Vote of No Confidence in the Government Watch

This discussion is closed.
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
I hereby seek a second to instigate a vote of no confidence against the non-existent government of the TSR HoC.

The reason is obvious - there is no government. This has apparently forced many to abandon the constitution on which this House is based and others to descend into childish games.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
You can't call a vote of no confidence in something that doesn't exist. VoNCs have to have a subject, and a non-entity isn't a subject. Sadly, the constitution is very badly worded in places, for example it states
If a vote of no confidence is passed with more that 50% of the vote an election will be called.
without stating what that vote of no confidence has to be in. For example, a VoNC against the cucumber, if passed, would trigger an election, according to the constitution.

Personally I think the idea's silly, as any parliament that fails to elect a government on the first count just votes again, often after a lot of bartering has gone on.

Thus, while I'd argue you can't call a VoNC in a government that doesn't exist (and thus if passed, this just throws everything in the air as some people will not recognise the vote, whereas others will and thus will try and call an election), if you were to call a vote of no confidence in anything, an election should be triggered.

I will question one thing though - on what constitutional grounds was there ever a poll among MPs as to who should form a government? The constitution is clear:
The government consists of the winning parties or winning coalition from a general election.
No vote is needed among MPs, if a party wins, it can form a government, period. No majority nor MPs vote needed. Technically, the Lib-Lab coalition is the government already. There is no need even for the Queen (or speaker) to ratify it.
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
UoL, you've said in the past that you aren't particularly bothered by who the government is. So why are you asking for a VoNC and another election, just to decide who has the title?

The people of TSR already decided who they want to represent them for the next 6 months. There is no need to make them choose again
0
wmv94226
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
Perhaps we need a constitutional committee to interpret this situation...

UoL: You're very quick to accuse others of childish games, but what would you call this?
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#5
The suggestion was made to hold another vote and it was declined. The Speaker decided to form the government himself.

And while it might be true that you cannot technically hold a VoNC in nothing it is also true that you cannot have a constitutional parliament without a government either. So if we're ignoring the constitution I see no reason why we cannot have a VoNC in nothing too. The point is simply that the current state of affairs is clearly stupid. The constitution is being abandoned for no good reason and with no basis. I'd rather a Lib/Lab government formed legally but since both the Speaker and the coalition has refused to do that I see no alternative. Do we really want to just run things ad hoc? Why did Dan bother spending all that time writing on a constitution we all voted for if we had no intention of keeping to it.

On the last point, the constitution was amended at the end of the last session and obviously Al has not updated the thread. Technically, according to that amendment I'm not sure that a VoNC can be called now anyway. But since the entire document is being trampled on why not a bit more?
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
hldomster, this is one solution to the problem, not the only one but it is certainly a solution so it is not a childish game.

also the government does exist it is the personal rule of the speaker, it is that UoL if calling a VoNC against.

I second it as a sitting MP
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#7
(Original post by hldomster)
Perhaps we need a constitutional committee to interpret this situation...

UoL: You're very quick to accuse others of childish games, but what would you call this?
This is (I hope) a collective kick up the backside. The constitution matters. Keep to it. I don't care who forms the government so long as it is done legally. Since the largest coalition and the Speaker decided that they preferred the illegal route I thought this was perhaps the best way to make a protest stand.
0
Ed.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
What would it achieve ? Surely another election would just further delay the whole point of the HoC discussing and voting on bills.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
Where does it say in the absence of a government, the speaker rules? I can't find that in the constitution. Nor do I see the issue, since the Lib-Lab coalition, according to the constitution, could form a government without anyone voting.

(Original post by UniOfLife)
The suggestion was made to hold another vote and it was declined. The Speaker decided to form the government himself.
No he didn't. He said:
Or, given that the government doesn't actually DO anything or give any tangible benefit, why don't we just get on with it for a few weeks and revisit this then?
(Original post by UniOfLife)
And while it might be true that you cannot technically hold a VoNC in nothing it is also true that you cannot have a constitutional parliament without a government either. So if we're ignoring the constitution I see no reason why we cannot have a VoNC in nothing too.
Well, you could, but it would only be a bit of paper. It wouldn't trigger an election, since it's not a VoNC in the government. It's a VoNC in nothing.

(Original post by UniOfLife)
The constitution is being abandoned for no good reason and with no basis.
Either you follow the constitution or you don't. It's clear, the winning party forms the government.
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
(Original post by UniOfLife)
This is (I hope) a collective kick up the backside. The constitution matters. Keep to it. I don't care who forms the government so long as it is done legally. Since the largest coalition and the Speaker decided that they preferred the illegal route I thought this was perhaps the best way to make a protest stand.
I don't think we had much say in the matter.

Personally, I would have preferred a run-off. The situation would have been resolved much faster and then we could have worked on sorting out the mess our constitution appears to be in. If this VoNC goes through (which I wont be supporting), we'll have to focus on campaigning all over again, delaying proceedings further.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Since the largest coalition and the Speaker decided that they preferred the illegal route I thought this was perhaps the best way to make a protest stand.
What did the largest coalition do that was against the constitution?
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#12
Drogue check the amendment:

That the house order the Speaker to revise the constitution to the following effect:

1. That coalitions may be formed of any number of parties and independents.
2. That failing the creation of a coalition with a clear majority of seats, a vote be held to decide on which party or coalition should form a minority government.
3. That a motion of no confidence in the government may be tabled at any time by any five members of the house.
5. That a motion of no confidence shall not happen within the first four weeks of a parliamentary session, and not less than three weeks after the last motion of no confidence.
4. This vote of no confidence shall have three days of discussion, followed by two days of voting.
5. If the government loses a vote of no confidence, the government falls, and another TSR General Election takes place.
Under extraordinary circumstances, at the discretion of the Speaker, a general election caused by a Vote of No Confidence may be postponed by a period of up to four weeks.
The constitution has been changed leading to these problems. And Alasdair said this:

"Right. This has obviously not provided a result, not least because a number of MPs decided they didn't have to vote. I've decided in the interest of getting stuff moving, to rule by Royal Prerogative as it were, and just get on with it for a few weeks. In a couple of weeks time, we can re-assess the Government issue."

Unclear whether he meant to be a government himself or what but either way the constitution was abandoned and the House has descended into nonsense since then. I only hope that with this push we can sort things out legally.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#13
(Original post by Drogue)
What did the largest coalition do that was against the constitution?
Nothing actively. They refused to hold another vote, though, which would have put an end to this mess.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
My apologies, the constitution thread doesn't have that. Still, point 5 there is very clear, and thus this vote is mute. If you follow the constitution, this vote is automatically unconstitutional, being less than four weeks into the parliamentary session.
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 years ago
#15
Its not about who is governing and the coalition hasnt done anything wrong, we just want a swift resolution to this so we can get on with the point of this house. The way I see it, is, it is either sorted out now one way or another or the house will simply cease to exist eventually as it is getting to the point where this whole house is a 'childish game', there is no point in being a member of a parliament which does nothing.

You can either support this VoNC or Drogue's VoNC against the speaker and see this house restored to normality or we can carry on this 'who is the government' lark for another month and see the house ending up in ruins, i think that is an easy decision to make.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#16
(Original post by Drogue)
My apologies, the constitution thread doesn't have that. Still, point 5 there is very clear, and thus this vote is mute. If you follow the constitution, this vote is automatically unconstitutional, being less than four weeks into the parliamentary session.
Yes, but if we followed the constitution I wouldn't calling the vote in the first place. Besides, I think it's been more than 4 weeks since the election ended.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 10 years ago
#17
(Original post by davireland)
Its not about who is governing and the coalition hasnt done anything wrong, we just want a swift resolution to this so we can get on with the point of this house. The way I see it, is, it is either sorted out now one way or another or the house will simply cease to exist eventually as it is getting to the point where this whole house is a 'childish game', there is no point in being a member of a parliament which does nothing.

You can either support this VoNC or Drogue's VoNC against the speaker and see this house restored to normality or we can carry on this 'who is the government' lark for another month and see the house ending up in ruins, i think that is an easy decision to make.
You can't support this VoNC, as it is unconstitutional. Point 5 in the passed amendment (A15) clearly states so.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 10 years ago
#18
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Yes, but if we followed the constitution I wouldn't calling the vote in the first place. Besides, I think it's been more than 4 weeks since the election ended.
Not since parliament began sitting though, is it? That's a week after the election ends. I thought you were short by at least a few days?
0
wmv94226
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 10 years ago
#19
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Nothing actively. They refused to hold another vote, though, which would have put an end to this mess.
Sorry, when did we refuse to hold another vote. I was quite happy to have another vote on the Government (not a general election though) - it was the Speaker who decided not to. I'll not have you tarnish my party in this way when it never happened. This is another example of you being politically opportunistic to the detriment of the HoC.
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 10 years ago
#20
under normal circumstances that would be true however can a 'parliamentary session' (A15 clause 5) really be said to be in full swing without a government?
0
X
new posts
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (446)
37.93%
No - but I will (88)
7.48%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.8%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (562)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All