Of course you may not think that fixed-term parliaments are a good idea. But suggesting that anyone who supports moving towards a fixed-term parliament “is no democrat” is simply ridiculous.

I understand that when this was misreported by the BBC as an agreement to require a 55% majority for a vote of no confidence a lot of people thought they had found an excellent stick to beat the Lib Dems with. Unfortunately some of them aren’t willing to let go of the stick even now that misreporting has been corrected.

How are things at Railway Cuttings? “I thought my mother was a bad cook but at least her gravy used to move about!” If yours does, let your intellect follow.

Oh, come on! Be serious! An administration loses the confidence of the Commons, even because the PM refuses to drag in a dying man, and an Irish nationalist decides to “abstain in person” (that was 1979, for the innocent). Suddenly, something as significant, as terminal, as premeditated, as orchestrated by the Whips on both sides, as a formal Vote of Confidence does not require the mandate to be renewed by the people? With one bound our heroes are free?

You are pulling someone’s chain. And it’s not mine.

Anyway, what that extra-ordinary “55%”? It stinks of special pleading.

What’s special about the five-year rule? Why not four (which is nearer the average)?

Both these two provision reek to high heaven of fear of democratic mediation.

Be honest: this one is a crock.

Oh dear, oh dear, not again …

The LIb Dems (like Labour) had a manifesto commitment to bring in fixed-term parliaments. The part of the agreement you posted is simply a small step towards that, in that it would restrict the circumstances in which parliament could be dissolved prematurely. For absolutely fixed-term parliaments the threshold would be 101%, not 55%.

As discussed ad nauseam already, to be sure of taking the decision out of the hands of a prime minister with a large majority – while still allowing for premature dissolution in exceptional circumstances – it would be more sensible to have a threshold of two thirds (or more).

Any LibDem who supports this, who votes for it, who can speak for it is no democrat.

A 55% threshold might have been some sort of compromise result, but it just won't hang together.

I don't in fact believe that the Tories would have wanted 53% to avoid the risk of being sacked by the Liblabrainbow. Yes, the fixed parliament idea came from us, but its attractions to a party governing with a minority of the MPs are pretty clear!

Why did they go for 55%? That would allow a combined Tory/Lib motion for a dissolution whenever both parties wanted it, provided we retain our current combined 56% of the seats. Now of course, maybe one of our parties will want it and the other not – or vice versa – but if both want it, suddenly the fixed tem can come unfixed.

The Press will have a field day in constant speculation about it.

The issue will cause unnecessary instability.

If we do invoke it, and jointly cut and run before five years are up, imagine the flak!

What if we cut and run so as to exploit some temporary popularity, do we then get back for another full five years or what, are we then still two parties joined at the hip or what?

It’s a mad idea, and it must be changed!

Well, don’t forget that fixed-term parliaments were Lib Dem policy, but the Tories were only thinking about it.

No doubt it’s not so much a silly mistake as a hard-fought compromise. I guess the Lib Dems would have liked a higher threshold, and the Tories would have liked the threshold to be < 50% – just the say-so of the incumbent prime minister, in fact.

Incidentally, even if the Tory and Lib Dem parties had no intention of playing shenanigans with the length of a supposedly “fixed term” parliament, for sure some bright spark in the Press would point out that it was a possibility. We would suffer endless silly speculative reporting.

On reflection I think Anthony Aloysius has it about right. An overwhelming majority vote should be allowed to dissolve Parliament before the end of the five year term, to allow for the possibility of a complete political impasse for which fresh elections offer the only way out. To make sure that the dissolution cannot be forced through by the governing party / parties alone, even the winners of a substantial landslide, this needs to be a pretty high percentage threshold. I would suggest 80%.

THE 55% RULE MUST GO!

I hope you’re Chris Addison. Otherwise you’re a plagiarist who follows Chris Addison on Twitter. >:[

So much for fixed term parliaments. If the reason behind that was to stop the ruling party from deciding when to have an election for their own self-interest, is it not hypocritical for you to say that:

“we can dance a merry dance around the question of calling the election early, should it suit both parties to do so”

What else are you guys going to sell out on? Or is it not selling out but just one set of principles shown to the public and a rotten and corrupt set for private?

Madness!

The 55% rule MUST go!

The 55% relates only to the dissolution of parliament. The Tories would be in a position to block that, but there’s nothing in the agreement to prevent a no-confidence motion which would force Cameron’s resignation as prime minister.

Just come on here to take a look and have to say that as, as someone who considers himself on the right of the Conservative party, I am very pleased with the text of the agreement.

Lets get to work!

@Laura – With two big parties both advocates of nuclear power and our main argument being that the cost isn’t worth it, I suspect that it won’t be possible to prevent nuclear construction from going ahead. Ditto with Trident. Ditto with DEBill. Like much else that stinks in the deal it’s our progressive ‘friends’ in the Labour party who deserve as much blame as our coalition partners.

@Thomas: Generally, I’d agree. But in this particular case I think that the EU treaties are too technical to be decided upon by the general public.

Lib Dem Voice reserves the right not to publish comments from individuals posing as Lib Dem members. If you wish to criticise Lib Dem policy please do so as yourself (even if you use a pseudonym).