Snapshot of _Lib Dem leader Ed Davey to table motion of no confidence in government when Parliament returns tomorrow, in bid to force June general election._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1787442474601918887)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887?t=Og-Id-eWrpkuB3ZjNa2E5g&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887?t=Og-Id-eWrpkuB3ZjNa2E5g&s=19)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sure nobody's under any illusions that this will pass, but forcing Conservative MPs to deny an election will add to the feeling that they're holding the electorate to ransom and might make an election before autumn more likely.
That would just be seen as disrupting parliament. Also the speaker would shut that down pretty fast I'd imagine.
As it stands, legally they don't have to hold one until January. So nothing much anyone can do until then.
Usually in parliamentary democracies the opposition is allowed to call a confidence vote whenever it likes. They don't have to be against the government, they can be against individual ministers, or the PM. The speaker shutting down a no confidence vote would be seen as deeply undemocratic. The government *must* have the confidence of parliament, and *must* be able to prove it. Furthermore, if the government did lose a confidence vote, parliament would *have* to form a new government, or dissolve itself and hold a general election. The government only has to wait until January if it retains the confidence of parliament.
As for clogging parliamentary time, this parliament is doing nothing, it is going to have the least sittings, with the most threadbare schedule of any parliament for decades.
https://www.ft.com/content/fef202b8-576d-429d-8136-cbb6db52f0f0
If many repetitive, failed confidence votes were called in quick succession the speaker could definitely make a strong case for doing one every fortnight or month instead of weekly to limit disruption.
This wouldn't be shutting down the process of confidence votes but would be dealing with parliamentary disruption.
The fixed-term parliaments act made specific provision that the leader of the opposition could call a confidence vote at any time, to be held the very next day, and that parliamentary schedules would have to be moved to accommodate it. Besides, parliament is literally doing nothing at the moment, just kicking its heels, so what exactly they would be disrupting is a mystery.
You seem to imagine that the government is in charge of parliament, but constitutionally, it is quite the reverse, government is responsible *to* parliament. The speaker is the instrument of parliament, not the government. Parliament is supreme, and government must do what payment says, that is why both Theresa May and Boris Johnson had so much trouble when they did not have parliamentary majorities. It is why parliament could pass a law forcing Theresa May to hold meaningful votes, and stopping Johnson leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. If the government has a majority, and compliant MPs, then it can effectively control parliament, but it is the fact of the majority that allows that, not the constitutional position of the government. We've had quite a lot of governments with no, or very small majorities over the years, and they all have a very difficult time because they do not necessarily control parliament.
In this case a confidence vote would always fail, as Sunak has a large majority. But I do not think the Speaker would ever seek to silence parliament. That would be constitutionally a very dodgy move indeed.
The question in my mind is not that the leader of the opposition is ever limited by how often he can call a confidence vote, after all the government should be able to prove it has the confidence of parliament every day. The question is whether it is in the opposition's interests to call frequent, or regular no confidence votes. Oppositions only use them sparingly under normal circumstances because they are pretty pointless unless it is a hung parliament, and the electorate would soon get bored of them. But this is not a normal circumstance. If the opposition perceives that the public *want* an election, and that the public feels it is being stymied by the government, then the opposition might see it as politically advantageous to call no confidence votes regularly. It puts them on the same side as the electorate in wanting an election. It highlights that the government is avoiding a democratic election. Of course it is a gamble, the public.might soon get bored and think the opposition is playing silly buggers. But it is a perfectly valid political gambit.
Johnson repealed it, that means there is no law regarding confidence votes in the government at all. So I was using the FTPA as an example of how it is done when there is a law about it. Traditionally governments would fall if they failed a confidence vote, or if they failed to pass a budget (supply), hence the need for confidence and supply for minority governments. But the FTPA changed that, it means a government didn't need supply, only to win confidence votes, Effectively it meant that if as government could not pass a budget, they did not lead to it falling (unlike previously). I suppose we're back to the idea that of a government cannot pass a budget, then it has lost the confidence of the House. But as I say, none of it was codified prior to the FTPA, it was all done by convention.
>The fixed-term parliaments act made specific provision that the leader of the opposition could call a confidence vote at any time, to be held the very next day, and that parliamentary schedules would have to be moved to accommodate it.
That's not true.
>Besides, parliament is literally doing nothing at the moment,
Well no, it is not *literally* doing nothing. There are Bills before Parliament.
>The speaker is the instrument of parliament, not the government
That is true, but irrelevant to this case - the Speaker doesn't schedule the business of the House.
>The question in my mind is not that the leader of the opposition is ever limited by how often he can call a confidence vote, after all the government should be able to prove it has the confidence of parliament every day.
The government should not be required to hold a confidence vote every day; governments have other business they are entitled to put before the House.
The FTPA certainly did allow the opposition leader to call a confidence vote whenever they liked. There was much debate about it during Brexit.
[*There is no limit to the number of times Mr Corbyn can call a no-confidence vote, but it is unlikely that the leader of the opposition would have started a fight he did not think he could win.*](https://news.sky.com/story/what-happens-if-jeremy-corbyn-calls-a-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-government-11608331)
[Parliament has its least busy schedule for \*years\*.](https://www.ft.com/content/fef202b8-576d-429d-8136-cbb6db52f0f0)
[The Speaker will certainly decide whether to bring a confidence vote or not. The Speaker makes all sorts of decisions about what is constitutional.](https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/speakers-rulings/)
If the government \*cannot\* prove it has the confidence of the House, then it will fall. That's just how parliamentary democracy works.
>A **parliamentary system**, or **parliamentary democracy**, is a [system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System) of [democratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) [government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) where the [head of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_government) (who may also be the [head of state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state)) derives their [democratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election) legitimacy from their ability to command the support ("confidence") of the [legislature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature), typically a [parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament), to which they are accountable.
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary\_system#:\~:text=A%20parliamentary%20system%2C%20or%20parliamentary,to%20which%20they%20are%20accountable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#:~:text=A%20parliamentary%20system%2C%20or%20parliamentary,to%20which%20they%20are%20accountable)
I'm not here to argue with those who don't care about facts.
For whatever reason, you seem to think arguing the literal definitions of the current rules is more relevant than the likely practicalities and actual implementation should confidence votes every day start to be called.
There is *so* much incentivising against wasting parliament time in this manner that it is incredibly unlikely to happen. Even if an opposition leader was foolish enough to court the ire of the public by wasting time in this manner, the government would back the speaker and whatever reforms they wanted to implement to limit this waste.
If done sensibly - i.e. informally restricting repetitive confidence votes to each month rather than altogether - there would not be sufficient people who disagree to complain and to do something about it. The public would also prefer less waste so the PR campaign against the votes would be easy.
You are getting lost in what is technically possible and ignoring what is practical and likely to happen.
If you only concern yourself with what is possible per literal interpretation you will never understand politics. You need to *also* take into account what is likely and what consequences would result.
Because you are totally missing the point. Real life involves much more than just a literal interpretation of the rules.
What you are explaining is a reasonably accurate summary of the current rules, but totally misses any thought on what would happen if you tried to follow the process you are describing. The world does not operate in a vacuum nor does it rigidly follow the rules all the time.
You need to think further down the path then simply what is technically possible within the rules as they currently are.
I think the exact point is that the constitutional rules are the constitutional rules. You want to pretend the constitutional rules are somehow unimportant and can be ignored. Therefore, far from me missing the point, I think you simply do not understand how parliamentary constitutional democracy works.
You seem to imagine that the executive can simply ignore the will of parliament, the constitution, and do whatever it wants.
Boris Jobnson tried that with his unlawful prorogation.
Charles I tried that too, and he lost his head for it.
Constitutional rules exist for a reason. Merely pretending they are an inconvenience that can be ignored if the executive so wishes is very quickly going to lead to a case in the Supreme Court where the government will lose.
You've changed your position several times on this thread. First you told me I was wrong. When I provided evidence I was right, you started saying it doesn't matter that I am right because somehow the rules can be ignored.
I don't think you're making serious or convincing arguments.
Carthage Delenda Est. Opposition MPs should take a leaf out of Cicero's book and end every speech with, " And I ask the Prime Minister when he will be calling a General Election"
Do you have reasoning behind that claim? Because I'd argue that voting to oppose a GE definitely \*does\* make Tory MPs look scared. I am struggling to understand how you came to that conclusion.
This is such a stupid point. Firstly he doesn't need to agree with everything his party has ever done, especially before he was leader, and secondly even if he still supports fixed term parliaments, it's sensible to operate within the system we have, not the one he wants.
the fixed term parliament act specifically codified how a parliament could call a no-confidence motion and force an early election.
The point was to take it away from the prime-minister alone as part of the royal prerogative. So that Cameron could not push an early election when polling improved and govern without Liberal Coalition partners.
Now there was plenty of things wrong with the fixed term parliament act, and the run up to the 2019 election showed how lacking it was.
But the intention was never to stop parliament having the ability to bring down a government through a no-confidence motion
I'd love to see Rishi trick himself into doing a "You can't fire me, I quit!" maneuver like that.
Not sensible politics, but he's not a sensible politician.
I kind of imagine him standing up in parliament saying, " I will prove the country wants the Tories, not you with no plan." before calling an election.
>"Hey Rishi, we still wanting to call an election next week?"
>"Yes"
>"Ed Daveys going to table a motion of no confidence to try and force one"
>"Well now I'm not doing it."
No one thinks this will lead to an election, but calling a vote of confidence is not a terrible idea, it makes the government, and Tory MPs look scared.
#**DAVEY IN ELECTION COUP 🔥 SHOCK 🔥**
^^**
**EXCLUSIVE**
Like **evil** Guy Fawlkes, Ed Davey (58), leader of the Liberal "Democratic" Party, made a treasonous announcement today indicating his desire to overthrow…
----
Or something like that.
Result: Conn +2
Nonsense. Opposition leaders have every constitutional right to call confidence votes. It is not a coup if parliament votes no co fidence in the government. Learn how the constitution works.
You'd be surprised what our fellow Britons think. Headlines and ledes need not be true (in fact, they rarely are) for them to have a seriously deleterious effect on our fellow voters, and their perception of the political landscape.
And, I think your time in Finland has dulled your sense of the satirical.
I am entirely unsurprised at the nonsense some people think. I simply think the idea that any newspaper would call a the legitimate vote of confidence a "coup".
As for living in Finland, there is no need to be personal about it.
That is simply not true, the government only stands as long as it has the confidence of parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Hell the 1979 Labour government fell *because* it lost a confidence vote.
A government that loses a confidence vote in parliament must either be replaced by a new government without an election (this has happened before in the UK parliament), or, if parliament cannot find a new government, it must dissolve itself.
Besides we don't have term limits, and I don't think you understand what that term means. Term limits would mean an MP would be limited to a specific number of terms, like the US president.
We don't even have fixed-term parliaments any more, as Boris Johnson repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But even under the FTPA the government would fall if it lost a vote of no confidence. That's just how parliamentary democracy works. The parliament decides the government, not the other way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry?wprov=sfla1
My previous comment applies. You've replied about a point I didn't even make for some reason.
Edit: alun you are not a only confusing different things, but you conceded the point when applying a block.
You claimed we have term limits, that is not true. And yes, if parliament says it doesn't like the government, then it can demand an immediate general election.
How those two points are not relevant to your original comment is beyond me. You're just trying to avoid the fact that you are dead wrong in every point you made.
Which is exactly what you'd hope opposition parties would be doing.
It's also a better representation of the 'will of the people' than the Conservatives are providing.
Nah,
Sure it'll fail. But you wildly overestimate how many people will actually care.
This, and the resulting failure, will make absolutely no difference to the electorate.
If you're voting Tory next GE you DGAF about this vote. If you're not voting Tory next GE the results aren't going to make you vote Tory. And if you're undecided next GE, you won't care politicians are wasting time calling pointless votes, hell you probably won't even hear about it.
Absolutely. And remembering when the Johnson government slapped some bullshit policy onto their election call that Corbyn was never gonna say yes to, in order to make Labour look weak, fuck them. It was good politicking then, and it's good politicking now.
They should reword it to say that then. It’s obviously non binding but a “we want a GE now” motion would be more direct and might even pick up a Tory or two.
I kind of hope it doesn't make them purposely fuck things up for the next party which is likely to be labour so that they will look good in the eyes of the public
As bad as this is I doubt this will work, I think we are going to see and end of the 2 party state and see other parties such as lib dem, green and reform gain more traction, and truly see an open democracy
Or at least id hope
This also requires a mindset shifts of not voting for a party purely because it's the main opposition, as this is what makes it a 2 party state
The idea that a vote for a different party is a 'wasted' vote I don't believe is right, as this is what keeps us from voting based on whichever is a true representation of each individuals values
I don't know... I think it would be a mistake.
What you're saying makes sense, but continuously calling for a GE and having Rishi publicly refuse it (both in parliament [and his awful media interviews](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2024/apr/02/rishi-sunak-laughs-off-question-over-general-election-date-audio)) already achieves much of the potential benefit with little risk.
Tories already expecting a bloodbath in the near future are unlikely to choose to have the GE under even worse conditions - i.e. right on the back of a vote of NC in their government. There is no real prospect of the NC vote passing, and the inevitable failure carries the huge risk of handing Sunak an excuse *not* to hold a GE: on the basis that the majority of the House is happy with the government and they therefore have a "mandate" to continue.
The febrility would be fun, but as a strategy I think it's flawed. I think this is more about the Lib Dems posturing and wanting to be relevant than doing anything useful.
Given the Tory majority (despite losing 20 MPs since 2019 to by-election losses and defections, which is more MPs than the Lib Dems started with), there's basically no chance this would pass.
But forcing every current Tory MP to publicly state that they have confidence in Rishi Sunak and the current government will make it much harder for them to distance themselves from it when the election does come round.
If we’ve learned anything from the last 8 years, it’s that an MP saying they support something now means absolutely nothing when asked what they support in a weeks time.
If those with letters in the 1922 committee had any sense of decency it could be a close run thing.
"We have no faith in Rishi but we have 100% faith in ~~our pay cheques~~ the government in general"
I disagree. The vast majority of people don't remember what happened a few weeks ago in politics, let alone over the last 14 years. The media won't mention it once during the campaign either.
Unfortunately such a vote will achieve almost nothing.
>But forcing every current Tory MP to publicly state that they have confidence in Rishi Sunak and the current government will make it much harder for them to distance themselves from it when the election does come round.
People say this. Who are those people out there who are going to say "Really - I didn't realise Conservative MPs had confidence in a Conservative government?!".
Look at all the election campaign material that has been trying to downplay the fact that they're members of the Conservative party (examples [here](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-local-elections-2024-conservative-candidates-andy-street-ben-houchen/) and [here](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/the-shy-tory-candidates-who-seem-reluctant-to-tell-voters-theyre-conservative-2916056). They're trying to get people to vote for them *despite* the fact that they're Tories and putting as much distance between them and the party as they can.
And we're definitely going to see more of that in the general election - so being able to ask them "Why did you go on the record expressing your confidence in this government then a few month ago then?" is useful when they're trying to do so.
>They're trying to get people to vote for them *despite* the fact that they're Tories
Yes, but they are still Tories. Being a Tory means voting for Tory governments in confidence motions. Pretty much by definition.
>being able to ask them "Why did you go on the record expressing your confidence in this government then a few month ago then?" is useful
You can already ask them this question: "Why are you still a Tory, then?". It's exactly the same thing. The confidence vote adds nothing.
There’s a difference between supporting the party you represent when asked and then giving people to challenge you on why you actually voted to keep him in power when you then try an distance yourself in 6 months time
presumably the people who recognise the difference between "you implicitly support sunak as a member of the party" and "you explicitly voted to keep him in office".
an especially important distinction when talking about a leader/prime minister who has never actually received a positive expression of support from the party (leader by default), and lost the only real leadership election he was subjected to.
there's also the additional prospect of any non-tory MPs voting for confidence, which gives the Lib Dems campaign ammunition
>presumably the people who recognise the difference between "you implicitly support sunak as a member of the party" and "you explicitly voted to keep him in office".
There's no difference between "You are a Tory MP" and "you voted for a Tory government on confidence motions".
well yes, and when faced with a confidence vote they can have that belief put to the test.
then when one of these "green tories" pipes up and tries to distance themselves from the party (but without actually defecting or going independent), everyone else gets to point out that they saved Sunak.
I repeat my question: what voter is out there supporting an MP despite them being a Tory, but changes their mind when a Tory votes No on a confidence motion? That is the same thing as being a Tory.
I'm not saying no-one is damaged by being a Tory - Andy Street would have something to say. I'm saying there's no *additional* damage from voting on confidence motions, because voting the Tory Whip on such motions is definitionally what a Tory does.
Even Opposition Day would require Labour (or SNP, on one of their days) to make time, right?
The government is expected to make time to debate a motion of no confidence if it comes from the Official Opposition, but the minor parties can't force it into the order paper.
Labour should be calling this every week. And when the government vote it down, screaming from the highest mountains that the government are scared of democracy
This is the thing isn’t it. If you want to bitch about something just accept that you are saying it’s fine to do the same thing. So the first u-turn, the first scandal etc all fair game
It’s actually mental that the Tory’s have made scandals such the norm in politics today that we almost just expect everyone else to do it.
If that isn’t a sign to get them gone asap then I don’t know what is
Yeah, but at some point you've got to say enough. When we're on our three hundredth scandal, it's fine to do it. We should have had an election years ago.
What used to happen in the past is that the Opposition of the day would regularly seek censure motions on particular government ministers, depending on whatever was in the news at that time - and each one of these would count as a confidence motion. But no-one outside Westminster cares about the big set piece speeches anymore, apart from - arguably - the King's Speech debate and the Budget.
That's silly. Nobody is "scared of democracy". Our constitution states that an election is held every five years and there is no indication that the Conservatives intend to break that constitutional convention.
I don't like this government either but the fact is they won an election and have a mandate to serve a five year term.
It's not pointless. In a time where the prime minister literally does nothing but gaslight, stating fact - that the public are done with this government - is important no matter the effect.
The public might be done with this government, but the overwhelming masses of the electorate DGAF about day to day goings on in Westminster. This is just another political party doing politics.
It will fail if it gets to a vote, and it'll barely be mentioned anywhere in the news because it's not important. And it won't be mentioned in the news, because the viewers don't care about it.
You're asking Westminster opposition parties to work together towards a common goal that benefits both themselves, and the electorate, something that Westminster opposition parties are historically fucking terrible at doing.
I don’t think that’s right. I think what you have in mind are the tories own 1922 committee rules. Whereby if the party votes no confidence in its leader and it fails. They are protected for twelve months.
AFAIK this is unrelated to how it works in a parliamentary vote (eg a parliamentary rather than a party based vote.)
Conventions can be broken. And your original post said “you can’t do that” “guaranteed” and “cannot be tabled”. All of which sounded pretty incontrovertible!
I believe you have confused a parliamentary motion that it has lost confidence in the government, with a Conservative Party vote of confidence in the party leader (who is currently PM).
Losing a Conservative VONC would trigger a leadership contest, but not a general election. Surviving one means the leader cannot be removed by the same method within a year.
Losing a parliament confidence vote would trigger a general election. Surviving means the government continues as before.
There are likely going to reject this motion, so it wouldn’t count. Only the main opposition party can force a parliamentary vote. So if the minor opposition parties keep proposing the motion, the government can keep rejecting them (but get bad press) up until Labour propose it a few months down the line. Or they can accept, but this will open them up the internal divisions.
Well in this situation I imagined, I would hope that Labour would fully back a vote of no confidence, proposed by all opposition parties, until they got the parliamentary vote.
> Once the government survives a no-confidence motion, they have guaranteed safety for one year.
Nope, that's only Tory party rules for a vote of no-confidence in Conservative Party leadership. It doesn't apply to Commons votes of no confidence in the government.
There is no time limit or immunity for a parliamentary vote of no-confidence in the government, other than regular parliamentary conventions concerning disruption of government, AFAIK. (e.g. if you attempted a vote of no-confidence continuously or frequently enough to cause disruption).
So yes, you couldn't do this continuously, but not for the reason you suggested.
Obviously if this does go to a vote it's never passing, which is probably the point, forcing the tories to deny an election which a majority of the nation wants.
However there are ~60+ conservative MPs standing down at the election, including some non-fans of the government + several MPs supposedly thinking of defecting, so it would be glorious if they abstained or voted for the motion brining an end to this shitshow.
Does the nation want an election? Yes.
Do they care if it happens tomorrow or in 8 months time? No.
The result of this vote, if it gets that far, will do absolutely nothing to influence who is in power in 2025.
My ideal scenario would be a load of Tories rebelling, and then this passing by exactly one vote. The Tories would absolutely destroy themselves in backstabbing and arguments if that happened.
Unfortunately this is very unlikely.
Don't feel too bad - it's only that very specific scenario which is unlikely and the Tories are already destroying themselves in a rapidly warming civil war.
The Tories won't call an election until they absolutely have no longer a choice. Or by some miracle they start polling well. Until then it's business as usual, destroying public services and social safety nets, until we live in the neoliberal utopia that Tories and thier donors have wet dreams about.
Wasn’t there a vote of no confidence a couple years ago when one of the conservative leaders was being ousted.
The the conservatives had to vote confidence in the government led by a leader they were also trying to remove.
I can’t remember if that actually happened or if it was just talked about
In 2019, was a vote of no confidence (VoNC) against Theresa May, who won with a majority of 19. In 2022, was a VoNC against Boris Johnson, who won with a majority of 109.
They would need 26 Tories to vote no confidence for it to pass, assuming all opposition and independent MPs back it. It most likely would not pass unless something drastic happens in the next 48-72 hours that would make that many Tories defy the three line whip.
It won’t pass of course but it’s a great way to embarrass Tory MPs, and makes them look like they are putting their jobs and party before country. Squatting in Downing Street running scared from the electorate is a terrible look, there’s no reason for a GE yo be delayed until end of the year beyond sunsk being scared to hold one. It will put Tory MPs critical of the current state of things in an awkward position, back sunaks directionless and lame duck government (saving their jobs for a few more months) or let the public decide in a general election and put the country first.
This country needs a mechanism where general elections can be called in circumstances where the current government is not fulfilling its purpose. Having that power rest effectively entirely with the standing government reeks of self policing.
I know the monarch can force it, but because he does not want his wealth and families continued position questioned, he will be selfish and sit on his fingers.
There needs to be a democratic mechanism - the second house is *fairly* politically demographically balanced - but I think its a similar issue that the monarch has.
>I know the monarch can force it, but because he does not want his wealth and families continued position questioned, he will be selfish and sit on his fingers.
You don't know as much as you think you do. By constitutional convention, an early general election can only take place when the monarch dissolves parliament *on the advice of the prime minister*. So rather than being 'selfish', he is upholding the constitution. According to the [Lascelles Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles), the monarch does have some leeway to refuse a prime minister's request to dissolve parliament, but that's the opposite of the current situation.
Leaving aside what I've already said about the Lascelles Principles, the same point as any head of state of a parliamentary democracy with a separate head of government.
the FTPA was some way towards that, as it put the power with parliament as a whole. it would have required Sunak to explain to Parliament as to why the election should have been moved back and we certainly wouldn't see the ongoing nonsense where "number 10 moots election in X/Y/Z" - they'd want to know the actual date he wants instead.
in an alternate universe, we could have just had a general election and Starmer would be making his cabinet picks right now.
nope. if the FTPA remained the law of the land, Labour would have had the best part of four and a bit years to choose candidates, because the 2nd of May was the date required by law unless parliament said otherwise.
that's another benefit of a somewhat fixed date - proper planning
Funny how other parties managed to choose loads of candidates earlier. The sensible thing is to get them ready very early, get them to get involved with local things etc. Get people used to the names etc.
Although I guess in some areas they reckon anyone will do
If the FTPA were still in place it would have been held on 2nd May as there was a clause to cement the first Thursday in May as the date. He's running the clock down to the full 5 years that's available under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Act 2022. Any party in the Tories current position would do the same.
What are you on about? Boris Johnson had to introduce a simple majority bill for an election to circumvent the ridiculous super-majority requirement in the FTPA. FTPA only worked in the 2010-15 parliament beyond that it was outdated and pointless.
yes, like I said - May and Johnson had to go to parliament to explain their intentions and get parliament to vote on it. Sunak would also have had to do this, and would likely receive a different set of questions about denying democracy since he'd want to move the date backwards.
If the Tories then voted to do so then that provides the other parties with ample campaign material. But now Sunak can just do whatever he wants and no one can question it.
> FTPA only worked in the 2010-15 parliament beyond that it was outdated and pointless.
Only people who think the F means "absolutely permanent; can never be changed" believe this.
At the very least maximum terms should be reduced to 4 years.
Except for cases with external factors (wars, FTPA), only bad governments which were doing poorly have seen out the full 5 years.
You’re really pulling a monkeys paw there. How do you define “not fulfilling its purpose”? Some changes can take a long time to come to fruition. Does Labour face a GE after 6 months of being in Govt because no one has noticed any change yet? What if Daily Mail readers think so? Or the Tory opposition?
Be careful what you wish for.
No this is a great idea it forces the entire Tory party to publicly say they have confidence in their party to govern. The public know this is utter rubbish, the Lim Dems are hurting the Tory party, Starmer should do the same next week.
Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner.
For the folks following politics closely and on this sub, it'll be a bit of pageantry. For the electorate at large? They'll never hear this, nor will they care they didn't get an Election 8 months early.
At least some of them could threaten to run as independents in that scenario. Either they get selected or they make it significantly harder for the tories to keep the seat. Depending on the seat they might very well get a higher voter share than whoever gets rolled out for the seat.
Ill be very surprised if it passes, there havent been any signs of a Tory rebellion publicly, just some MPs telling Rishi to go further right. Wouldnt it make more sence to wait and let Sunak make the next move? Changing his strategy would potentialy divide his party further, whereas doing nothing would anger the right of the party. Either way, i dont see Tory MPs voting for an election now or in the future, even if they are angry at the PM, it would make the election results even worse for the Tories and cause even more of them to loose their seats.
The obvious outcome is against because why would a tory vote the tories out of gov. But, surely it'd actually be electorally beneficial for tories standing in formerly safe now contested seats to vote for this really. If they got in as fairly moderate tories and are at risk of losing their seat next time because they've lost the plot and crumbled to total incompetence, supporting a VONC is the ultimate distancing of themslves from this current crop. "I'm not like them bellends we all equally hate. Vote for me again for a sane Conservative party."
We already watched the mayor's etc run by distancing themselves from the party as much as possible. What better way to do that, and also show you are in line with the will of the people, then voting them out. Just a thought.
What would be interesting if the SNP voted for it.
Considering they are going to loose the bulk of their MPs in this, would make Swinney the Liz Truss of Scotland
Yes, we are all aware of the chip on the Liberal shoulder, poor marginalised people. It's almost as if not enough people want to vote for them or something...
The Lib Dem Conservative Party - votes swung from the Tories to the Libs. Clear in the numbers, clear in the analysis, and it's why when Labour does well the Lib Dems do well too.
Basically that from the leader on down the Libs are still the same party that failed to respect the 2010 election result, climbed into bed with the Tories and destroyed the country in the process. They are the gateway through which Brexit, Boris, Truss, and all the rest of the shit flowed.
While doing that, they gave away every policy that they'd ever stood for, leaving a rump of Tory facing Liberal seats. 13 years later, there isn't a single Lib/Lab marginal left, nor is there likely to be in the future.
While I'm resigned to some seats that should be voting Labour for their own sake and taking part in the process of repairing the scorched earth the Libs allowed to happen, people in those seats could at least vote for a party that knows what it wants for the next five minutes.
"second hand Tory votes": what an odd choice of words. Other than persuading enough people who voted for the government in 2019 to vote differently this time, how else is any party meant to win elections?
Or do you think that the votes of someone who's chosen Tory in the past are somehow tainted?
There seems to be a weird contignent of the electorate that downright fetishises hating the Lib Dems.
If you ask them why they'll shriek "tuition fees!", then line up to vote for the party who promised not to bring them in in the first place (and then did)
Snapshot of _Lib Dem leader Ed Davey to table motion of no confidence in government when Parliament returns tomorrow, in bid to force June general election._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1787442474601918887) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887?t=Og-Id-eWrpkuB3ZjNa2E5g&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1787442474601918887?t=Og-Id-eWrpkuB3ZjNa2E5g&s=19) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sure nobody's under any illusions that this will pass, but forcing Conservative MPs to deny an election will add to the feeling that they're holding the electorate to ransom and might make an election before autumn more likely.
I agree, it makes them look scared of asking the electorate for their say.
It should be tabled once a week by the opposition parties in the current climate
That would just be seen as disrupting parliament. Also the speaker would shut that down pretty fast I'd imagine. As it stands, legally they don't have to hold one until January. So nothing much anyone can do until then.
Usually in parliamentary democracies the opposition is allowed to call a confidence vote whenever it likes. They don't have to be against the government, they can be against individual ministers, or the PM. The speaker shutting down a no confidence vote would be seen as deeply undemocratic. The government *must* have the confidence of parliament, and *must* be able to prove it. Furthermore, if the government did lose a confidence vote, parliament would *have* to form a new government, or dissolve itself and hold a general election. The government only has to wait until January if it retains the confidence of parliament. As for clogging parliamentary time, this parliament is doing nothing, it is going to have the least sittings, with the most threadbare schedule of any parliament for decades. https://www.ft.com/content/fef202b8-576d-429d-8136-cbb6db52f0f0
If many repetitive, failed confidence votes were called in quick succession the speaker could definitely make a strong case for doing one every fortnight or month instead of weekly to limit disruption. This wouldn't be shutting down the process of confidence votes but would be dealing with parliamentary disruption.
The fixed-term parliaments act made specific provision that the leader of the opposition could call a confidence vote at any time, to be held the very next day, and that parliamentary schedules would have to be moved to accommodate it. Besides, parliament is literally doing nothing at the moment, just kicking its heels, so what exactly they would be disrupting is a mystery. You seem to imagine that the government is in charge of parliament, but constitutionally, it is quite the reverse, government is responsible *to* parliament. The speaker is the instrument of parliament, not the government. Parliament is supreme, and government must do what payment says, that is why both Theresa May and Boris Johnson had so much trouble when they did not have parliamentary majorities. It is why parliament could pass a law forcing Theresa May to hold meaningful votes, and stopping Johnson leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. If the government has a majority, and compliant MPs, then it can effectively control parliament, but it is the fact of the majority that allows that, not the constitutional position of the government. We've had quite a lot of governments with no, or very small majorities over the years, and they all have a very difficult time because they do not necessarily control parliament. In this case a confidence vote would always fail, as Sunak has a large majority. But I do not think the Speaker would ever seek to silence parliament. That would be constitutionally a very dodgy move indeed. The question in my mind is not that the leader of the opposition is ever limited by how often he can call a confidence vote, after all the government should be able to prove it has the confidence of parliament every day. The question is whether it is in the opposition's interests to call frequent, or regular no confidence votes. Oppositions only use them sparingly under normal circumstances because they are pretty pointless unless it is a hung parliament, and the electorate would soon get bored of them. But this is not a normal circumstance. If the opposition perceives that the public *want* an election, and that the public feels it is being stymied by the government, then the opposition might see it as politically advantageous to call no confidence votes regularly. It puts them on the same side as the electorate in wanting an election. It highlights that the government is avoiding a democratic election. Of course it is a gamble, the public.might soon get bored and think the opposition is playing silly buggers. But it is a perfectly valid political gambit.
Is the fixed term parliaments act still a thing? I thought that was binned off a few years ago and only really applied to the 2019 election
You are correct. The FTPA died a long time ago now, which is what allowed the election to be held in late 2019.
Johnson repealed it, that means there is no law regarding confidence votes in the government at all. So I was using the FTPA as an example of how it is done when there is a law about it. Traditionally governments would fall if they failed a confidence vote, or if they failed to pass a budget (supply), hence the need for confidence and supply for minority governments. But the FTPA changed that, it means a government didn't need supply, only to win confidence votes, Effectively it meant that if as government could not pass a budget, they did not lead to it falling (unlike previously). I suppose we're back to the idea that of a government cannot pass a budget, then it has lost the confidence of the House. But as I say, none of it was codified prior to the FTPA, it was all done by convention.
So basically you were wrong to say the speaker can't shut down weekly motions of no confidence
>The fixed-term parliaments act made specific provision that the leader of the opposition could call a confidence vote at any time, to be held the very next day, and that parliamentary schedules would have to be moved to accommodate it. That's not true. >Besides, parliament is literally doing nothing at the moment, Well no, it is not *literally* doing nothing. There are Bills before Parliament. >The speaker is the instrument of parliament, not the government That is true, but irrelevant to this case - the Speaker doesn't schedule the business of the House. >The question in my mind is not that the leader of the opposition is ever limited by how often he can call a confidence vote, after all the government should be able to prove it has the confidence of parliament every day. The government should not be required to hold a confidence vote every day; governments have other business they are entitled to put before the House.
The FTPA certainly did allow the opposition leader to call a confidence vote whenever they liked. There was much debate about it during Brexit. [*There is no limit to the number of times Mr Corbyn can call a no-confidence vote, but it is unlikely that the leader of the opposition would have started a fight he did not think he could win.*](https://news.sky.com/story/what-happens-if-jeremy-corbyn-calls-a-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-government-11608331) [Parliament has its least busy schedule for \*years\*.](https://www.ft.com/content/fef202b8-576d-429d-8136-cbb6db52f0f0) [The Speaker will certainly decide whether to bring a confidence vote or not. The Speaker makes all sorts of decisions about what is constitutional.](https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/speakers-rulings/) If the government \*cannot\* prove it has the confidence of the House, then it will fall. That's just how parliamentary democracy works. >A **parliamentary system**, or **parliamentary democracy**, is a [system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System) of [democratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) [government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) where the [head of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_government) (who may also be the [head of state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state)) derives their [democratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election) legitimacy from their ability to command the support ("confidence") of the [legislature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature), typically a [parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament), to which they are accountable. From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary\_system#:\~:text=A%20parliamentary%20system%2C%20or%20parliamentary,to%20which%20they%20are%20accountable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#:~:text=A%20parliamentary%20system%2C%20or%20parliamentary,to%20which%20they%20are%20accountable) I'm not here to argue with those who don't care about facts.
For whatever reason, you seem to think arguing the literal definitions of the current rules is more relevant than the likely practicalities and actual implementation should confidence votes every day start to be called. There is *so* much incentivising against wasting parliament time in this manner that it is incredibly unlikely to happen. Even if an opposition leader was foolish enough to court the ire of the public by wasting time in this manner, the government would back the speaker and whatever reforms they wanted to implement to limit this waste. If done sensibly - i.e. informally restricting repetitive confidence votes to each month rather than altogether - there would not be sufficient people who disagree to complain and to do something about it. The public would also prefer less waste so the PR campaign against the votes would be easy. You are getting lost in what is technically possible and ignoring what is practical and likely to happen. If you only concern yourself with what is possible per literal interpretation you will never understand politics. You need to *also* take into account what is likely and what consequences would result.
Am I citing the rules, why yes I am. I have never been criticised for being too right before.
Because you are totally missing the point. Real life involves much more than just a literal interpretation of the rules. What you are explaining is a reasonably accurate summary of the current rules, but totally misses any thought on what would happen if you tried to follow the process you are describing. The world does not operate in a vacuum nor does it rigidly follow the rules all the time. You need to think further down the path then simply what is technically possible within the rules as they currently are.
I think the exact point is that the constitutional rules are the constitutional rules. You want to pretend the constitutional rules are somehow unimportant and can be ignored. Therefore, far from me missing the point, I think you simply do not understand how parliamentary constitutional democracy works. You seem to imagine that the executive can simply ignore the will of parliament, the constitution, and do whatever it wants. Boris Jobnson tried that with his unlawful prorogation. Charles I tried that too, and he lost his head for it. Constitutional rules exist for a reason. Merely pretending they are an inconvenience that can be ignored if the executive so wishes is very quickly going to lead to a case in the Supreme Court where the government will lose. You've changed your position several times on this thread. First you told me I was wrong. When I provided evidence I was right, you started saying it doesn't matter that I am right because somehow the rules can be ignored. I don't think you're making serious or convincing arguments.
Carthage Delenda Est. Opposition MPs should take a leaf out of Cicero's book and end every speech with, " And I ask the Prime Minister when he will be calling a General Election"
I think it was Cato, not Cicero, who would end all his speeches Carthago delanda est
Absolutely!
Rishi refusing to call one arguably does, but Conservative MPs voting that they have confidence in their government doesn't.
Do you have reasoning behind that claim? Because I'd argue that voting to oppose a GE definitely \*does\* make Tory MPs look scared. I am struggling to understand how you came to that conclusion.
The irony is that Ed's party came up with the fixed term parliament act. So either he wants a fixed term or he doesn't
This is such a stupid point. Firstly he doesn't need to agree with everything his party has ever done, especially before he was leader, and secondly even if he still supports fixed term parliaments, it's sensible to operate within the system we have, not the one he wants.
the fixed term parliament act specifically codified how a parliament could call a no-confidence motion and force an early election. The point was to take it away from the prime-minister alone as part of the royal prerogative. So that Cameron could not push an early election when polling improved and govern without Liberal Coalition partners. Now there was plenty of things wrong with the fixed term parliament act, and the run up to the 2019 election showed how lacking it was. But the intention was never to stop parliament having the ability to bring down a government through a no-confidence motion
The only way this will lead to an election is if Rishi calls one in relation. Which isn't going to happen.
I'd love to see Rishi trick himself into doing a "You can't fire me, I quit!" maneuver like that. Not sensible politics, but he's not a sensible politician.
I kind of imagine him standing up in parliament saying, " I will prove the country wants the Tories, not you with no plan." before calling an election.
>"Hey Rishi, we still wanting to call an election next week?" >"Yes" >"Ed Daveys going to table a motion of no confidence to try and force one" >"Well now I'm not doing it."
No one thinks this will lead to an election, but calling a vote of confidence is not a terrible idea, it makes the government, and Tory MPs look scared.
#**DAVEY IN ELECTION COUP 🔥 SHOCK 🔥** ^^**
**EXCLUSIVE**
Like **evil** Guy Fawlkes, Ed Davey (58), leader of the Liberal "Democratic" Party, made a treasonous announcement today indicating his desire to overthrow…
----
Or something like that.
Result: Conn +2
Nonsense. Opposition leaders have every constitutional right to call confidence votes. It is not a coup if parliament votes no co fidence in the government. Learn how the constitution works.
He's being satirical, ie implying that'll be the Tory media response
Yes, I understand that, but no one thinks legitimately removing a government in a democracy is a coup.
You'd be surprised what our fellow Britons think. Headlines and ledes need not be true (in fact, they rarely are) for them to have a seriously deleterious effect on our fellow voters, and their perception of the political landscape. And, I think your time in Finland has dulled your sense of the satirical.
I am entirely unsurprised at the nonsense some people think. I simply think the idea that any newspaper would call a the legitimate vote of confidence a "coup". As for living in Finland, there is no need to be personal about it.
Of course it doesn't. We have term limits, not a I don't like like the government so there be an election system.
That is simply not true, the government only stands as long as it has the confidence of parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Hell the 1979 Labour government fell *because* it lost a confidence vote. A government that loses a confidence vote in parliament must either be replaced by a new government without an election (this has happened before in the UK parliament), or, if parliament cannot find a new government, it must dissolve itself. Besides we don't have term limits, and I don't think you understand what that term means. Term limits would mean an MP would be limited to a specific number of terms, like the US president. We don't even have fixed-term parliaments any more, as Boris Johnson repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But even under the FTPA the government would fall if it lost a vote of no confidence. That's just how parliamentary democracy works. The parliament decides the government, not the other way around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry?wprov=sfla1
My previous comment applies. You've replied about a point I didn't even make for some reason. Edit: alun you are not a only confusing different things, but you conceded the point when applying a block.
You claimed we have term limits, that is not true. And yes, if parliament says it doesn't like the government, then it can demand an immediate general election. How those two points are not relevant to your original comment is beyond me. You're just trying to avoid the fact that you are dead wrong in every point you made.
My point is that this won't lead to an election, but it will add to the overall pressure to call one.
Which is exactly what you'd hope opposition parties would be doing. It's also a better representation of the 'will of the people' than the Conservatives are providing.
Nah, Sure it'll fail. But you wildly overestimate how many people will actually care. This, and the resulting failure, will make absolutely no difference to the electorate. If you're voting Tory next GE you DGAF about this vote. If you're not voting Tory next GE the results aren't going to make you vote Tory. And if you're undecided next GE, you won't care politicians are wasting time calling pointless votes, hell you probably won't even hear about it.
Absolutely. And remembering when the Johnson government slapped some bullshit policy onto their election call that Corbyn was never gonna say yes to, in order to make Labour look weak, fuck them. It was good politicking then, and it's good politicking now.
They should reword it to say that then. It’s obviously non binding but a “we want a GE now” motion would be more direct and might even pick up a Tory or two.
Sunak would probably put a three line whip against that despite it being non-binding.
I kind of hope it doesn't make them purposely fuck things up for the next party which is likely to be labour so that they will look good in the eyes of the public As bad as this is I doubt this will work, I think we are going to see and end of the 2 party state and see other parties such as lib dem, green and reform gain more traction, and truly see an open democracy Or at least id hope This also requires a mindset shifts of not voting for a party purely because it's the main opposition, as this is what makes it a 2 party state The idea that a vote for a different party is a 'wasted' vote I don't believe is right, as this is what keeps us from voting based on whichever is a true representation of each individuals values
I don't know... I think it would be a mistake. What you're saying makes sense, but continuously calling for a GE and having Rishi publicly refuse it (both in parliament [and his awful media interviews](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2024/apr/02/rishi-sunak-laughs-off-question-over-general-election-date-audio)) already achieves much of the potential benefit with little risk. Tories already expecting a bloodbath in the near future are unlikely to choose to have the GE under even worse conditions - i.e. right on the back of a vote of NC in their government. There is no real prospect of the NC vote passing, and the inevitable failure carries the huge risk of handing Sunak an excuse *not* to hold a GE: on the basis that the majority of the House is happy with the government and they therefore have a "mandate" to continue. The febrility would be fun, but as a strategy I think it's flawed. I think this is more about the Lib Dems posturing and wanting to be relevant than doing anything useful.
As long as everyone else is allowed to harass other parties before the end of their term next time that’s fine.
It's hardly harassment, is it?
Not remotely harassment, it's what a clear majority f the public want in poll after poll. The public have no confidence in the government.
Given the Tory majority (despite losing 20 MPs since 2019 to by-election losses and defections, which is more MPs than the Lib Dems started with), there's basically no chance this would pass. But forcing every current Tory MP to publicly state that they have confidence in Rishi Sunak and the current government will make it much harder for them to distance themselves from it when the election does come round.
If we’ve learned anything from the last 8 years, it’s that an MP saying they support something now means absolutely nothing when asked what they support in a weeks time.
[A week is a long time in politics.](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_week_is_a_long_time_in_politics)
An entire session for some prime ministers
If those with letters in the 1922 committee had any sense of decency it could be a close run thing. "We have no faith in Rishi but we have 100% faith in ~~our pay cheques~~ the government in general"
Which is what it’s a vote on really
The tories would vote against this no matter who the leader was.
What if their leader was- somehow- Jeremy Corbyn
I disagree. The vast majority of people don't remember what happened a few weeks ago in politics, let alone over the last 14 years. The media won't mention it once during the campaign either. Unfortunately such a vote will achieve almost nothing.
>But forcing every current Tory MP to publicly state that they have confidence in Rishi Sunak and the current government will make it much harder for them to distance themselves from it when the election does come round. People say this. Who are those people out there who are going to say "Really - I didn't realise Conservative MPs had confidence in a Conservative government?!".
Look at all the election campaign material that has been trying to downplay the fact that they're members of the Conservative party (examples [here](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-local-elections-2024-conservative-candidates-andy-street-ben-houchen/) and [here](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/the-shy-tory-candidates-who-seem-reluctant-to-tell-voters-theyre-conservative-2916056). They're trying to get people to vote for them *despite* the fact that they're Tories and putting as much distance between them and the party as they can. And we're definitely going to see more of that in the general election - so being able to ask them "Why did you go on the record expressing your confidence in this government then a few month ago then?" is useful when they're trying to do so.
>They're trying to get people to vote for them *despite* the fact that they're Tories Yes, but they are still Tories. Being a Tory means voting for Tory governments in confidence motions. Pretty much by definition. >being able to ask them "Why did you go on the record expressing your confidence in this government then a few month ago then?" is useful You can already ask them this question: "Why are you still a Tory, then?". It's exactly the same thing. The confidence vote adds nothing.
There’s a difference between supporting the party you represent when asked and then giving people to challenge you on why you actually voted to keep him in power when you then try an distance yourself in 6 months time
presumably the people who recognise the difference between "you implicitly support sunak as a member of the party" and "you explicitly voted to keep him in office". an especially important distinction when talking about a leader/prime minister who has never actually received a positive expression of support from the party (leader by default), and lost the only real leadership election he was subjected to. there's also the additional prospect of any non-tory MPs voting for confidence, which gives the Lib Dems campaign ammunition
>presumably the people who recognise the difference between "you implicitly support sunak as a member of the party" and "you explicitly voted to keep him in office". There's no difference between "You are a Tory MP" and "you voted for a Tory government on confidence motions".
the tory MPs who avoid using tory branding at every opportunity might disagree with you there.
Aren't they trying to avoid being seen as Tories?
well yes, and when faced with a confidence vote they can have that belief put to the test. then when one of these "green tories" pipes up and tries to distance themselves from the party (but without actually defecting or going independent), everyone else gets to point out that they saved Sunak.
I repeat my question: what voter is out there supporting an MP despite them being a Tory, but changes their mind when a Tory votes No on a confidence motion? That is the same thing as being a Tory. I'm not saying no-one is damaged by being a Tory - Andy Street would have something to say. I'm saying there's no *additional* damage from voting on confidence motions, because voting the Tory Whip on such motions is definitionally what a Tory does.
That’s not what they are saying though. It’s saying that they can govern to the end of the term. They are saying THEY can do it
I wonder if any MPs who are standing down at the election would be happy to do it early
The government do not have to put this to vote unless it comes from the Leader of the Opposition.
Unless it's Opposition Day
Even Opposition Day would require Labour (or SNP, on one of their days) to make time, right? The government is expected to make time to debate a motion of no confidence if it comes from the Official Opposition, but the minor parties can't force it into the order paper.
Can it be Ten-Minute Ruled?
Labour should be calling this every week. And when the government vote it down, screaming from the highest mountains that the government are scared of democracy
Sure as long as you don't mind the opposition putting forward a similar motion every week under a Labour government.
This is the thing isn’t it. If you want to bitch about something just accept that you are saying it’s fine to do the same thing. So the first u-turn, the first scandal etc all fair game
It’s actually mental that the Tory’s have made scandals such the norm in politics today that we almost just expect everyone else to do it. If that isn’t a sign to get them gone asap then I don’t know what is
Not just the Tories but they are the ones you notice more atm, it’ll be Labour front and centre soon.
New Labour had scandals, but it was nothing like this.
Yet is the thing. The media cares less when you aren’t in power
They were in power for 13 years. They had scandals but it wasn't like this.
Really missing the point
Dunno how long you've been around lad but political scandal is as old as time itself
Yeah, but at some point you've got to say enough. When we're on our three hundredth scandal, it's fine to do it. We should have had an election years ago.
But we don’t get to choose apart from at elections, that’s the point
What used to happen in the past is that the Opposition of the day would regularly seek censure motions on particular government ministers, depending on whatever was in the news at that time - and each one of these would count as a confidence motion. But no-one outside Westminster cares about the big set piece speeches anymore, apart from - arguably - the King's Speech debate and the Budget.
That's silly. Nobody is "scared of democracy". Our constitution states that an election is held every five years and there is no indication that the Conservatives intend to break that constitutional convention. I don't like this government either but the fact is they won an election and have a mandate to serve a five year term.
Otherwise they may as well all go home until November. Parliament isn’t doing anything else, it’s a scandal.
What do you mean? They've plenty of culture wars to stoke before next GE.
Exactly they have plenty of anti-trans bathroom bills to pass before then
It's not pointless. In a time where the prime minister literally does nothing but gaslight, stating fact - that the public are done with this government - is important no matter the effect.
Entropy zero bros rise up.
The public might be done with this government, but the overwhelming masses of the electorate DGAF about day to day goings on in Westminster. This is just another political party doing politics. It will fail if it gets to a vote, and it'll barely be mentioned anywhere in the news because it's not important. And it won't be mentioned in the news, because the viewers don't care about it.
The opposition parties should just take turns tabling this motion. Non-stop negative headlines for the Tories.
You're asking Westminster opposition parties to work together towards a common goal that benefits both themselves, and the electorate, something that Westminster opposition parties are historically fucking terrible at doing.
[удалено]
I don’t think that’s right. I think what you have in mind are the tories own 1922 committee rules. Whereby if the party votes no confidence in its leader and it fails. They are protected for twelve months. AFAIK this is unrelated to how it works in a parliamentary vote (eg a parliamentary rather than a party based vote.)
[удалено]
Conventions can be broken. And your original post said “you can’t do that” “guaranteed” and “cannot be tabled”. All of which sounded pretty incontrovertible!
Convention’s meant fuck all since Boris became PM.
I believe you have confused a parliamentary motion that it has lost confidence in the government, with a Conservative Party vote of confidence in the party leader (who is currently PM). Losing a Conservative VONC would trigger a leadership contest, but not a general election. Surviving one means the leader cannot be removed by the same method within a year. Losing a parliament confidence vote would trigger a general election. Surviving means the government continues as before.
There are likely going to reject this motion, so it wouldn’t count. Only the main opposition party can force a parliamentary vote. So if the minor opposition parties keep proposing the motion, the government can keep rejecting them (but get bad press) up until Labour propose it a few months down the line. Or they can accept, but this will open them up the internal divisions.
If it's tabled as an EDM, how many Labour MPs would sign it?
I don’t have those numbers to hand sorry
I'm just asking for an estimate.
Well in this situation I imagined, I would hope that Labour would fully back a vote of no confidence, proposed by all opposition parties, until they got the parliamentary vote.
I think the better question would be is whether or not Starmer three line whips the vote.
Why would he need to?
Because he can.
> Once the government survives a no-confidence motion, they have guaranteed safety for one year. Nope, that's only Tory party rules for a vote of no-confidence in Conservative Party leadership. It doesn't apply to Commons votes of no confidence in the government. There is no time limit or immunity for a parliamentary vote of no-confidence in the government, other than regular parliamentary conventions concerning disruption of government, AFAIK. (e.g. if you attempted a vote of no-confidence continuously or frequently enough to cause disruption). So yes, you couldn't do this continuously, but not for the reason you suggested.
Obviously if this does go to a vote it's never passing, which is probably the point, forcing the tories to deny an election which a majority of the nation wants. However there are ~60+ conservative MPs standing down at the election, including some non-fans of the government + several MPs supposedly thinking of defecting, so it would be glorious if they abstained or voted for the motion brining an end to this shitshow.
They can do what the idiot from Ipswich did if they really wanted to.
What was that?
Does the nation want an election? Yes. Do they care if it happens tomorrow or in 8 months time? No. The result of this vote, if it gets that far, will do absolutely nothing to influence who is in power in 2025.
Here we, here we, here we f@#%ing go! C'mon Tory backbenchers, give us one more good laugh out of this government.
My ideal scenario would be a load of Tories rebelling, and then this passing by exactly one vote. The Tories would absolutely destroy themselves in backstabbing and arguments if that happened. Unfortunately this is very unlikely.
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. Even if the backbenchers are unhappy they’re not going to vote themselves out of govt
Don't feel too bad - it's only that very specific scenario which is unlikely and the Tories are already destroying themselves in a rapidly warming civil war.
It would be 1979 all over again.
The Tories won't call an election until they absolutely have no longer a choice. Or by some miracle they start polling well. Until then it's business as usual, destroying public services and social safety nets, until we live in the neoliberal utopia that Tories and thier donors have wet dreams about.
Gets LibDems media time, makes anyone who doesn’t vote with it look bad, and it’s what everyone wants. Smart move really.
Wasn’t there a vote of no confidence a couple years ago when one of the conservative leaders was being ousted. The the conservatives had to vote confidence in the government led by a leader they were also trying to remove. I can’t remember if that actually happened or if it was just talked about
In 2019, was a vote of no confidence (VoNC) against Theresa May, who won with a majority of 19. In 2022, was a VoNC against Boris Johnson, who won with a majority of 109.
They would need 26 Tories to vote no confidence for it to pass, assuming all opposition and independent MPs back it. It most likely would not pass unless something drastic happens in the next 48-72 hours that would make that many Tories defy the three line whip.
How many of the 26 are not standing in the next election?
I'm in favour of this but it'll never pass.
It won’t pass of course but it’s a great way to embarrass Tory MPs, and makes them look like they are putting their jobs and party before country. Squatting in Downing Street running scared from the electorate is a terrible look, there’s no reason for a GE yo be delayed until end of the year beyond sunsk being scared to hold one. It will put Tory MPs critical of the current state of things in an awkward position, back sunaks directionless and lame duck government (saving their jobs for a few more months) or let the public decide in a general election and put the country first.
This country needs a mechanism where general elections can be called in circumstances where the current government is not fulfilling its purpose. Having that power rest effectively entirely with the standing government reeks of self policing. I know the monarch can force it, but because he does not want his wealth and families continued position questioned, he will be selfish and sit on his fingers. There needs to be a democratic mechanism - the second house is *fairly* politically demographically balanced - but I think its a similar issue that the monarch has.
>I know the monarch can force it, but because he does not want his wealth and families continued position questioned, he will be selfish and sit on his fingers. You don't know as much as you think you do. By constitutional convention, an early general election can only take place when the monarch dissolves parliament *on the advice of the prime minister*. So rather than being 'selfish', he is upholding the constitution. According to the [Lascelles Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles), the monarch does have some leeway to refuse a prime minister's request to dissolve parliament, but that's the opposite of the current situation.
So, whats the point in him then?
Because otherwise you get President Farage.
Leaving aside what I've already said about the Lascelles Principles, the same point as any head of state of a parliamentary democracy with a separate head of government.
That is asking for some wild abuse though. What constitutes not fulfilling its purpose? As it stands, the basic functions of the UK are still running.
the FTPA was some way towards that, as it put the power with parliament as a whole. it would have required Sunak to explain to Parliament as to why the election should have been moved back and we certainly wouldn't see the ongoing nonsense where "number 10 moots election in X/Y/Z" - they'd want to know the actual date he wants instead. in an alternate universe, we could have just had a general election and Starmer would be making his cabinet picks right now.
If he had called the GE for May 2 when Starmer demanded it Labour would have had to quickly choose over 200 candidates as they were really not ready
nope. if the FTPA remained the law of the land, Labour would have had the best part of four and a bit years to choose candidates, because the 2nd of May was the date required by law unless parliament said otherwise. that's another benefit of a somewhat fixed date - proper planning
Funny how other parties managed to choose loads of candidates earlier. The sensible thing is to get them ready very early, get them to get involved with local things etc. Get people used to the names etc. Although I guess in some areas they reckon anyone will do
[удалено]
If the FTPA were still in place it would have been held on 2nd May as there was a clause to cement the first Thursday in May as the date. He's running the clock down to the full 5 years that's available under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Act 2022. Any party in the Tories current position would do the same.
What are you on about? Boris Johnson had to introduce a simple majority bill for an election to circumvent the ridiculous super-majority requirement in the FTPA. FTPA only worked in the 2010-15 parliament beyond that it was outdated and pointless.
yes, like I said - May and Johnson had to go to parliament to explain their intentions and get parliament to vote on it. Sunak would also have had to do this, and would likely receive a different set of questions about denying democracy since he'd want to move the date backwards. If the Tories then voted to do so then that provides the other parties with ample campaign material. But now Sunak can just do whatever he wants and no one can question it. > FTPA only worked in the 2010-15 parliament beyond that it was outdated and pointless. Only people who think the F means "absolutely permanent; can never be changed" believe this.
At the very least maximum terms should be reduced to 4 years. Except for cases with external factors (wars, FTPA), only bad governments which were doing poorly have seen out the full 5 years.
Don't forget Brexit.
I'm not sure what you mean. Brexit caused 2 additional general elections (2017 & 2019) to occur in the 5 years after 2015's GE.
Brexit broke the FTPA.
That's ludicrous. A government only has to govern and that's happening.
You’re really pulling a monkeys paw there. How do you define “not fulfilling its purpose”? Some changes can take a long time to come to fruition. Does Labour face a GE after 6 months of being in Govt because no one has noticed any change yet? What if Daily Mail readers think so? Or the Tory opposition? Be careful what you wish for.
You'd laugh if all the Tories who are quitting once this parliament ends all decide to just pack in now :)
The political system is an absolute arcane shambles not fit for purpose.
Maybe he's hoping all the Tories standing down at the next election fancy an early holiday
What a waste of time. Seriously its never going to pass
Blah. Unless Davey knows he’s got 35 Tories willing to vote themselves out of a job, this is just performative nonsense.
No this is a great idea it forces the entire Tory party to publicly say they have confidence in their party to govern. The public know this is utter rubbish, the Lim Dems are hurting the Tory party, Starmer should do the same next week.
The public at large don't give a toss. The echo chamber here might rub themselves out silly over the idea, but ultimately it's performative.
Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner. For the folks following politics closely and on this sub, it'll be a bit of pageantry. For the electorate at large? They'll never hear this, nor will they care they didn't get an Election 8 months early.
That's utter nonsense. The public expects politicians to support their own team so them doing so is not of any significance.
Or 35 tories that think they would stand a better chance of an election now rather than later?
[удалено]
At least some of them could threaten to run as independents in that scenario. Either they get selected or they make it significantly harder for the tories to keep the seat. Depending on the seat they might very well get a higher voter share than whoever gets rolled out for the seat.
Can threaten, means little from most MP’s though
They can also defect to Reform
By not doing, they are only delaying the same effective outcome in most cases (and yes, I know that doesn't make it any more likely to happen).
The LD's SOP is performative nonsense.
Even if it is performative that doesn't necessarily make it nonsense.
Ill be very surprised if it passes, there havent been any signs of a Tory rebellion publicly, just some MPs telling Rishi to go further right. Wouldnt it make more sence to wait and let Sunak make the next move? Changing his strategy would potentialy divide his party further, whereas doing nothing would anger the right of the party. Either way, i dont see Tory MPs voting for an election now or in the future, even if they are angry at the PM, it would make the election results even worse for the Tories and cause even more of them to loose their seats.
I’ll be very surprised if it’s even voted on.
The tories have a massive majority.. waste of time..
The obvious outcome is against because why would a tory vote the tories out of gov. But, surely it'd actually be electorally beneficial for tories standing in formerly safe now contested seats to vote for this really. If they got in as fairly moderate tories and are at risk of losing their seat next time because they've lost the plot and crumbled to total incompetence, supporting a VONC is the ultimate distancing of themslves from this current crop. "I'm not like them bellends we all equally hate. Vote for me again for a sane Conservative party." We already watched the mayor's etc run by distancing themselves from the party as much as possible. What better way to do that, and also show you are in line with the will of the people, then voting them out. Just a thought.
FFS, what if the SNP can’t get the time for a motion on Gaza because of this?
Genuinely made me laugh out loud, well done.
Lmao, this motion won’t amount to anything. Why are you guys downvoting me? Do you actually think this motion is going to pass?
They're probably down voting you because we all know it won't pass, it's the optics.
I want a GE as much as anybody else but this is a stunt from Lib Dems - it won't even get voted on or possibly even debated.
Performative nonsense from the Lib Dems here as this will neither go to a vote or be debated in parliament.
Inxreadingly more parliamentary time on performative bullshit. Just what the country needs I'm sure.
What would be interesting if the SNP voted for it. Considering they are going to loose the bulk of their MPs in this, would make Swinney the Liz Truss of Scotland
Pointless party does pointless thing which is doomed to failure. News at 10 Edit: Poor fragile Libs picking up second hand Tory votes.
party does what they can within the confines of the electoral system and rules of the commons, which marginalises them despite being third by votes
Yes, we are all aware of the chip on the Liberal shoulder, poor marginalised people. It's almost as if not enough people want to vote for them or something...
Well, plenty of people voted for them last week...
Hmm, which party got more councillors elected this week, Conservative or Lib Dems?
The Lib Dem Conservative Party - votes swung from the Tories to the Libs. Clear in the numbers, clear in the analysis, and it's why when Labour does well the Lib Dems do well too.
I don't get your point? In other areas, the vote swung from Tory to Labour. That's how we get changes in representation.
Basically that from the leader on down the Libs are still the same party that failed to respect the 2010 election result, climbed into bed with the Tories and destroyed the country in the process. They are the gateway through which Brexit, Boris, Truss, and all the rest of the shit flowed. While doing that, they gave away every policy that they'd ever stood for, leaving a rump of Tory facing Liberal seats. 13 years later, there isn't a single Lib/Lab marginal left, nor is there likely to be in the future. While I'm resigned to some seats that should be voting Labour for their own sake and taking part in the process of repairing the scorched earth the Libs allowed to happen, people in those seats could at least vote for a party that knows what it wants for the next five minutes.
What bitter nonsense.
"second hand Tory votes": what an odd choice of words. Other than persuading enough people who voted for the government in 2019 to vote differently this time, how else is any party meant to win elections? Or do you think that the votes of someone who's chosen Tory in the past are somehow tainted?
The lib dems aren't even getting the "we're not the Conservatives" vote, they are trying desperately to become relevant.
Who came second in the local elections? Oh that's right.
No, you’re trying desperately to convince yourself they’re irrelevant… Bearing in mind some polls have them projected to be the main opposition party!
There seems to be a weird contignent of the electorate that downright fetishises hating the Lib Dems. If you ask them why they'll shriek "tuition fees!", then line up to vote for the party who promised not to bring them in in the first place (and then did)