Fixed Terms Parliament Act in the UK

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Malden_Capell

Yes they do; but the trust in fulfilling the party program will have different burdens on both sides. Parliamentary systems rely a lot on central executive leadership; they hold the government to account to hold to what it proposed. Many of our mainstream parties are big-tent, so there’ll be plenty to agree and disagree over.

The main difference I think that matters here is that in the US, the more doctrinaire party members can kick up a stink knowing there’s little that their detractors can do to penalise them; they are immune until the next election. In the UK, there’s always a risk (less so now with the FTPAct, but still present) that they may go to an election to resolve a policy dispute, meaning the issue is taken from the smoke-filled rooms and is exposed to public debate. This could risk the doctrinaire people being embarrassed by by a crushing defeat. Think of the UK system as being two agents with guns against each others’ heads. They have more incentive to co-operate than to openly fight.

On the other hand, they may be looking forward to a victory in an election that could embarass the more moderate party leaders, so it’s actually in the interests of the party leaders to avoid on. So they will look to co-operate more with the other party leaders on a long-term basis to get policy they all agree on through, and isolate their more nutty wings. Then you’ll get attempts by the nutty wings to attack the Queen’s Speech and the Budget. Maastricht’s an example.

I don’t think I explained it particularly well, so to recap: extremists within parties will have their hobby horses they will want done, so will put pressure on the leadership to enact; but they generally approve of the broader party philosophy. The restraint on their behaviour is the risk of isolation in Parliament, or embarassment in an early election. Alternatively, the probability of them doing well in a future election will inecentivise the leadership to work with the Opposition to get policy through and isolate the backbenchers. For the extremists, this means they are prevented from influencing said policy and they weaken themselves. Better constructive involvement in a lukewarm policy than isolation and a terribly policy enacted.

In the UK, cross-party co-operation, when it happens, tends to be on a more long-term, strategic basis; in the US, as there’s no danger of early elections, co-operation tends to be case-by-case and piecemeal, with less consideration of long-term consequence.

Not quite the same as a General Election, but another tactic for our disaffected equivalent of the Tea Party would be to directly undermine the authority of the PM as leader of his/her Party. THis is what brought Tatcher down and indirectly brought Blair’s Premiership to an end imo. I cant remember if John Major was also subject to a direct vote from his party MP’s. Some of these votes on the PM as party leader are very serious, some are used as a shot across the bow.

[Malden_Capell]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Not quite the same as a General Election, but another tactic for our disaffected equivalent of the Tea Party would be to directly undermine the authority of the PM as leader of his/her Party. THis is what brought Tatcher down and indirectly brought Blair’s Premiership to an end imo. I cant remember if John Major was also subject to a direct vote from his party MP’s. Some of these votes on the PM as party leader are very serious, some are used as a shot across the bow.

Indeed. And in another part of that Tory civil war, Major tried to outmanoeuvre them by resigning as Leader and standing for re-election. It wrong-footed the Bastards temporarily, but didn’t end the squabbling.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Malden_Capell

Indeed. And in another part of that Tory civil war, Major tried to outmanoeuvre them by resigning as Leader and standing for re-election. It wrong-footed the Bastards temporarily, but didn’t end the squabbling.

I was quite political at the time. It’s strange how you forget these things.

[Pjen]

It is worth mentioning that the Act was not primarily designed to give regular elections forever on the future Although this is how it reads) but was mainly a five year emergency measure to stop either:

A/ the LibDems leaving the coalition and causing an early election

Or

B/ the Conservatives dumping the LibDems and calling an immediate election.

Mutually assured destruction electorally to ensure both sides kept their word.

It worked.

[Baron_Greenback]

Agree with you there Pjen. The next PM with a solid majority is going to want that bill gone.

[Malden_Capell]

There is truth in what Pjen says. It’s a mistake to see the FTPAct as some kind of principled agreement to improve the constitution. It amuses me that some who support fixed-term elections condemn the idea of the Government deciding the election date as allowing it to be set for political reasons. But the FTPAct itself was created for purely political reasons.

Sir Edward Leigh said in the Commons on 23 October:

It was a hash job—let us be honest about it. It was designed to keep both parties in the coalition from doing a runner on each other and it was never thought through properly. This was always going to be a loveless marriage, and fixed-term Parliaments were a pre-nuptial settlement drawn up between two parties that were never in love. Indeed, they had to bind their marriage in barbed wire to stop them ratting on each other. Is that the right way to make a major constitutional innovation? I do not think it is. These constitutional innovations of profound import for our democratic system should have been the result of lengthy debate and academic debate, but they were not. They were cobbled together in five days in May in secret meetings between the leaderships of the two parties.

Bernard Jenkin said this, which is what I’m trying to say:

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) described… has turned this place in upon itself even more than it was before. We are even less focused on what the voters think because we have given ourselves tenure. We have given ourselves security. We have given ourselves a fixed-term lease that cannot be challenged. And the idea that this was done as some selfless and noble act!

I am amazed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) … should keep raising the question of how the Prime Minister might exercise his power with regard to partisan considerations. Well, perish the thought that any Prime Minister would ever do anything with partisan considerations in mind! I look back at previous Prime Ministers and think to myself: did Gordon Brown ever act in a partisan manner? No, no, never! Did Sir John Major or Tony Blair ever act in a partisan manner? No, no! The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was obviously yet another selfless Act introduced by a Prime Minister, with no party considerations involved! I think we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is one of the most partisan and self-interested Acts of Parliament that has ever been put on the statute book. It did not just provide MPs with tenure; it provided the coalition Government with tenure. It was providing the coalition with security; it was providing them with a five-year guaranteed supply of money from the taxpayer for their Administration. It was self-interested on the part of the Conservative Ministers who wanted to give themselves tenure. It was self-interested on the part of the Liberal Democrats to give themselves tenure not only in this coalition but in a future hung Parliament to guarantee that the only option would be another five-year coalition in which they, the smallest party, would once again have influence disproportionate to the number of votes they received. Even I missed the point about why the Labour party was so happy to give tenure to the coalition. The Labour party knew it was in a mess. It had a deeply unpopular ex-Prime Minister who had just been thrown out of office. It was going to have a long, protracted leadership election process. The last thing it wanted was another general election within six or 18 months. It was in no fit state to fight one, so of course it also supported the Act. This has created a politicians’ paradise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, it is designed to shut the British people out of the decision about what kind of Government they should be able to choose.

[UltraVires]

@Pjen

It is worth mentioning that the Act was not primarily designed to give regular elections forever on the future Although this is how it reads) but was mainly a five year emergency measure to stop either:

A/ the LibDems leaving the coalition and causing an early election

Or

B/ the Conservatives dumping the LibDems and calling an immediate election.

Mutually assured destruction electorally to ensure both sides kept their word.

It worked.

Again, I appreciate the comments, and my questions are only asked because of my ignorance of parliamentary politics. However, this confuses me.

In scenario A, couldn’t the Lib Dems join with Labour and win a no confidence vote?

In scenario B, wouldn’t the Lib Dems tell the Tories to pound sand after their dumping, join with Labour and hold a no confidence vote?

Both under the FTPA?

And as far as the PM no longer having power to dissolve Parliament, couldn’t he propose a bill for the legalization of child rape, declare that a “no” vote was a confidence vote, lose the vote as planned, and call early elections?

[penultima_thule]

@jtgain

And as far as the PM no longer having power to dissolve Parliament, couldn’t he propose a bill for the legalization of child rape, declare that a “no” vote was a confidence vote, lose the vote as planned, and call early elections?

Do you think he’d get a seconder for such a motion?
Do you think the government MPs would support such a motion, let alone stand for any subsequent election as having supported it?

Cause all that’s been done there is create a vote of no confidence in the PM, and parliamentary systems can change the PM in a couple of hours without any need for an election.

[Malden_Capell]

@jtgain

Again, I appreciate the comments, and my questions are only asked because of my ignorance of parliamentary politics. However, this confuses me.

In scenario A, couldn’t the Lib Dems join with Labour and win a no confidence vote?

In scenario B, wouldn’t the Lib Dems tell the Tories to pound sand after their dumping, join with Labour and hold a no confidence vote?

Both under the FTPA?

Yes, and before the Act, regardless of what the Lib Dems did, the Prime Minister could dissolve Parliament as an immediate consequence. Now it depends upon inner party politics.

And as far as the PM no longer having power to dissolve Parliament, couldn’t he propose a bill for the legalization of child rape, declare that a “no” vote was a confidence vote, lose the vote as planned, and call early elections?

Indeed, but if a PM called a snap election based on a Bill to legalise child rape, that Bill would be the ‘election issue’ - whether to legalise child rape or not. You can imagine what the result would be for the governing party - they’d be crucified.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@jtgain

Interesting. So if I am an MP, I cannot have my secretary type a bill which states:

“Be it resolved that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”

and follow proper procedures to bring it to a vote? I assume not.

There’s no law saying you can’t, but if you are a member of the majority party and you force a vote of no confidence against your own government you can kiss your seat goodbye (because there’s no way your constituency party will back you again.)

[Lord_Feldon]

@Malden_Capell

The main difference I think that matters here is that in the US, the more doctrinaire party members can kick up a stink knowing there’s little that their detractors can do to penalise them; they are immune until the next election.

And in some cases, the primary system means that they’re immune because of the next election, as it tends to be the more doctrinaire party supporters who vote in primary elections.

[alphaboi867]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

There’s no law saying you can’t, but if you are a member of the majority party and you force a vote of no confidence against your own government you can kiss your seat goodbye (because there’s no way your constituency party will back you again.)

And even if your local party membership did back you for some bizarre reason the central leadership can override them and nominate whoever they want for the seat.

[Malden_Capell]

@alphaboi867

And even if your local party membership did back you for some bizarre reason the central leadership can override them and nominate whoever they want for the seat.

Depending on the party yes, but otherwise true. Of course all of this is a double-edged sword; a rebellious MP popular with the local party who is facing overthrow by central command will love to sell their story to the papers, which could cause immense harm to the party’s reputation.

UKIP are encountering this kind of problem right now.

[Mk_VII]

A few years ago the German Chancellor engineered a confidence vote which he knew he would lose in order to precipitate early elections which he calculated would be to his party’s advantage. (They lost, as it turned out).

[Northern_Piper]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
And did I understand you correctly that a vote against the budget is an automatically new election? So, as I said, I don’t think the sewer commissioner should have such a lavish salary. I feel so strongly that I will vote against the whole budget, but will gladly vote for a new budget without the high salary and keep every member in place. Under the UK system, that isn’t an option? My vote against the budget means that I am voting against the government and asking for new elections? That seems extreme.
[/QUOTE]

In Westminster systems, the most basic obligation on a government is to govern: namely, to keep the functions of government running.

And that means money: the Old Age pension cheques get mailed; the Armed Forces, the police, the judges, the hospitals, all get money to keep them running; the public service is paid and their offices kept open to serve the public.

If a government can’t pass its budget, it has failed in its most basic obligation. It either has to be replaced by another party/coalition in the existing House of Commons, or there has to be an election to allow the people to give their input on the budget.

The budget that is presented to the Commons by the government is a collective decision by the members of the governing party as to how to raise money and how to spend it. That’s where the individual MPs get their chance to have input into the budget: through the government caucus process and the Cabinet. An individual backbench MPs will not have as much influence on the budget at the party leadership and Cabinet ministers, but depending on the issue and the amount of support that MP or group of MPs may have on a particular issue, they can influence the budget choices of the governing party.

Given that failure to pass the budget is so serious, a backbench MP who does not vote in favour of the budget is going to be in serious trouble with the party leadership. That’s the single most important part of the legislative agenda of the government. If an MP finds he can’t support the budget, it’s reasonable to ask why that MP is a member of that party.

ETA: as an aside, the above illustrates why the government shut-downs in the US over the budget strike those of us who live in countries with a parliamentary system as so bizarre and irresponsible. Governments don’t shut down over the budget in Westminster systems, because that would be a failure of government. If the budget doesn’t pass and there’s an election, the machinery of government keeps functioning by the previously passed budgets, while the election occurs. Government stays open while the people decide.

[Northern_Piper]

@jtgain

If the majority party wants an early election, why can’t it just pass a no-confidence vote against itself and have an early election?

Because a non-confidence vote is a specific statement that the Government led by Prime Minister Smith is not fit to govern.

If Prime Minister Smith and his party all vote in favour of a motion that says they are not fit to govern, why should the people vote for them? They would be going into an election having stated in a very formal, public way that they are not fit to govern. That doesn’t sound like a winning election platform.

@jtgain

Also, how is this different than before? Prior to the Act, couldn’t Parliament dissolve itself on a no-confidence vote?

Prior to this Act, Parliament could not dissolve itself. Only the Crown had the power to dissolve Parliament, as one of the powers under the Royal prerogative.

If a non-confidence vote passed, and the PM could not cobble together a new government that had the confidence of the House, the PM went to the Queen and advised her to dissolve the House and call a general election. The Queen would almost invariably take that advice, and would issue a proclamation dissolving the Commons and triggering a general election.

[Stately_Greek_Automaton]

@jtgain

Thanks for all of the answers. Many of the procedural niceties are still confusing to us over here. But I picked this out because it illustrates my lack of knowledge in what
“confidence” in a government means. It seems to me that if I am a Tory, and the Tories control the government, as a Tory MP, I must agree with everything the party proposes and not wish it proposes more.

Say I’m the Tory equivalent to a tea party Republican and my two biggest issues are eliminating national health care and banning same sex marriage. (Or pick two others; the issues aren’t important, but my hypothetical strong belief in them are)

These are things which obviously don’t have the support of government, or even the minority party, but when I ran on the issues, my constituents strongly supported them. They elected me to Parliament, in part, to get these issues in the public spotlight for debate.

But I am also a Tory, and I support what the Tories are proposing. At least I support the Tories to a greater degree than any other party.

I’m seems to this American that a vote to say that I was dismayed that Her Majesty did not mention dismantling the national health system and outlawing same sex marriage is also a vote against my stated principle of supporting the Tory government. It is certainly NOT what I am trying to say with the vote. Do parliamentary governments in general want to stifle independence within their own parties?

Part of the difference is that the Tory equivalent to a Tea Party Republican may well be in a different party than a Wall Street Republican. Two parties with mostly similar views may join together to govern in a coalition or the larger party may govern with the support of the smaller party, but that can fall apart in a situation where they don’t agree.

[Mk_VII]

Defying the Three-Line Whip is tantamount to secession from the party, temporarily at any rate. Likewise, having the Whip withdrawn is equivalent to expulsion.

[Saint_Cad]

@Northern_Piper

ETA: as an aside, the above illustrates why the government shut-downs in the US over the budget strike those of us who live in countries with a parliamentary system as so bizarre and irresponsible. Governments don’t shut down over the budget in Westminster systems, because that would be a failure of government. If the budget doesn’t pass and there’s an election, the machinery of government keeps functioning by the previously passed budgets, while the election occurs. Government stays open while the people decide.

And you just hit on the claim financial conservatives make: the government has been failing for decades because of irresponsible spending.

UK debt: 88% of GDP
US debt: 101% of GDP

So how do you make a debate on spending habits (yes on both sides of the aisle) if you DON’T make a shutdown a possibility.

[UltraVires]

@Malden_Capell

Indeed, but if a PM called a snap election based on a Bill to legalise child rape, that Bill would be the ‘election issue’ - whether to legalise child rape or not. You can imagine what the result would be for the governing party - they’d be crucified.

In the U.S., that might be a nice soundbite, but it would be clear to anyone who gave it more than a second’s worth of thought that the election was not about legalizing child rape. The child rape bill would be a procedural statement, sort of like how you use the Outlawries bill. Parliament isn’t really concerned with clandestine outlawries, it is making a statement that it can do what it damned well pleases no matter what the Queen suggests.

In the same vein, the child rape bill would (at least should) be seen as merely asking for a new election and not a serious proposal for child rape.

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
Because a non-confidence vote is a specific statement that the Government led by Prime Minister Smith is not fit to govern.

If Prime Minister Smith and his party all vote in favour of a motion that says they are not fit to govern, why should the people vote for them? They would be going into an election having stated in a very formal, public way that they are not fit to govern. That doesn’t sound like a winning election platform.
[/QUOTE]

Same answer. I just want new elections. Although I am technically saying I don’t have confidence in the government, I really do. I am just gaming the system.

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
In Westminster systems, the most basic obligation on a government is to govern: namely, to keep the functions of government running.

And that means money: the Old Age pension cheques get mailed; the Armed Forces, the police, the judges, the hospitals, all get money to keep them running; the public service is paid and their offices kept open to serve the public.

If a government can’t pass its budget, it has failed in its most basic obligation. It either has to be replaced by another party/coalition in the existing House of Commons, or there has to be an election to allow the people to give their input on the budget.

[/QUOTE]

In this arena, it is the ruling party who is gaming the system, and I want a simple vote on a part of it. The hypothetical me as MP has no problem with pension checks (and spell it right, dammit ), military, police, hospitals, and the like. Give me a clean bill on those and I will vote for them. But don’t bury the sewer commissioner’s lavish salary in with those other necessary things and force me and the nation to take all or nothing.

If the government fails to provide those things, it is not because of my vote against their omnibus bill. It is because they present such an omnibus bill in the first place. A government that provides basic services but cuts the sewer commissioner’s salary has not failed at a basic function and does not need to be dissolved.

In the U.S. when the GOP threatened to “shut down the government” it was gamesmanship to force Obama’s hand. I don’t mean to hijack my own thread, but I think my argument stands in both systems.