Cameron? Hm, don't care for the cut of his jib, you know!

I keep telling you all, it's the little things that give them away.  Cameron has just proposed two little things and they tell you all you need to know about his sense of propriety and tradition - formerly virtues to which at least most Conservatives bowed their heads and paid lip service.  First, he is attempting to change parliamentary rules by insisting that only a 55% vote of 'no confidence' could force a government to resign(*).  Second, he has proposed to the 1922 committee, hitherto an organisation whose membership is restricted to backbenchers only, that henceforth it includes the payroll vote of ministers and their lackeys, thus making it indistinguishable from the parliamentary party as a whole, including the government.  As I write I do not know whether the current members, many of them 'newbies' just elected, have volunteered for this mass sterilisation and emasculation.  Their decision, either way, will tell you all you need to know about them, as well!

(*) 'DM' spotted my deliberate mistake (stop sniggering at the back!) and points out that a 'no confidence' motion can be passed by the usual 51% but 55% is needed for a dissolution of parliament.  Mind you, I fail to see how a government could continue which has failed a 'no confidence' vote, so why Cameron is pushing this beats me.

 

Comments

[North Northwester]

The last provinces of Greater Europe being brought under the Reich's power.
The last planks of parliamentary sovereignty, popular representation and localism being burnt to fuel the ConDems' bonfire of our actual liberties.
Good spot as ever, DD!

[David Duff]

Thank you, 'NNW', but I prefer to think of the monstrosity (or monster) across the Channel as the New Frankish Empire.

[dearieme]

I agree that his 1922 proposal is a thoroughly bad idea. But you are factually wrong about "by insisting that only a 55% vote of 'no confidence' could force a government to resign". '50% plus one' would remain the requirement for defeat of the government by vote of confidence - the 55% requirement would be for a dissolution of parliament. It may be a lousy idea, but it ain't the lousy idea that you think it is.

[David Duff]

Thanks, 'DM', correction added.

[dearieme]

"why Cameron is pushing this beats me": allegedly it's so that the LibDems can be confident that he won't leave them in the lurch and call an election when it suits him. The point, I suppose, is that Conservatives plus, say, Ulster Unionists + any seats that the Conservatives might win at by-elections can't get near to the 55%, whereas Cons + Libdems does get there or thereabouts.