And one of the first acts of our new overlords is...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8678222.stm

...

I mean...

...

Just imagine, for a brief moment, the sort of noises that would've been made had the previous government even thought about doing something like this. I wonder how long it'll take for all those self-loving civil libertarians to kick up a fuss about this, hmm...

But I suppose that everything is acceptable if it is in The National Interest (The National Interest).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ass.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

How's that going to work, really?

Even if a PM only has 46% of the seats, he can't be removed by the 54% that is against him?

[minionofmidas]

I hope the Government falls by one vote in the final vote on pushing this bit of assclownery through.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Umm.. what would happen if a government lost a majority (say through bye-elections) but could not be defeated via a vote of no confidence. Permanent Stagnation?

And yeah how is this going to work with the whole fixed terms for parliament deal?

Epic Fail, Lib Dems, Epic Fail.

[Hash]

What a total perversion of democracy. Good job LibDems, are you still out there to change politics forever?

LibDems deserve to die for this coalition.

[KuntaKinte]

I can't believe that.

[Linus Van Pelt]

If you had 52% in favour of non-confidence, wouldn't you also have 52% in favour of repealing this bill? Doesn't seem too enforceable.

[GMantis]

Such a change in basic procedure can be done with a simple majority? Well, not having a formal constitution does have it's drawbacks.
And how did they get the Lib Dems to agree to this? Now they've lost most o the leverage they had on the government

[Torie]

Umm.. what would happen if a government lost a majority (say through bye-elections) but could not be defeated via a vote of no confidence. Permanent Stagnation?

And yeah who is this going to work with the whole fixed terms for parliament deal?

Epic Fail, Lib Dems, Epic Fail.

Unless we are missing something, this seems to indeed be the case.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's absolutely scandalous. Even De Gaulle, who hated Parliament with a passion, didn't dare so much.

If LibDems vote that they will definitely become a joke.

[Gustaf]

That's sad and shows what constitutions are good for.

I'm disappointed in Tories and LibDems alike, this is something you expect from a quasi-democratic country like Russia or Zimbabwe.

[opebo]

LibDems deserve to die for this coalition.

One wonders why that ridiculous party did not die decades ago!  Perhaps Al could explain..

[The Mikado]

So, theoretically, could you pass a bill raising the threshold for a no-confidence vote to unanimity?  This is ridiculous.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If you had 52% in favour of non-confidence, wouldn't you also have 52% in favour of repealing this bill? Doesn't seem too enforceable.

     That is a rather interesting question. If that's the case, then this would have to be as dumb a move as it gets. It would gain nothing & give the opposition a free issue to attack them on.

[k-onmmunist]

I sincerely hope the Liberal Democrats crash and burn for supporting the reactionaries we have in charge now.

[Јas]

I await the draft legislation with interest, but I presume the 55% rule relates to the dissolution of the legislature alone (á la Hollyrood, but with a lower threshold), and that it would effectively remain the case that a Prime Minister who cannot retain the confidence of a parliamentary majority would have to resign?

[Хahar 🤔]

Isn't this unconstitutional?

[Јas]

Isn't this unconstitutional?

As the ostensible overriding principle of the British constitution is the idea of parliamentary supremacy, I find it hard to fathom how any properly enacted legislation could be deemed 'unconstitutional'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as the 55% threshold only applies to votes on pieces of legislation and not on motions of no confidence, I don't see a problem.

[Хahar 🤔]

Isn't this unconstitutional?

As the ostensible overriding principle of the British constitution is the idea of parliamentary supremacy, I find it hard to fathom how any properly enacted legislation could be deemed 'unconstitutional'.

Requiring a supermajority means that parliament is not supreme.

[Јas]

Isn't this unconstitutional?

As the ostensible overriding principle of the British constitution is the idea of parliamentary supremacy, I find it hard to fathom how any properly enacted legislation could be deemed 'unconstitutional'.

Requiring a supermajority means that parliament is not supreme.

Maybe so, maybe not. But either which way, I presume we could both agree that as of this moment, parliament is supreme - and so any Act passed, by whatever majority, including an Act to end parliamentary supremacy (as you posit this would do) is technically 'constitutional'. 

Perhaps this could be deemed a 'constitutional amendment' (?).

[Хahar 🤔]

Maybe I'm not expressing myself well. It's not strictly unconstitutional in that it's illegal (the way it would be here or in Ireland), but I'm thinking that it goes against the spirit of the constitution (for want of a better term).

[Јas]

Maybe I'm not expressing myself well. It's not strictly unconstitutional in that it's illegal (the way it would be here or in Ireland), but I'm thinking that it goes against the spirit of the constitution (for want of a better term).

Fair enough.

[Meeker]

This is necessary for Stability and as such should be passed.