tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post9018102214491671069..comments2023-11-19T17:31:49.939+00:00Comments on Bristling Badger: whoever gets in, the tories get inUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-51161238896545926472010-05-14T17:07:52.504+01:002010-05-14T17:07:52.504+01:00It'll be interesting to see precisely how they...<i>It'll be interesting to see precisely how they frame it, but I'm betting that 'serious wrongdoing' is their shield.</i><br /><br />Yeah, that would figure. Not that I'd be in the least surprised if the entire idea is quietly dropped as soon as possible... In fact, I'll be surprised if it isn't.Duncnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-91361502872337081772010-05-14T13:12:21.860+01:002010-05-14T13:12:21.860+01:00Dunc, I think you're right, I can't see an...Dunc, I think you're right, I can't see any other reason for the 55% thing.<br /><br />Additionally, I think the power of recall was an amazing proposition that they're going to dodge out of.<br /><br />They're saying that if 10% of voters in a constituency ask for it, the MP is recalled and it forces a by-election. Imagine if we'd had that in the build-up to the Iraq war. <br /><br />However, the Con-Dems are saying it's 10% and the MP has been involved in serious wrongdoing. clearly, they want to aim it at summat like a dodgy expenses claim, so ahve to have a lower threshold than 'convicted of a crime'. But conversely they don't want us to have the power if we disagree strongly over stuff like the war or the poll tax.<br /><br />It'll be interesting to see precisely how they frame it, but I'm betting that 'serious wrongdoing' is their shield.merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-48602540508221729432010-05-14T12:17:16.387+01:002010-05-14T12:17:16.387+01:00It's 55%, so that's 357.5 votes needed to ...It's 55%, so that's 357.5 votes needed to bring down the government. The Tories have 306 seats out of 650, so there are only 344 "not Tories". However you round it, you would need <i>at least</i> 13 Tories to vote against their own government to force an election. <br /><br />I'm curious as to how they came up with the 55% number... I mean, fair enough, you could probably make a reasonable argument that it should require a super-majority to bring down the government (not one that I'd agree with, but anyway...) but why that specific number? Could it be because it's close enough to 50% to not sound <i>entirely</i> unreasonable, but <i>just</i> far enough for the Tories to survive <i>every</i> other member voting against them, with some allowance for unavoidable non-attendances?Duncnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-7548338062591054042010-05-13T16:20:39.004+01:002010-05-13T16:20:39.004+01:00Dunc, they're committed to it being 55% of MPs...Dunc, they're committed to it being 55% of MPs for the confidence vote, so I think i'm right in saying the tories fall a sliver short at the mo.merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-792954126600344632010-05-13T11:49:28.474+01:002010-05-13T11:49:28.474+01:00Then again, all this banks on the Tory-LibDem coal...<i>Then again, all this banks on the Tory-LibDem coalition collapsing fairly quickly</i><br /><br />Which is the very thing that they're going to move first to prevent, with a 5-year fixed term Parliament and moving the goalposts on a confidence vote so that the Tories would win one on their own with their current minority.Duncnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-87159787716974513592010-05-12T00:54:44.275+01:002010-05-12T00:54:44.275+01:00Haven't forgotten IDS, but am DELIGHTED to see...Haven't forgotten IDS, but am DELIGHTED to see Brown go.<br /><br />The heads of the same statue change again...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com