A221 – Coalition Breakup Amendment (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
A221 – Coalition Breakup Amendment (Second Reading)
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 section entitled 'Coalition Breakup':

1) If a Party withdraws from Government Coalition leaving the Government without an absolute majority, the Government disbands.
2) Following the dissolution of a Government Coalition the Speaker shall post a Notice informing the House of such a dissolution, and
3) Parties shall have 7 days to form alternative coalitions, except
4) That barring an intervening General Election, the dissolved coalition government is ineligible to form the next Government,
5) After the 7 day period has passed, the Speaker shall ask the Party Leader(s) of the Party or Coalition that satisfy article 6.1 of the MHoC Constitution to form a Government, and
6) They shall ask the Party Leader(s) of the Party or Coalition that satisfy article 7.1 of the MHoC Constitution to form the Official Opposition.
7) A General Election shall be called, using the applicable procedures, if
i) A Government that satisfies article 6.1 of the MHoC Constitution cannot be formed, or
ii) This is the second Government collapse of the parliamentary term.


Notes
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.


Changes for Second Reading
The entire Coalition Breakup section is proposed for removal, to ensure all relevant details of the current process are removed from the GD.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
Issues from the first version remain: there is no incentive for major parties to treat minor parties reasonably and the odds of coalition government collapse from a lack of trust and historical treatment of minor parties.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 months ago
#3
Nope. As I said previously, I have my own view on how this section would be run and I prefer that. As Jammy says, the threat of governmental collapse ensures minor parties to coalitions are treated well.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Nope. As I said previously, I have my own view on how this section would be run and I prefer that. As Jammy says, the threat of governmental collapse ensures minor parties to coalitions are treated well.
Flip that coin the other way round (the true way round) and it's normally the smaller coalition parties (cough liberals cough) that throw a hissy fit.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 months ago
#5
Not a big fan of this. Just seems to safeguard bigger parties whilst ensuring they're insulated from the effects of a government collapse. A coalition breakdown should reflect poorly on everyone. If you cannot work together in the national interest, that is your problem, not ours.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 months ago
#6
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Flip that coin the other way round (the true way round) and it's normally the smaller coalition parties (cough liberals cough) that throw a hissy fit.
Which is fine as again it ensures that junior partners are not treated like dirt.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 months ago
#7
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
it's normally the smaller coalition parties (cough liberals cough) that throw a hissy fit.
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
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 months ago
#8
(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.
The LibLiber MoNC was seconded by two Libers (Saunders and Count) and one LD (TCF).
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#9
This amendment is in cessation.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#10
This amendment has been withdrawn.
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

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (10)
5.43%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (101)
54.89%
No (73)
39.67%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed