advanced dummy throwing

OK, so first you have an MP who spends two years trolling twitter and then decides she’d rather go and live in New York than stay on as an MP for a marginal seat in Northamptonshire. Then you have the Lib Dems deciding to oppose boundary changes which would have given the Tories an extra twenty seats. This follows the Tories made a stand on ‘a matter of principle’, namely the defence of a dog’s breakfast - the current House of Lords – against the prospect of a dog’s dinner, namely a reformed House of Lords.  

Actually, it seems to be pure spite. The whole of the government’s substantive programme is a Conservative one, and all of it has been put through with Lib Dem votes. But it’s not enough to have an obedient servant; he or she must also be utterly humiliated. And if that means a bunch of seats stay with the opposition, then I suppose one must pay for one’s pleasures.

Contrast  this with actual government policy you have a weirdly perfect illustration of the saying that self-indulgence and severity towards others are the same vice. This may be the first government to actually bully itself out of office.    

Comments

[Seeds]

I have as little time for LM as any other right-thinking person, but I thought that she quit in the most honest way possible. Quitting a job is never an easy thing to do, especially not when it's going to give your boss a difficult by-election to fight.

And at least she didn't stay on like a Rotten Boroughs councillor, claiming her paycheck while telecommuting from another country. I don't know how feasible that would be for an MP, but I'm sure others would be tempted to work-to-rule while trousering their 65 grand + expenses.

[bert]

Tim Montgomerie on twitter
"Tory Cabinet minister: Everyone knows we gave LDs AV referendum for boundaries. At the earliest opportunity we must revenge Clegg's betrayal."

Pass the popcorn.

[nick s]

She was only an MP for two years, after climbing the greasy pole to become a top-tier PPC. It's decent enough of her to be honest that her marriage requires relocating across the pond, but I'd expect to see her sashay into either wingnut welfare or a job with Tina Brown at the Daily Beast.

And yeah, it sets up a tasty by-election.

[hellblazer]

tbh, I'm more interested in the discovery that revenge can be used as a verb (confirmed by checking online)

[johnf]

just a theory but she did grovel ceaselessly for Rupert, Rupert wants to stick it to Dave - a bye-election is perfect for that - and it wouldn't surprise me if a nice juicy Murdoch job or book contract is awaiting her in New York.

[Strategist]

I was wondering if Cam had decided to collapse the coalition now and gamble everything on some kind of Jubilympics/Team GB afterglow election a la Falklands factor. But no, Clegg appears to have stolen a march on the Tories whilst they're looking the other way.
I don't see how this can't mean an election between now & Christmas?
It's very good news if you hate Cameron and Osborne's guts.

[john b]

Does anyone not hate Cam and Osborne's guts? As far as I can make out, the list of enemies now includes:

* Lefties
* Labourites
* Lib Dems
* Swivel-eyed Kippers
* Right-wing Tories
* Populist Tories
* Rupert Murdoch

...while the list of friends consists of some Tory frontbenchers, plus the subset of new-intake Tory MPs who aren't going to become former MPs at the next election.

[Steve Williams]

"I don't see how this can't mean an election between now & Christmas?"

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 seems like one powerful reason.

[nick s]

it wouldn't surprise me if a nice juicy Murdoch job or book contract is awaiting her in New York.

She's blonde enough for Fox News, but probably not batshit enough, and I can't imagine her being content with something that doesn't come with a big byline.

[ajay]

Hellblazer: sure it can."I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you", Malvolio in Twelfth Night.

[NomadUK]

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 seems like one powerful reason.

If I understand it correctly, the Act still allows Parliament to vote no confidence in HMG, or to simply vote for a new election on its own. What's been removed is the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament and the Prime Minister's ability to call an election. (Rather too bad, really, as all of that maintained an element of uncertainty to the whole thing that I thought was healthy. All this American-esque fixed-term rubbish is ossifying, if you ask me.)

[ajay]

Nomad is right. Can't bind future parliaments ; at worst they can always vote to repeal the act, then hold a vote of no confidence.

[johnf]

Agree its ossifying.

[johnf]

>I can't imagine her being content with something that doesn't come with a big byline.

I was thinking of a great big juicy publishing contract. Not sure that Tina Browne - a Murdoch enemy - will be greeting her.

[john b]

The Act explicitly allows Parliament to be dissolved if a vote of no confidence is passed, so no need to repeal it. It also allows Parliament to be dissolved without a no confidence vote if 2/3 of MPs vote in favour, which I guess is aimed at no-fault ending if there's total unworkable gridlock.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is spinning the line that the Tories should expel the LDs from the coalition and move to a confidence-and-supply arrangement. Which is, erm, interesting.

[Guano]

I'm waiting to see how far the "stabbed in the back by the Lib-Dems" narrative spreads. That will give us an idea how much trouble the Conservative Party is in.

[Steve Williams]

I should have explained myself more fully, so my apologies. Of course, I know no Parliament can bind the next, and the Act has these two conditions under which dissolution can happen, which John B has summarised nicely.

Point I'm trying to make is, we're a long way from clearing those hurdles. It's in neither C's nor LD's interests to have a vote of no confidence in their own government, so no simple majority for that. And C's don't want an election when they're 10 points behind in the polls, so no 2/3 majority for a face-saving dissolution either.

The broad intent of the Act was to make five year Parliaments the rule rather than the exception, so we shouldn't be surprised that the hurdles are at least a little tricky to meet.

I agree totally that fixed-term Parliaments are ossifying, no disagreement at all on that.

[Alex]

Of course, if you really wanted to you could put down a motion of no confidence in yourself and impose a three-line whip...I think Helmut Kohl did this once, and the Winston Churchill censure motion has some similarities (as in, they reversed the whipping operation to make sure the vote actually took place, after the rebels folded).

[dsquared]

There's also the small matter that a government which can't pass its Budget has surely fallen, which might become relevant as it is in the Budget that much of the nasty stuff and wedge issues might be located.

[CMcM]

Perhaps an election before Xmas might be beyond my wildest hopes, but a re-run of the last months of the parliamentary shennanigans of the last 18 months of the Callaghan govt might be on the cards: all night sittings, MPs stretchered in from hospital to win close votes, NI members gleefully filling their parochial pork barrels in return for their votes and so on.

Or so I hope. I'll take dsquared's advice on the best available futures options on popcorn stock just in case.

[Strategist]

Interesting stuff, thanks. I was unaware of the 2/3 rule for the no confidence motion in the 2011 Fixed terms Act.

>>> the Daily Mail is spinning the line that the Tories should expel the LDs from the coalition and move to a confidence-and-supply arrangement

Maybe it's time to resurrect the idea of the Lab-LibDem-Green-Respect-SNP-Plaid-SDLP-NI Alliance Party coalition?? I make that a healthy working majority, as long as Sinn Fein don't unexpectedly show up and vote with the DUP & Tories. CMcM can give us the odds on that...

[dsquared]

I was unaware of the 2/3 rule for the no confidence motion in the 2011 Fixed terms Act

it's even a little weirder than that. Two-thirds is for a "screw the Fixed Terms Act, we want an early election" resolution - ie an early dissolution outwith a confidence motion. Vote of no confidence is just a straight majority.

[chris y]

Two-thirds is for a "screw the Fixed Terms Act, we want an early election" resolution - ie an early dissolution outwith a confidence motion. Vote of no confidence is just a straight majority.

So assuming a majority sentiment for an early election, what would ever be the point of the first option?

[Phil]

And how would it ever get used? I can imagine a particularly cynical opposition party refusing to put down (or support) a motion of no confidence and forcing the ruling party to stay in office while its popularity dropped ever lower - but in that case the ruling party wouldn't be able to get the 2/3 either.