• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The rules for Wednesday's no-confidence vote in Parliament

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,453
Reaction score
19,277
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From ABC News

The rules for Wednesday's no-confidence vote in Parliament


Embattled British Prime Minister Theresa May faces a perilous "no-confidence" vote in Parliament Wednesday after her plan to withdraw from the European Union suffered the biggest defeat for a government in the House of Commons in modern history.

The challenge to May's authority, also known as a censure motion, was put forward by the leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, whose goal is to trigger a new election that might bring his leftwing party to power.

May needs a majority of lawmakers to back her Wednesday evening to avoid the prospect of a fresh general election that might sweep away her Conservative Party, which is already in a precarious minority position.

If she wins a majority in Parliament, she is judged to have the confidence of the House of Commons and the measure dies. That seems the most likely outcome, given the explicit backing May has received from the Democratic Unionists, a small Northern Ireland party that has propped up her government.

COMMENT:-

Posted mostly to illustrate that, in some countries:


  1. getting rid of a "Head of Government" that no longer enjoys the support of the elected legislators is not really all that big of a deal and doesn't create any "constitutional crisis"; and
  2. it is possible to actually change governments in an orderly manner when the composition of the government no longer represents the will of the people WITHOUT having to wait some arbitrary period of time and WITHOUT having an election cycle that runs around 1,460 days long.

 
Do "the people" have a say in this, and if so, how?
 
Last night’s meaningful Brexit vote brought about the heaviest Parliamentary defeat in the democratic era.

Even after the crushing defeat over the leave deal in Parliament last night, Theresa May’s Government are still expected to have enough backing to win the no confidence vote at odds of 1/33, as opposed to 10/1 to lose.

Votes for the motion are backed to come in between 310-319 at odds of 4/7, with the UK fancied to leave the EU with No Deal before 1st April 2019 at 3/1.

Our traders are also offering odds of 11/8 on a General Election happening before the end of 2019.

Ladbrokes latest betting

Government wins no confidence vote 1/33
Government loses no confidence vote 10/1

https://news.ladbrokes.com/politics...pm-may-odds-on-to-win-no-confidence-vote.html
 
Do "the people" have a say in this, and if so, how?

If the elected representatives of "the people" are not able to cobble together a government which can function then the issue gets submitted to "the people" in the form of a General Election so that "the people" can choose a new bunch of elected representatives.

By analogy, if the US government were to shut down (yes, I know, the very concept is silly) because the Republicans/Democrats were not able to govern and the Democrats/Republicans were not able to cobble together a new government that could govern, then the whole mess would be tossed back into the laps of the American electorate for "the people" to take another run at electing a government that could actually govern.
 
Great thought but to do anything remotely like that would require several major constitutional changes, which MAY indeed come about if a sufficiently large revolution is touched off.
 
May survives the No Confidence Vote. She has a tough road ahead!

The government has survived a vote of no confidence, tabled by Labour
The motion was defeated by a 19-vote margin of 325 to 306
It comes after the Commons on Tuesday rejected Mrs May's EU withdrawal agreement
Theresa May invited other party leaders to talks in an effort to find a compromise
Jeremy Corbyn asked the PM to rule out a no-deal Brexit

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/46874049
 
Great thought but to do anything remotely like that would require several major constitutional changes,...

Indeed it would.

On the other hand, some people like chocolate while others like vanilla.

which MAY indeed come about if a sufficiently large revolution is touched off.

It would really take QUITE a "revolution" before the American people could agree to something that the Founding Fathers didn't "Originally Intend" - REGARDLESS of whether what the Founding Fathers did "Originally Intend" was still working.
 
May survives the No Confidence Vote. She has a tough road ahead!



https://www.bbc.com/news/live/46874049

Not much more difficult than an American President would have if the House and Senate were "held" by different political parties.

I suspect that the difference is that Ms. May has spent the majority of her life in "political negotiations" rather than just being rich and obnoxious.
 
Back
Top Bottom