid 2, Northern Ireland 16). Cameron however knows that the Fixed Term Parliament Act will not allow him to call a general election so calls his MP's and tells them that he is going to call a vote of no confidence in his government and that all Conservatives will be whipped to vote against the Government. This will allow him to stand down (as he said during the 2015 general election campaign) having achieved what he wanted. The House votes and the motion is agreed to. Cameron stands down and announces that a new government will be created in 14 days (in line with the Act). In those 14 days, the Conservatives hold a leadership election online condensing the whole process into 14 days and Boris Johnson is elected leader and forms a Government with the polls instantly reacting to the news and giving him a 25% lead (Con 48%, Lab 23%, Lib Dem 13%).

My question is: Could Johnson do the same as Cameron and tell his MP's to vote in favour of the no confidence motion and thus trigger a general election which would result in a Conservative super landslide (thus keeping Labour out of office for a generation as per the suggestions that were mooted around the time of the election?)

[neilm]

The public would react to such obvious shenanigans, so such an outcome is unlikely.

[iain]

Also, a 2/3 majority is needed to dissolve Parliament, so backing would be needed from other parties.

[johnr]

Sept 16, 2015 9:42:41 GMT iain said:

Also, a 2/3 majority is needed to dissolve Parliament, so backing would be needed from other parties.

But not to simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act - just a simple majority is required for that.

[Harry Hayfield]

Sept 16, 2015 9:53:19 GMT johnr said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:42:41 GMT iain said:

Also, a 2/3 majority is needed to dissolve Parliament, so backing would be needed from other parties.

But not to simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act - just a simple majority is required for that.

I am of the opinion Cameron wants to keep the Act to prevent Labour going to the country after changing leader (as they dithered over in 2007). The suggestion above works on the theory that all opposition MP's also vote to agree with the motion that they have no confidence in the government.

[john07]

Sept 16, 2015 9:59:44 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:53:19 GMT johnr said:

But not to simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act - just a simple majority is required for that.

I am of the opinion Cameron wants to keep the Act to prevent Labour going to the country after changing leader (as they dithered over in 2007). The suggestion above works on the theory that all opposition MP's also vote to agree with the motion that they have no confidence in the government.

Even with your limited grasp of reality, can you not see that if the Conservatives could bypass the Fixed Term Parliament Act then any subsequent governing party could do the same?

[greatkingrat]

UKIP dropping to 1% seems rather implausible, even if they have just lost the EU referendum.

[manchesterman]

tbf GKR it is a "what if" hypothetical so he could put any figures forward for each party

[manchesterman]

Sept 16, 2015 9:42:41 GMT iain said:

Also, a 2/3 majority is needed to dissolve Parliament, so backing would be needed from other parties.

The idea of the Conservative MPs filing through the lobbies to support a Vote of No Confidence in their own government, whilst at the same time the opposition MPs file through the lobbies to vote to maintain the government would be.... amusing 

[jonarny]

Sept 16, 2015 13:32:18 GMT john07 said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:59:44 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

I am of the opinion Cameron wants to keep the Act to prevent Labour going to the country after changing leader (as they dithered over in 2007). The suggestion above works on the theory that all opposition MP's also vote to agree with the motion that they have no confidence in the government.

Even with your limited grasp of reality, can you not see that if the Conservatives could bypass the Fixed Term Parliament Act then any subsequent governing party could do the same?

I doubt that repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act is an option.  It would probably (just) pass the Commons, but where's the guarantee that the Lords would agree to be bounced into such a change? Even forgetting the political balance of the Lords, an oversight chamber might legitimately say 'You can't change a law that your government voted in, just because you believe it's now in your electoral interests to do so'.

[johnsmith]

Sept 16, 2015 19:36:26 GMT greatkingrat said:

UKIP dropping to 1% seems rather implausible, even if they have just lost the EU referendum.

Indeed.

And the Lib Dems riding high back up on 18% so soon looks rather implausible too.

And I seriously doubt that Labour would drop quite so low as 23%.

[johnsmith]

Sept 16, 2015 23:02:04 GMT manchesterman said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:42:41 GMT iain said:

Also, a 2/3 majority is needed to dissolve Parliament, so backing would be needed from other parties.

The idea of the Conservative MPs filing through the lobbies to support a Vote of No Confidence in their own government, whilst at the same time the opposition MPs file through the lobbies to vote to maintain the government would be.... amusing 

It would make both our politicians and the political system itself look farcical. And when they have to explain it to the media they will surely only make themselves look even more ridiculous and/or like they are blatantly pissing all over the spirit of the law.

The reputation of our politicians and the political system need that like they need a hole in the head.