The 55% trick: protecting you from democracy (Guardian UK)

[marmar]

The 55% trick: protecting you from democracy
Like New Labour's attacks on civil liberties to protect us from terror, the new government protects itself in the name of 'stability'

Vikram Dodd
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 May 2010 18.30 BST


Let us start by being very charitable to the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. Those who wrote the agreement underpinning their union must have been very tired when they put pen to paper.

One has to hope so, because at first sight, the Con-Lib Dem coalition has launched an audacious attempt to gerrymander parliament's rules. On its first day.

Tiredness probably explains it, not that they were trying to take advantage of the confusion of recent days to sneak through a fixing of the rules to lessen parliament's power and protect the new government. The controversial section in the coalition agreement published yesterday comes in the seemingly bland words of paragraph six. It reads:

"This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour."

Nothing to frighten the horses there? The current rule – indeed, the convention throughout modern times – has been that a simple majority of MPs is enough to bring down a government and trigger a dissolution of parliament, the prelude to a general election. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/13/55-per-cent-coalition-rule

[T_i_B]

1. The No to 55% website

http://noto55.com/

Plenty of discussion of this in the UK forum on here as well.

[LeftishBrit]

2. k&r

[Igel]

3. Not enough info.

"This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour."

If the legislation under discussion makes for a more fractured parliament with more proportional representation, I'm not sure 55% is a high enough number. Such parliaments tend not to be so much proportional as fractious and insufficiently stable, too concerned with each party as a special interest advocating for a few to submerge their demands into government on behalf of the common good, or at least the many. They're too easily hamstrung and ineffectual, and this continual jockeying for power and coalitions breeds corruption.

Sounds good on paper. Most forms of government do--you point out all the good things about it, ignore all the bad things and voila, perfection. Most forms of government--all, actually--suck, mostly because you need to populate them with people. Gone the nice generalizations, the nice disinterested efficient technocrat or Philospher King. Instead all you get are politicians and wannabe policy cockspuds with various degrees of (or "in") schmuckitude.