The press, in the main, is gushing today over the satanic alliance which we saw blessed in the gardens of No 10 Downing Street yesterday afternoon. The Liberals got a huge amount in negotiations – not least of which was a shelving (for the time being at least) of the inheritance tax changes proposed by the Tories. At the same time, great headline grabbers such as the very liberal decision to scrap ID cards, and the decision not to proceed with another runway at Heathrow, had those of us aligned to the liberal left wing axis of politics wondering if perhaps Dave’s promises were actually genuine. Perhaps this will be the most liberal Tory party of modern times. Maybe they’re right, and he really is a moderniser.
Please do not be fooled. Look into the policy, and see beyond the headlines. Apart from the parade of old Tories being slotted comfortably into Cabinet seats, apart from the appointment of a homophobic Home Secretary, apart from the fact that 23 out of the 30 cabinet seats have been given to millionaires, there is one thing which we should all raise immediately with our MPs. One little piece of proposed legislation which was published yesterday in the ConDem agreements for a fixed term parliament is truly worrying.
Here is the agreement:
“The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”The first part is ok. It takes power away from Government, which is ok, although a little strange, given the peculiarities of how our parliamentary system works. But that last little sentence – that 55% – is hugely troubling.Effectively, in our system, if a major piece of legislation is not passed by a parliament, any party can call for a motion of no confidence. This would obviously usually be the opposition, who would capitalise on the divided house to show that the leading party do not have the support they need to command the house, and if the motion is passed, parliament is dissolved and a new election is formed.
Now, this has always – for hundreds of years – been a vote on which a majority is needed. But according to this piece of legislation, the opposition would need to get more than half of the votes – 55%. This is blatantly undemocratic. What really makes it a concern though, is that the Tories have 47% of the seats in parliament (don’t forget – won with only 37% of the popular vote). If the LibDems find out that they cannot be shackled to a party which is not as progressive as it pretends (this is an if – but I’m setting out now for posterity that this would not surprise me one little bit), if they walk away wholesale from the Tories, if the alliance breaks down, then every single MP in opposition voting in favour could still not bring a no confidence motion. So MPs representing a massive 63% of the country cannot dissolve Parliament.
Commentators have already been saying that this is a worrying proposal. Legal experts are troubled. This goes against history, democracy, common sense and fairness, and if the Tories pass this piece of legislation, as well as their proposals to reduce MPs – which many see as an attempt to gerrymander the system in their favour, they could easily lock themselves in power for decades.