Umm... UK folks, this is a *serious* problem, right?

[petulans]

Heya, folks! Long-time no-see, eh? This post is for UK folks (or for that matter other interested parties who fancy sticking their oar in - I can hardly complain what with my American Politics fixation now, can I?)

Okay, I will try to keep this brief, but I think that we have a really genuinely serious problem. I haven't been around much of the

Comments

[magic_at_mungos]

What worries me is that this Government does not have the necessary Opposition to have 55% vote of no confidence.

Yes, reason to be afraid

[anonymous]

Yup, your analysis is correct.

Here's two political scientists on the issue:

http://chrishanretty.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/05/13/the-55-solution/

and

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/05/fixed_term_parliament_the_magi.html

Currently in the midst of launching a new site that will keep an eye on this coalition-from-hell. If you want to join us, contact me on the ol' Facebook.

- Naadir
http://www.randomvariable.co.uk/

Calm down, Greg :-)

[jiggery_pokery]

I was as enraged as you about this last night and this morning, and thought you had indeed spotted something really outrageously heinous, but fortunately the situation is not nearly as bad as we had both misinterpreted. The threshold to pass a no-confidence motion still is 50% plus one seat, even if the threshold to dissolve parliament to the point of requiding a new election is 55%. If no-con passes then there's an attempt to form a new government with the seats as they are (i.e. possibly a Lab+LD coalition, or some other sort of minority government) unless a 55% majority votes to call a new election. In fact, there's even an argument for raising the threshold further from 55% to (e.g.) 2/3 as in the Scottish Assembly to give other potential governments a fair go.

The Guardian explains it here and on related documents. Thought at first you had made a hell of a spot, though...! :-)