After the defeat of the motion to support an attack on Syria, shouldn’t the Conservative and LibDem government of David Cameron be facing a vote of no confidence? Are there enough LibDem MP’s who would be willing to vote against the Conservatives?
Is this something that isn’t done since Parliament was recalled during a recess? Or is this not done because there are already upcoming elections?
I was hoping it would pass so ER could withhold Royal Assent. That would have been entertaining.
What would be the grounds of Parliament withdrawing confidence in Cameron? Because he listened to it over war with Syria? I don’t think anyone can argue that this defeat, unexpected as it was, could be translated into general opposition to the Coalition’s government. For one thing, who would replace him?
Have a general election. Can the Tories win a majority? Doubtful. Do the Lib Dems want to continue to support a Tory government? They can make that decision in a new coalition.
Can Labour win? That will be the test.
It wouldn’t make sense for the Conservatives to find a new Prime Minister this late into an election cycle, unless they wanted to do like they did when booting Thatcher and replacing her with Major.
I take it that you haven’t been taking notice of Australian politics recently.
In a ballot between common sense and self interest, put your money on the only horse trying.
Does the monarch still have that right? I thought it was just “the right to be informed, the right to counsel, and the right to warn.”
Of course, it would have to go through the Lords first.
Not every defeat of the Government is a matter of confidence, particularly when it’s a minority situation. A defeat on a motion of non-confidence obviously is, and so is a defeat on a money bill, but other matters are not automatically confidence matters. The House may have disagreed with the proposal to intervene in Syria, but still have confidence in the Government in general. That’s particularly the case when the defeat involved several members of the PM’s own party voting against the motion - unlikely that they want to throw the government out of office.
I think it was simply a motion to determine if the Commons supported the proposal to intervene in Syria. That type of resolution is not a bill and does not go to the Queen for Royal Assent.
I am surprised that Cameron’s proposed censorship regimen hasn’t resulted in calls for the government’s ouster. Is it popular among voters? Here in the US it would rouse tons of opposition.
If you mean the blocking of pornography on the internet issue?
Yes I do, thanks for the link. However my intent was not to hijack or derail this discussion but to point out that Cameron is proposing two potentially unpopular pieces of legislation, and wouldn’t their combined unpopularity be enough to unseat him?
AIUI, she still has the veto power so long as she never uses it.
Kinda, sorta, yeah. She could refuse Royal Assent to a bill (although this was not a bill) and cause a showdown between Parliament and the Monarchy. That would create a constitutional crisis, and I have no idea how it would end. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances.
Legislation would not have been required to take action in Syria, that could be done by exercise of Royal Prerogative, I think. The Commons vote was really just pragmatism - Cameron is the leader of a coalition and depends on the support of the Lib Dems.
The internet thing, no, I don’t see that as being a serious issue (for Cameron, I mean, I personally find it odious). But of course, the issue if a no confidence situation arises is not necessarily what the public thinks, but what MPs think.
How many Tory MPs would vote to collapse the government over this? How many Lib Dems, knowing that this is their only chance at power for a while, would do so?
Which is, in effect, Prime Ministerial prerogative, correct?
Pretty much. The monarch can declare war, but the monarch can only act on advice. So yes, Cameron effectively had the power to go into Syria without the consent of Parliament and without passing any legislation.
Then, why use the past tense? He could do that yet. Legally, anyway. Would it be political suicide?
Well, on a basic level, I’m using past tense because I’m talking about something that happened in the past, but I see what you’re saying. Prior to the Commons vote, he had the power to go into Syria. After the vote he still has the power. So yes, legally, you are correct.
I suspect that he asked the Commons for political reasons. He needs the support of the Lib Dems to prop up the coalition, and I don’t think they were particularly keen on taking action.
So yes, he could ignore the Commons. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would be “political suicide”, but it would be unwise, having asked the Commons once, to stick a finger up at them and go ahead with the action.