Is there any way for the UK Prime Minister to make a motion directly dependent on Government confidence? ...
Using audio cues to encourage good posture
Dating a Former Employee
What do you call the main part of a joke?
Is there any way for the UK Prime Minister to make a motion directly dependent on Government confidence?
また usage in a dictionary
Is it cost-effective to upgrade an old-ish Giant Escape R3 commuter bike with entry-level branded parts (wheels, drivetrain)?
How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"
Can anything be seen from the center of the Boötes void? How dark would it be?
Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?
How can I use the Python library networkx from Mathematica?
Can a party unilaterally change candidates in preparation for a General election?
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
How do I make this wiring inside cabinet safer? (Pic)
Is there such thing as an Availability Group failover trigger?
When the Haste spell ends on a creature, do attackers have advantage against that creature?
What does this Jacques Hadamard quote mean?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
How would a mousetrap for use in space work?
What does "lightly crushed" mean for cardamon pods?
Circuit to "zoom in" on mV fluctuations of a DC signal?
What do you call a floor made of glass so you can see through the floor?
Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?
Is there any way for the UK Prime Minister to make a motion directly dependent on Government confidence?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)What does 'robust political insult' mean?How was the exact time of Brexit computed?Can the prime minister resign during a no-confidence vote?Why did the UK not have any post-EU exit deals agreed prior to June 2016?What if the House of Commons votes no confidence in the Prime Minister?How long can a vote of no confidence against the prime minister be delayed or avoided?How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?Were three-line whips more (or less) common before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?
The British Parliament has rejected the Brexit bill, but it has also defeated the motion of no-confidence. Is there a mechanism in place for the PM to merge these two votes so that if you don't vote for the Brexit bill, you are automatically voting for no-confidence?
I understand that even if this were a possibility, maybe nobody would want to do it, but is it a technical possibility? Is there a system in place that allows/forbids motions to be interdependent? If so, can the merge be done solely by the Prime Minister or does it require a majority in Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament power
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
The British Parliament has rejected the Brexit bill, but it has also defeated the motion of no-confidence. Is there a mechanism in place for the PM to merge these two votes so that if you don't vote for the Brexit bill, you are automatically voting for no-confidence?
I understand that even if this were a possibility, maybe nobody would want to do it, but is it a technical possibility? Is there a system in place that allows/forbids motions to be interdependent? If so, can the merge be done solely by the Prime Minister or does it require a majority in Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament power
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The British Parliament has rejected the Brexit bill, but it has also defeated the motion of no-confidence. Is there a mechanism in place for the PM to merge these two votes so that if you don't vote for the Brexit bill, you are automatically voting for no-confidence?
I understand that even if this were a possibility, maybe nobody would want to do it, but is it a technical possibility? Is there a system in place that allows/forbids motions to be interdependent? If so, can the merge be done solely by the Prime Minister or does it require a majority in Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament power
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The British Parliament has rejected the Brexit bill, but it has also defeated the motion of no-confidence. Is there a mechanism in place for the PM to merge these two votes so that if you don't vote for the Brexit bill, you are automatically voting for no-confidence?
I understand that even if this were a possibility, maybe nobody would want to do it, but is it a technical possibility? Is there a system in place that allows/forbids motions to be interdependent? If so, can the merge be done solely by the Prime Minister or does it require a majority in Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament power
united-kingdom parliament power
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
asked 16 hours ago
truckertuckertruckertucker
545
545
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
truckertucker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Only with new legislation
The Fixed-Term Paliaments Act (2011) explicitly lays out the form that a motion of no confidence must take.
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
This could, of course, be altered by new legislation, but as it stands this is the only way a motion of no confidence can be passed.
Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the government had the ability to declare any vote a confidence issue but this is no longer the case.
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The Prime Minister could simply announce "If the government is defeated on this vote, I will immediately ask Parliament to vote for an election, and whip all my party's MPs to vote for it." It wouldn't be legally binding, but it would be politically impossible not to follow through on the promise. Of course, it would need Opposition support to get the necessary 2/3 majority of MPs to vote for an early election, but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections.
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
truckertucker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40669%2fis-there-any-way-for-the-uk-prime-minister-to-make-a-motion-directly-dependent-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Only with new legislation
The Fixed-Term Paliaments Act (2011) explicitly lays out the form that a motion of no confidence must take.
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
This could, of course, be altered by new legislation, but as it stands this is the only way a motion of no confidence can be passed.
Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the government had the ability to declare any vote a confidence issue but this is no longer the case.
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Only with new legislation
The Fixed-Term Paliaments Act (2011) explicitly lays out the form that a motion of no confidence must take.
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
This could, of course, be altered by new legislation, but as it stands this is the only way a motion of no confidence can be passed.
Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the government had the ability to declare any vote a confidence issue but this is no longer the case.
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Only with new legislation
The Fixed-Term Paliaments Act (2011) explicitly lays out the form that a motion of no confidence must take.
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
This could, of course, be altered by new legislation, but as it stands this is the only way a motion of no confidence can be passed.
Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the government had the ability to declare any vote a confidence issue but this is no longer the case.
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
Only with new legislation
The Fixed-Term Paliaments Act (2011) explicitly lays out the form that a motion of no confidence must take.
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
This could, of course, be altered by new legislation, but as it stands this is the only way a motion of no confidence can be passed.
Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the government had the ability to declare any vote a confidence issue but this is no longer the case.
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
edited 14 hours ago
Community♦
1
1
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
answered 16 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwrCoedRhyfelwr
2,55121026
2,55121026
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
Thanks! Very interesting. Do you know if this was an intentional move, to prevent joining no-confidence with other motions? Or when they were changing early election rules and enshrining the verbiage, they "accidentally" prevented interdependence with other motions? (maybe not accidentally but as unintended byproduct) I have read the wikipedia page on this Act but it doesn't mention whether there were such motivations.
– truckertucker
13 hours ago
3
3
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The act was mostly to stop the Liberal Democrats bringing down the coalition government easily. As far as I know, this was largely a side effect of taking away the government's power to simply call an election whenever they liked. It was intentional insofar as the bill was intended to more tightly control when elections could be called, but I don't think it was a specific motive for the passage of that act. (this is all somewhat speculative though)
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
The last paragraph is really important in the context of this question. +1
– Jontia
12 hours ago
10
10
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@CoedRhyfelwr It wasn't to stop the Lib Dems from bringing down the Coalition government, but to stop the Conservatives from doing so and calling an early election as soon as it seemed that they could win in their own right and ditch the Lib Dems as partners.
– Mike Scott
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
@MikeScott I think you're right - sorry about that!
– CoedRhyfelwr
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The Prime Minister could simply announce "If the government is defeated on this vote, I will immediately ask Parliament to vote for an election, and whip all my party's MPs to vote for it." It wouldn't be legally binding, but it would be politically impossible not to follow through on the promise. Of course, it would need Opposition support to get the necessary 2/3 majority of MPs to vote for an early election, but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections.
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The Prime Minister could simply announce "If the government is defeated on this vote, I will immediately ask Parliament to vote for an election, and whip all my party's MPs to vote for it." It wouldn't be legally binding, but it would be politically impossible not to follow through on the promise. Of course, it would need Opposition support to get the necessary 2/3 majority of MPs to vote for an early election, but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections.
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The Prime Minister could simply announce "If the government is defeated on this vote, I will immediately ask Parliament to vote for an election, and whip all my party's MPs to vote for it." It wouldn't be legally binding, but it would be politically impossible not to follow through on the promise. Of course, it would need Opposition support to get the necessary 2/3 majority of MPs to vote for an early election, but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections.
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
The Prime Minister could simply announce "If the government is defeated on this vote, I will immediately ask Parliament to vote for an election, and whip all my party's MPs to vote for it." It wouldn't be legally binding, but it would be politically impossible not to follow through on the promise. Of course, it would need Opposition support to get the necessary 2/3 majority of MPs to vote for an early election, but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections.
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
answered 13 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
1,20057
1,20057
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
6
6
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
The issue with that strategy is it requires the MPs to obey the whip. Lately, that is not a guarantee! The idea of tying a vote to a confidence issue was a recent attempt to make the whip stronger over the brexit meaningful votes, as there are many Tory MPs who didn't want an election, and might be willing to vote for the deal to avoid one.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
2
2
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
@truckertucker The "payroll vote" of MPs with government jobs (including unpaid ones as Parliamentary Private Secretaries) has to vote with the government or resign from their job. That's about 140 MPs, and with Opposition votes it should generally be enough for a 2/3 majority.
– Mike Scott
13 hours ago
1
1
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
Could ask queen to dissolve it?
– mega_creamery
11 hours ago
1
1
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
"but Oppositions are generally happy to have elections" - might be a poisoned chalice at the moment! :)
– Lag
10 hours ago
2
2
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
@Lag Even if the Opposition secretly wants to avoid an election, it can’t afford to look scared.
– Mike Scott
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
truckertucker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
truckertucker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
truckertucker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
truckertucker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40669%2fis-there-any-way-for-the-uk-prime-minister-to-make-a-motion-directly-dependent-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
FIY this is possible in other countries by "commitment of responsibility" e.g. in France with the [in]famous Article 49.3 of their constitution.
– Fizz
3 hours ago