tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post2337544894427837439..comments2024-03-28T22:32:50.562+00:00Comments on Liberal England: Six of the Best 53Jonathan Calderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730157683743989696noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-21394117559987375202010-05-15T13:11:27.910+01:002010-05-15T13:11:27.910+01:00PPS. I just read the piece you cited with approval...PPS. I just read the piece you cited with approval. You omitted the following: <br /><br />"Holmes thought. “I think this is cynical opportunism. The figure is just beneath the percentage of the coalition parties and would allow them to force an election contrary to the spirit of the fixed term rules.”<br /><br />That's certainly more pertinent than herrings. <br /><br />The truth is that to allow ANY majority to permit early dissolution is contrary to the spirit of fixed terms: a premature election should rather be permitted only when no-one can otherwise govern. And its's in the nature of such a scenario that it's no use making the exercise of that option subject to the very majority of Commons votes that isn't available for the immediate governance of the country. <br /><br />- Dave PUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08409231612078087105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-58482408098046664032010-05-15T12:21:30.430+01:002010-05-15T12:21:30.430+01:00PS. If the 55% requirement for dissolution is inde...PS. If the 55% requirement for dissolution is indeed a "red herring" as the coalition's uncritical supporters keep teliing us, then why is the government set on making an issue of it? Those who don't like the scheme didn't pick this fight, it's the two parties who conjured up this figure after it was clear that they alone were likely to be able to command such a majority. <br /><br />If it's a red herring, then the answer's simple: let the government quietly drop it. Who wants to fight over a herring? I don't, unless it's to throw it back - I'm vegetarian. <br /><br />- Dave PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-50240939536226413062010-05-15T12:12:15.222+01:002010-05-15T12:12:15.222+01:00"Let people argue about the real point of pri..."Let people argue about the real point of principle – the fixed term parliament – and consider its advantages and disadvantages – rather than focusing on a red herring."<br /><br />That's a bit like saying "let's agree that we want a government and not concern ourselves with its composition or policies". <br /><br />Many of us who favour fixed terms with some provision for interim polls simply consider the 55% requirement improper and dangerous. Why should we be urged to shut up to ease the proposal's passage for the benefit of the two governing parties? Is that liberal? Is it democratic? <br /><br />It's a bad proposal, one that uniquely favours one plausible parliamentary combination and threatens our ability to break a future parliamentary deadlock. <br /><br />If it's fixed terms we want, why allow a government with a large majority to go to the country unnecessarily just to gain seats, while denying that opportunity when no governing majority can be assembled and we most need a new poll? <br /><br />"New politics" shouldn't be about telling critics to back a foolish scheme or shut up, it should involve listening to valid criticism that's in the national interest. <br /><br />- Dave PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com