The 55% Lock

There is a lot of chatter about the proposed 55% lock on the dissolution of Parliament and the argument that it is a bad idea.

Most of the chatter seems to be around that Parliament cannot kick out a government. This is incorrect.

The present situation is that a sitting PM, without reference to Parliament, can dissolve Parliament and start an election. This allows the PM to call an election when it suits their party.

Under the new proposals, this power is being taken away from the PM. In future, the term of Parliament will be fixed at 5 years unless 55% of MP's vote for it's dissolution. This means that the next General Election will be fixed for May 2015, unless 55% of MP's vote for the dissolution of Parliament before that date.

It is important to note that this change is only concerned with the dissolution of Parliament. It is not concerned with a vote of no confidence in the government. This remains at 50% plus one MP.

In the past, a vote of no confidence usually resulted in Parliament being dissolved. This will no longer being automatic.

Going forward, if a government loses a vote of confidence then it would be up to the opposition parties to try and form a government in it's own right. If it cannot do so, then Parliament would be dissolved by another vote of Parliament.

Let's look at the present make up of Parliament and how the new rules would come into play.

Presently, the make up is CON 307, LAB 258,LD 57, OTHERS 28 (apologies to others for lumping them as one) - Thirsk and Malton as been included and awarded to CON who won the seat last time.

This gives CON 47% of MP's, LAB 40%, LD 9%, and OTHERS 4%.

Now, under the new rules, a minority Tory government cannot dissolve Parliament just because the Polls are favourable to them. Dissolution would only come about if 8% of opposition MP's joined with the government for dissolution.

If a minority Tory government was to lose a vote of no confidence then it would be up to the Opposition parties to try to form an alternative government. It is only if they could not that Parliament would vote for dissolution.

This is the difference that the 55% lock makes. Under the present rules, a minority Tory government could call an Election when it was beneficial without any recourse to Parliament, which does not presently have any right to call for the dissolution of Parliament.

It is also worth pointing out that there are arguments to have a higher lock. The Scottish Parliament has a 60% lock on dissolution.

The proposed change is not a fix or a stitch up, as is being alleged. It is a honest attempt to remove some power from the sitting PM and to pass that power to Parliament.

Why the Con-Lib Dem Coalition will be good for the United Kingdom.

The answer to this is simple - stability.

We live in fragile times economically and whilst the depression seems to be over the recovery is not secured. For this reason, a stable government is need. A government that can secure a working majority in the House of Commons and be able to put forward a legislative programme which it can get passed.

Usually, we have one party with an overall majority in the Commons. This means a one party government and, barring internal splits, this is the most stable of governments.

Where there is not an overall majority, as is the situation after the recent election, then a coalition that can command an overall majority is the next best option. The question, in relation to stability, is one of maths with the more stable coalition being the one with the least number of parties.

On the back of the 2010 General Election, a Con-LD coalition gives an overall majority where as a Lab-LD coalition would not and therefore would need additional parties to get the majority needed. The more parties the less stable any coalition.


A lot of play as been made about the issue of which parties are "natural allies". This is a bit of a nonsense issue since no political party, when we are talking on partisan terms, are "natural allies".

The very nature of the Liberal Democratic party, the principles upon which it is founded, is one which can find itself close to both the positions of Labour and the Conservative parties - but in different aspects. There is an argument that economically the Liberal Democrats, on a broad brush basis, are closer to the Conservatives and that socially they are closer to Labour. This is a very fast and loose view since there will always be specific policies where there are harsh demarcation.

So, can the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats form a working coalition. The answer, in my opinion, is that yes they can.

For a coalition to work, there must be a sense of collective responsibility - with both parties working together in Cabinet to achieve a shared legislative programme. Where collective responsibility exists coalitions can function properly.

To reach the shared legislative programme there must be compromise where agreement does not exist already. The talks that have been going on since Friday as been working towards this - to agree the basis for the legislative programme, the principles for taking government forward, If what were have been hearing from the talks over the last few days then it would seem that this as now been achieved.

As always, the devil will be in the detail and if the final deal is approved tonight by both parties then we should hopefully have them soon.

A New Politics

The election is over and the people have elected their representatives. However, unlike the usual process the make up of the MP's returned to the House of Commons does not form an overall majority for any one single party, and we find ourselves within the sphere of a Hung Parliament or, using the less pejorative term, a Balanced Parliament.

The reaction to the events which have occurred after the results were announced however have not be positive. I think that this is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the political process in the country.

The first misconception is that people are voting for a government when they vote. This is not the basis of the UK political system. The way our system is formed is on the basis of voting for someone to represent them in the Commons, someone to fight for the constituency that they are elected to represented and to try to achieve the manifesto that they are elected on.

The government is formed once the individual constituencies have had their say. If there are sufficient MP's of the same party to form an overall majority then they will form a government.

However, the electorate does not directly vote for a government. They do not vote for the Prime Minister. The UK system is a parliamentary and not a presidential system, like in America.

The new territory for the present generation is that there is not an overall majority of MP's for any one party, so the automatic formation of a government is not possible as is the usual case.

Now is the time for a new politics. A politics based on principle and national interest. A politics based on consensus, compromise, and agreement.

This is a politics which is not the usual for us. We are used to confrontation rather than co-operation, argument rather than agreement.

The needs of the country at the moment, in light of the uncertain economic situation which faces us, is for a stable government - a government that can command a majority within the House of Commons. This will only be achieved through political parties co-operating and compromising, reaching a consensus on priority of policy and principles.

The is no denying that the Conservatives have the strongest mandate and the right to try and form this government. It is only right that they have reached out to the Liberal Democrats to try and form this government. A government comprised of two parties will be stronger and more stable than a government of many parties (which is what the "rainbow" alliance that would be needed for the Labour party to form a government).

All parties fight for their manifesto commitments in a election, party politics is the name of the game. However, without the overall majority there will need to be some compromises. No party can hope to full achieve their manifesto pledges, no party can hope to implement their manifesto as if they had an overall majority.

For a government to be formed there will need to be compromise by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on their manifesto pledges.

Now is not the time for party politics. Now is the time for a government in the national interest.

Now is the time for a new politics, a politics based on co-operation and consensus, based on agreement and not argument, based on compromise and not confrontation.