Much Ado About Nothing?

The coalition plans to introduce primary legislation requiring 55% of MPs to vote for a dissolution. This has caused much consternation and hoo-ha, leading to claims of an undemocratic/unconstitutional "fix", but is this really the case?

Firstly, let me say I do not claim to be a constitutional lawyer or expert. Neither am I approaching this issue from a political perspective; just as a "reasonable bystander"; "the man on the Clapham omnibus".

The actual text from the Agreement entered into between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties is:

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

The Tories have 47% of the Common's votes. My understanding is that the proposal aims to protect both parties during the currency of a five year fixed term Parliament. It prevents the Lib-Dems holding the Conservatives to ransom as the smaller party could only muster a maximum of 53%. It also ensures that the Tories cannot "go it alone" as a minority Government and decide if and when to call an election. In Scotland, another coalition Government, a two thirds majority is required. However, it is claimed by some commentators that this changes our (unwritten) constitution in that a simple majority (i.e., more than 50%) is sufficient at present. For what it is worth, I find it hard to sympathise with such criticism for three reasons.

Firstly, there is the sovereignty of Parliament. As a general rule, any law can be introduced, provided due process is followed. Whilst the 55% rule is consistent with this notion, so too is a repealing Act supported by a simple Commons majority. Provided the Liberal Democrats can, along with Labour and the other parties, secure more than 50% support, what is to prevent the Houses passing an Act repealing the 55% rule?

Secondly, it is the Prime Minister who currently has the power to call a general election, not Parliament.

Finally, if the Tories lost a no confidence motion, again by a bare majority, is it not inconceivable that they would continue to limp on is such circumstances, unable to pass any of its legislation?

The upshot is that the proposal is, in my view, both well intentioned and "constitutional". Perhaps my analysis is too simplistic and/or plain wrong, but I cannot help feel it is much ado about nothing.

18/5/10