# Some (more) questions about Parlaiment from a confused American **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 12, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140 "2010-05-12T03:05:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/21 "2010-05-12T13:19:53Z")
Another advantage to having the bums actually warming the seats, specially in a case when the government isn’t in a strong position, is that there can be a lot of negotiations going on before a bill is officially presented. More people there means more points of view are represented, but also that if their parties know that the Hon Rep John Smith from Upthere and the Hon Rep Jane Brown from Downover hate each other’s guts, they will avoid sending them to the same meeting. If the Hon Rep Mark McCallum is great at poking holes in numbers, but not so good at presenting the results in a way the numerically-challenged will understand, you can pair him with the Hon Rep Chris Martin to analyze the budget proposal and present their conclusions to the party. It works a lot like a corporation or any other team, really. Too many people is bad, but not enough is usually worse; a situation where different regions/departments/parties have similar amounts of power means lots of negotiation, but one where one group holds all the cards means the needs of the rest will often get ignored, to everybody’s detriment. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/22 "2010-05-12T14:06:16Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > At which point, the local electorate basically tells the party what they think of that plan. 😉 > > Am I right in thinking that despite the terms of the coalition – that there will be a fixed term, 5-year parliament – if either the Queen’s Speech or the Budget are not passed by the Commons, there will **have** to be another election? I know that’s how it would work normally (as its essentially a no-confidence vote), but how would it work under the coalition? The way I’m reading it – and this is interpretation by a more-or-less informed outside observer, so kindly take it with NaCl and I welcome correction – is that they are committing the coalition to last for the full legal term of Parliament. I believe it’s not a constitutional reform being proposed but simply a commitment not to call a snap election. Clarification: The Westminster system says, you have to have an election no longer than five years from the last one, unless in time of national crisis the life of a Parliament is prolonged by extraordinary means, as was done during the two world wars. In practice, the incumbent P.M. asks for an election while his party is doing well in the popular opinion polls towards the end of the five-year cycle, say about four years from the previous one, unless it is forced out by vote of no confidence or the pressure of public opinion. _In theory_, Harriet Harmon (interim leader of Labour) or Clegg could move a confidence vote tomorrow an force another election; in practice, of course, this would be political suicide, as the voters tend to go against a party perceived as forcing an ‘unnecessary’ election. What I’m understanding the coalition to be saying is that, in the absence of some shocking unforeseen circumstance, they’re committing to not force the voters to the polls for essentially the full statutory life of this Parliament – five years. That in itself is perhaps the most startling thing about the coalition – that they’re publicly committing to iron out their differences and work out compromises both parties can be happy with for a full maximum Parliamentary term. And it bodes well for the idea of coalition government – the value in majority governments to voters has been that they don’t have to keep going to the polls whenever one party gets its back up. It may be Clegg saying to the public, in essence, “PR can be made to work, even if you don’t get majorities for one party, because a coalition can be made stable. We’re going to prove that to you.” It’s a huge gamble on both parties’ part, but one I think will pay off for both. (I would say it really took balls, but he’s of course in Opposition now. ;)) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/23 "2010-05-12T14:18:51Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The way I’m reading it – and this is interpretation by a more-or-less informed outside observer, so kindly take it with NaCl and I welcome correction – is that they are committing the coalition to last for the full legal term of Parliament. I believe it’s not a constitutional reform being proposed but simply a commitment not to call a snap election. The proposal is to immediately introduce legislation to establish fixed term parliaments and later introduce a ‘Vote of Confidence’ needs 55% to oust a govt rather than a simple majority. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/24 "2010-05-12T14:51:50Z")
Has anyone actually seen a copy online of the Conservative-LibDem agreement? I’ve been reading a lot about the election and its aftermath, and I can’t find it anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/25 "2010-05-12T14:52:37Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Has anyone actually seen a copy online of the Conservative-LibDem agreement? I’ve been reading a lot about the election and its aftermath, and I can’t find it anywhere. I just found it [here](http://www.scribd.com/doc/31255232/British-Coalition-Government-Agreement), thanks to the New York Times. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/26 "2010-05-12T15:09:36Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > I just found it [here](http://www.scribd.com/doc/31255232/British-Coalition-Government-Agreement), thanks to the New York Times. Excellent. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140/27 "2010-05-12T15:36:11Z")
> [@Noel\_Prosequi](#): > > In addition to what others upthread have said, the backbenchers who fill the seats also work for their constituents. Mrs Jones brings a complaint about how she’s been dudded by the welfare department and is getting the bureaucratic runaround, and the local MP can take up her cause. Mr Smith wants to moan about aircraft noise, he can take it to his local member. These “parish pump” issues consume a lot of the time of MPs, and they have to keep the punters happy (in the sense of going in to bat for them where appropriate) in order to get re-elected. Some local members can become so popular for that reason that they can get re-elected over and over again even outside the party system, just on the strength of their local popularity. As an American, what I find hilarious is that British MPs refer to their constituency service office hours as “surgery.” When watching the Brown-Cameron-Clegg debates, I practically busted out laughing every time someone referred to being in “surgery.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-more-questions-about-parlaiment-from-a-confused-american/539140.md?page=1)