So, under the new rules, if a government loses a vote over a major legislative item — or fails to survive a no-confidence motion — it must resign, but there need not be new elections. Instead, Parliament can refuse to order new elections and just re-form a new government out of the old Parliament.
The effect of this rule change is likely to be that governments will rise and fall all the time since they may do so without forcing members to face new elections.
Like in Italy, the new governments will just be formed by reshuffling the current parliamentary deck into new combinations and coalitions.
Whereas now, if a government falls, there is an election to decide the issue, under the new procedure, the deadlock could just go on and on without resolution.
More dangerous is the proposed new voting system that must be approved by a popular referendum. Rather than vote for one candidate for Parliament in each district, voters will be obliged to rank the candidates in their order of preference. If nobody gets a majority of first-place rankings, the candidate with the least votes drops off and his second place votes are distributed among the other remaining candidates. The Liberal/Social Democrats are pushing this change in the hopes that there may never again be a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives or Labor and that they will always hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.
And they are likely to achieve their objective if the new voting system passes. Most districts in the United Kingdom, as in the U.S., tend either to the left or to the right.
In a leftist district, for example, the Labor Party usually finishes first, the Liberal/Social Democrats second and the Conservatives third. If the Labor candidate did not win a majority of first place votes on Election Day — and they frequently don’t — the Conservative candidate will drop off and his second-place votes will determine the winner. But what Conservative voter is going to name Labor as his second choice in the polarized politics of the U.K.? Most will name the Liberal/Social Dems as their second choice, and that candidate will win the seat. In right-wing districts, the same process will happen in reverse, again to the benefit of the Liberal/Social Dems.
That means more hung parliaments, less decisive election results and more mush compromise. Together, these changes will tend to paralyze the British government, substituting muddled, mushy compromise for decisive and bold action. We will miss the old United Kingdom.
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.”
What's the problem with preferential voting? That's the way we've been doing it in Australia for several generations, and it works perfectly well – not in the alarmist way the author suggests. In fact, it is the non-preferential system which is undemocratic. It locks the electorate into a two-party system, prevents the rise of new parties, and tends to throw the election to minority candidates if there is any sort of split in a major party.
you mean gridlock …like herfein the U S ?
Britain seems to have made shooting itself in the foot something of a specialty these past few years. I must travel to Britain frequently for business reasons, and I must admit that the "British character" seems to have been reformed to eliminate "spine." This is why British businesspersons enjoy so very little trust internationally. Perhaps someone will connect a few dots eventually, but it is already too late for Britain.
Though I do not agree with the current Administrations policies; Domestic (social/economic) or Foreign (groveling), I must remind that we have shown support for Israel in overly abundant manners throughout its' history.
Many decades of wars and conflicts in the Middle East prove that this support has in no way brought peace to that region. Past presidents have tried, yet none have succeeded. Israel has always had the upper hand in any conflict. It is a true nuclear power, whereas its' opponents are impotent; militarily against this US supported and equipped military "Goliath".
Perhaps; Obama (having had more insight into the Muslim mind than any other President before him) feels that decades of one-sided support and Zillions of tax dollars later; he might take another tack on the overall situation. He will never "abandon" Israel, because Rahm and the strongest lobby in America won't let him. But if showing a tad more respect and evenhandedness in that region can bring these factions to the table again, it might be worth a shot.
It is truly sad to see this same once great country, the very same one that at one time, beat the stuffing out of the French and Spanish navies, ruled half the world, founded the great countries of the United States and Canada, held off the Nazis in WWII and gave the world the Lee-Enfield rifle fall into such a sorry state.
Here in the Republic of Ireland, we are saddled with the "Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote" system. It is far too complicated to describe here, but suffice to say that it almost always results in a coalition of parties in government. That might not be bad if the electorate had a clue as to who might end up in that government. However, the fact is that, politicians being politicians, they will cobble together any two or three parties to form a government. These entities might be left wing, right, anything that enables power to be grabbed. The ridiculous thing about it is that the SECOND most popular party is ALWAYS left out: the leading party bribes the less popular parties to join with them to form a majority – the bribes consisting of positions in the Cabinet, policies conceded, etc. One never knows who is going to end up in power, but it will certainly be the main party plus one or two the least popular ones – depending on the required numbers. At present, one of the parties with the most say in government (the Green Party) obtained only 5% of the overall vote. What a pathetic way to run a country. Great Britain, beware! Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.
The new rule can only help hasten the Islamification of Great Britain. Good bye, Great Britain!
Do you not think this is just SLIGHTLY a bit over the top? lol
Having a fixed term parliament is not the end of Britain for heaven's sake.
Who was it earlier on moaning about a spine? Pull yourself together man! This is not the end of Britain. It is the end of the PM being allowed to call a snap general election. There are fixed terms of the President and Congress/Senate in the US, its not exactly been the end of America has is it!
This change was to provide a stable government, so that neither side in the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition can ditch the other. Its hardly something to get worked over, and I voted labour!