A221 – Coalition Breakup Amendment

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
A221 – Coalition Breakup Amendment
Proposed by: Saracen's Fez (Speaker)
Seconded by: Andrew97 MP (Conservative), DayneD89 MP (Labour), Rakas21 MP (Conservative)

This House would amend the Guidance Document as follows:

Remove the following from the section entitled 'Coalition Breakup', and adjust numbering accordingly:

1) If a Party withdraws from Government Coalition leaving the Government without an absolute majority, the Government disbands.

Notes
Section 1 of the coalition breakup section of the guidance document grants enormous power to independents and small parties in ensuring that the government collapses even when a remaining party retains a significant plurality.

It creates perverse incentives to keep weak parties in power to avoid having to undergo a coalition negotiation period (in which the leaving party may be motivated to betray their former partners).

More than that though adequate constitutional provisions surrounding the collapse of a coalition already exist in the form of a Vote Of No Confidence. If a party leaves a coalition willingly or is 'dumped' then the House has ample measures at its disposal to express any perceived or real lack of confidence in the remaining government.

Further, previous precedent before the enactment of this clause does exit. In the 14th parliament the Liberals withdrew from their Labour coalition (dubbed 'Traingate' but it was a few weeks before a MoNC was put forward). In the 15th parliament we also saw Faland removed from the Con-Kip-Faland coalition (he doctored a Mhoc article and lied about it) which under current provisions could have allowed the opposition to force the then government out of office as a minority one. That government went on to become the most active on record to that time.

The clause is simply not necessary and has a toxic effect on reducing the incentive to enter coalitions.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Absolutely not - this clause is a good defence mechanism which gives some degree of parity to small parties in coalitions.

I can understand the concern about Independents and would support an amendment to this clause making clear that it does not apply to Independents, but outright abolition I strongly oppose.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Connor27)
Absolutely not - this clause is a good defence mechanism which gives some degree of parity to small parties in coalitions.

I can understand the concern about Independents and would support an amendment to this clause making clear that it does not apply to Independents, but outright abolition I strongly oppose.
The best defense is trusting the people you enter coalition with.

Not once have the Tories (or Lab to my knowledge) ever withdrawn from coalition. That suggests that actually, it is an offensive measure.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Aye. The presence of this clause disincentives parties entering coaliations.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
No, I'm not surprised Labour and tories support this given it benefits them the most whole ensuring they remain in government longer. Whilst screwing the small parties over.

I don't see a problem with the current system it works fine.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Rakas21)
The best defense is trusting the people you enter coalition with.

Not once have the Tories (or Lab to my knowledge) ever withdrawn from coalition. That suggests that actually, it is an offensive measure.
That's because the "bigger parties" bully smaller parties then the smaller parties get fed up and leave.

So in that sense I'm not surprised the "bigger parties" have not withdrawn from coalition.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Mr T 999)
That's because the "bigger parties" bully smaller parties then the smaller parties get fed up and leave.

So in that sense I'm not surprised the "bigger parties" have not withdrawn from coalition.
Your implication there is because you think we'd bully you, you should have the right to extort us?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Mr Speaker will you please confirm that this amendment will require a supermajority of MPs in support to pass owing to the fact that this section of the guidance document is referenced explicitly in the constitution in sections 3.2 and 6.2?

Saracen's Fez
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
Mr Speaker will you please confirm that this amendment will require a supermajority of MPs in support to pass owing to the fact that this section of the guidance document is referenced explicitly in the constitution in sections 3.2 and 6.2?

Saracen's Fez
No it won't.

Even parts of the GD referenced in the Constitution are part of the GD and require a simple majority only to amend.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Simple attempt to protect incompetent governments and coalitions rashly entered into, just as Fez acted to protect this government at the start of this term
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
I don't see a problem with this. It removes the risk of pesky individuals (or very small parties) from changing a whole term because they don't get their way on something; they shouldn't be able to hold a large party to ransom. Amicable withdrawal from a coalition also can be a thing now.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
I don't see a problem with this. It removes the risk of pesky individuals (or very small parties) from changing a whole term because they don't get their way on something; they shouldn't be able to hold a large party to ransom. Amicable withdrawal from a coalition also can be a thing now.
Surprise you support this seeing as your party’s relevance is built on dropping out of coalition agreements.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Surprise you support this seeing as your party’s relevance is built on dropping out of coalition agreements.
Even though from the last two coalitions we were in, a VoNC was made from members of the other party (and maybe ours, can't remember), and before that it wasn't us who withdrew. Strange.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
Nay for a lot of the reasons already discussed. But also this makes confidence and supply arrangements far easier than today, and I think this would be extremely bad for the House.

The current system stops e.g my party from going into coalition with Labour for just a day to keep the Tories out. I don’t want to see two permanent left, right blocs. It’s harder to see this as problematic in the current climate but we should be hopeful that one day the MHoC will have lots of parties again where blocism would be damaging.

Finally, a government collapse is always a great popcorn moment and it would be a shame to lose that.

I would vote for the middle ground here though: rather than disbanding the government, it could face an automatic confidence vote.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by 04MR17)
Even though from the last two coalitions we were in, a VoNC was made from members of the other party (and maybe ours, can't remember), and before that it wasn't us who withdrew. Strange.
More fluff from the Liberals. No one wants to work with your party because you’re all spineless.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Mr T 999)
No, I'm not surprised Labour and tories support this given it benefits them the most whole ensuring they remain in government longer. Whilst screwing the small parties over.

I don't see a problem with the current system it works fine.
Sorry, what? I didn't know Dayne was the Labour Party.

I don't support this in its current state and would only support it if it stopped independents from collapsing a government. If you have the backing of a small party, it is that party that are putting you in power and you should have to work to maintain it.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
No, this isn’t a good idea, also if governments don’t need a majority to form why do they need one to survive?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by 04MR17)
I don't see a problem with this. It removes the risk of pesky individuals (or very small parties) from changing a whole term because they don't get their way on something; they shouldn't be able to hold a large party to ransom. Amicable withdrawal from a coalition also can be a thing now.
On the other hand it increases the chances of bitter splits, the way a specific party treats junior partners is well known within the house and it gives them no reason to treat junior partners at all well given there is no penalty for it. One of two things would realistically happen: the first is fewer coalitions because junior parties aren't willing to be bothered because they'll just get screwed over and have no leverage, other option is coalitions exist purely for the sake of getting one party a majority and then the junior parties that bring it up to a majority are ditched. It solidifies the position of large parties to the detriment of smaller parties.

As for people saying "but moncs" it must be remembered that there appears to be a significant number of people in this house who never have and never will lakc confidence in a government, no matter what they do.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Saunders16)
Sorry, what? I didn't know Dayne was the Labour Party.

I don't support this in its current state and would only support it if it stopped independents from collapsing a government. If you have the backing of a small party, it is that party that are putting you in power and you should have to work to maintain it.
18th parliament.. we, the liberals and kippers enter government. Generally it is regarded as a good government by con-lib to the point that we followed it up with an opposition coalition however about a third into the term Wimbledon and Toronto (tnp had been made leader late the previous term) had a strop because they felt that tnp had not gotten them x positions.

Should the kippers of the day (they got the positions tnp asked for) have been able to extort a happy government despite being dead all term and fighting internally (this is the schism that saw Toronto retake leadership and lp join the Tories among others) as they may have been able to had this clause existed.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
18th parliament.. we, the liberals and kippers enter government. Generally it is regarded as a good government by con-lib to the point that we followed it up with an opposition coalition however about a third into the term Wimbledon and Toronto (tnp had been made leader late the previous term) had a strop because they felt that tnp had not gotten them x positions.

Should the kippers of the day (they got the positions tnp asked for) have been able to extort a happy government despite being dead all term and fighting internally (this is the schism that saw Toronto retake leadership and lp join the Tories among others) as they may have been able to had this clause existed.
Right, except with 3 parties in the government the kippers could have left and con-lib replaced it according to the coalition collapse rules, unless of course it was a government low enough on numbers that the left would have been larger but then the legitimacy of the government would be in question anyway
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (256)
33.82%
No (501)
66.18%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise