How long can a vote of no confidence against the prime minister be delayed or avoided?
A motion of no confidence in Theresa May has been tabled.
"On Monday night, he tabled a motion calling on MPs to declare they have no confidence in the prime minister" : "No 10 has refused to make time for the motion"
And regarding a vote of no confidence in the government.
"Unlike a vote aimed at the prime minister, the government would have to allow a vote on this motion and, if successful, it could force a general election."
BBC article quotes taken from
So how long can May delay such a vote of no confidence in herself?
united-kingdom parliament
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
add a comment |
A motion of no confidence in Theresa May has been tabled.
"On Monday night, he tabled a motion calling on MPs to declare they have no confidence in the prime minister" : "No 10 has refused to make time for the motion"
And regarding a vote of no confidence in the government.
"Unlike a vote aimed at the prime minister, the government would have to allow a vote on this motion and, if successful, it could force a general election."
BBC article quotes taken from
So how long can May delay such a vote of no confidence in herself?
united-kingdom parliament
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
1
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26
add a comment |
A motion of no confidence in Theresa May has been tabled.
"On Monday night, he tabled a motion calling on MPs to declare they have no confidence in the prime minister" : "No 10 has refused to make time for the motion"
And regarding a vote of no confidence in the government.
"Unlike a vote aimed at the prime minister, the government would have to allow a vote on this motion and, if successful, it could force a general election."
BBC article quotes taken from
So how long can May delay such a vote of no confidence in herself?
united-kingdom parliament
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
A motion of no confidence in Theresa May has been tabled.
"On Monday night, he tabled a motion calling on MPs to declare they have no confidence in the prime minister" : "No 10 has refused to make time for the motion"
And regarding a vote of no confidence in the government.
"Unlike a vote aimed at the prime minister, the government would have to allow a vote on this motion and, if successful, it could force a general election."
BBC article quotes taken from
So how long can May delay such a vote of no confidence in herself?
united-kingdom parliament
united-kingdom parliament
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:54
Tim
444416
444416
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
asked Dec 18 '18 at 10:01
PelinorePelinore
200110
200110
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
1
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26
add a comment |
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
1
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
1
1
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The government has no obligation to allocate any time at all to a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. There is no time limit, they can ignore it forever.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a motion of no confidence in the government, issued with specific wording, to be allocated time. The Speaker of the House will see to that. But for whatever reason Labour decided not to do that, so it's largely a symbolic gesture.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
Until the next opposition day
The scheduling of debates in the UK Houses of parliament is generally up to the government to decide. However, a certain number of days are allocated to the opposition to debate (and potentially vote on) whatever the opposition decides to schedule. Corbyn would be free to schedule time for a debate on his motion during time allocated to the opposition, and if necessary call a closure motion on the debate in order to force a vote.
(https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/9OJ0sc2d)
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
|
show 2 more comments
It is useless for the Opposition to introduce any motion, because they are by definition the opposition. They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion, so they cannot introduce a Guillotine motion to curtail debate and force a vote on their main motion! Thus opponents of the confidence motion could talk it out (a fillibuster), by continuing to debate it until it ran out of time, so that no vote on it was ever held.
So, Labour could table such a motion, could allocate it time, could even debate it; but the confidence vote will never be taken, because it needs only a single MP willing to talk it out, i.e. keep talking until no time for voting remains. Thus in practical terms the vote can be postponed forever.
Only government business falls within the guillotine powers of the government's business managers.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37211%2fhow-long-can-a-vote-of-no-confidence-against-the-prime-minister-be-delayed-or-av%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The government has no obligation to allocate any time at all to a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. There is no time limit, they can ignore it forever.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a motion of no confidence in the government, issued with specific wording, to be allocated time. The Speaker of the House will see to that. But for whatever reason Labour decided not to do that, so it's largely a symbolic gesture.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
The government has no obligation to allocate any time at all to a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. There is no time limit, they can ignore it forever.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a motion of no confidence in the government, issued with specific wording, to be allocated time. The Speaker of the House will see to that. But for whatever reason Labour decided not to do that, so it's largely a symbolic gesture.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
The government has no obligation to allocate any time at all to a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. There is no time limit, they can ignore it forever.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a motion of no confidence in the government, issued with specific wording, to be allocated time. The Speaker of the House will see to that. But for whatever reason Labour decided not to do that, so it's largely a symbolic gesture.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
The government has no obligation to allocate any time at all to a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. There is no time limit, they can ignore it forever.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a motion of no confidence in the government, issued with specific wording, to be allocated time. The Speaker of the House will see to that. But for whatever reason Labour decided not to do that, so it's largely a symbolic gesture.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
answered Dec 18 '18 at 10:21
useruser
6,88221431
6,88221431
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
4
4
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
@Pelinore it's likely an attempt to deflect criticism. The Tory party had a vote of no confidence in the PM and other opposition parties have been pointing out that Labour could but haven't. So Labour have fudged a motion that means nothing, and would definitely be ignored, so they can say that the PM is running scared or similar.
– Alex
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
1
1
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
I think more likely they did it to test the water. If there was more support for a motion of no confidence in the government they could have escalated. But the ERG and DUP didn't come on board so there was no point.
– user
Dec 18 '18 at 11:48
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
Nitpick: the FTPA doesn't require any motion to be allocated time. It's a parliamentary convention that if the Leader of the Opposition asks for a VoNC (using the words defined in the FTPA), the government will make time for it.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
No, the Labour leader did it that way because the Party Conference laid down specific rules, one being that the Party can only go ahead with a motion to call a 2nd referendum if they have first tabled, and been defeated on, a vote of no confidence in the government. The Labour leader's policy is to avoid a Referendum, so he prefers to not table a confidence vote in the government unless he is reasonably likely to win it, which he can only win with the support of the DUP. Until he can get DUP support, he is highly likely to lose, and defeat would have practical repercussions for his policy.
– Ed999
Dec 18 '18 at 16:00
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
This answer stands in stark opposition to Ty Hayes' answer which mentions an opposition day; could you explain why you do not think that the opposition day matters? Can the government infinitely delay the next opposition day?
– Matthieu M.
Dec 18 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
Until the next opposition day
The scheduling of debates in the UK Houses of parliament is generally up to the government to decide. However, a certain number of days are allocated to the opposition to debate (and potentially vote on) whatever the opposition decides to schedule. Corbyn would be free to schedule time for a debate on his motion during time allocated to the opposition, and if necessary call a closure motion on the debate in order to force a vote.
(https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/9OJ0sc2d)
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
|
show 2 more comments
Until the next opposition day
The scheduling of debates in the UK Houses of parliament is generally up to the government to decide. However, a certain number of days are allocated to the opposition to debate (and potentially vote on) whatever the opposition decides to schedule. Corbyn would be free to schedule time for a debate on his motion during time allocated to the opposition, and if necessary call a closure motion on the debate in order to force a vote.
(https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/9OJ0sc2d)
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
|
show 2 more comments
Until the next opposition day
The scheduling of debates in the UK Houses of parliament is generally up to the government to decide. However, a certain number of days are allocated to the opposition to debate (and potentially vote on) whatever the opposition decides to schedule. Corbyn would be free to schedule time for a debate on his motion during time allocated to the opposition, and if necessary call a closure motion on the debate in order to force a vote.
(https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/9OJ0sc2d)
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
Until the next opposition day
The scheduling of debates in the UK Houses of parliament is generally up to the government to decide. However, a certain number of days are allocated to the opposition to debate (and potentially vote on) whatever the opposition decides to schedule. Corbyn would be free to schedule time for a debate on his motion during time allocated to the opposition, and if necessary call a closure motion on the debate in order to force a vote.
(https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/9OJ0sc2d)
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
edited Dec 18 '18 at 11:59
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:53
Ty HayesTy Hayes
2306
2306
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
|
show 2 more comments
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
4
4
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
Note that "cloture" is the American spelling. In the UK it's typically spelled "closure".
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 11:56
6
6
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
You'd think as a native (albeit reluctant, at the moment) Brit, and the fact it was mentioned in my source, I'd get that right. Thanks for pointing it out! (Now fixed.)
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 12:00
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
Although the number of opposition days is fixed at at the start of the parliamentary session, they are scheduled by the government (source). As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing the government from postponing all remaining opposition days until the end of the session.
– user3490
Dec 18 '18 at 15:29
4
4
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
Standing order 14 of the House of Commons sets out the number of opposition days there should be in a session. Whilst you're right as far as I can tell that opposition days are announced on a weekly basis by the Leader of the House and so they could just not schedule the opposition days until the end of the session, to comply with the standing order they still would have to schedule them. As such, my answer stands - it's just that the next opposition day would be a long time away...
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 15:42
1
1
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
Would you care to guess when the next opposition day is likely to be scheduled?
– user3490
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
|
show 2 more comments
It is useless for the Opposition to introduce any motion, because they are by definition the opposition. They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion, so they cannot introduce a Guillotine motion to curtail debate and force a vote on their main motion! Thus opponents of the confidence motion could talk it out (a fillibuster), by continuing to debate it until it ran out of time, so that no vote on it was ever held.
So, Labour could table such a motion, could allocate it time, could even debate it; but the confidence vote will never be taken, because it needs only a single MP willing to talk it out, i.e. keep talking until no time for voting remains. Thus in practical terms the vote can be postponed forever.
Only government business falls within the guillotine powers of the government's business managers.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
|
show 6 more comments
It is useless for the Opposition to introduce any motion, because they are by definition the opposition. They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion, so they cannot introduce a Guillotine motion to curtail debate and force a vote on their main motion! Thus opponents of the confidence motion could talk it out (a fillibuster), by continuing to debate it until it ran out of time, so that no vote on it was ever held.
So, Labour could table such a motion, could allocate it time, could even debate it; but the confidence vote will never be taken, because it needs only a single MP willing to talk it out, i.e. keep talking until no time for voting remains. Thus in practical terms the vote can be postponed forever.
Only government business falls within the guillotine powers of the government's business managers.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
|
show 6 more comments
It is useless for the Opposition to introduce any motion, because they are by definition the opposition. They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion, so they cannot introduce a Guillotine motion to curtail debate and force a vote on their main motion! Thus opponents of the confidence motion could talk it out (a fillibuster), by continuing to debate it until it ran out of time, so that no vote on it was ever held.
So, Labour could table such a motion, could allocate it time, could even debate it; but the confidence vote will never be taken, because it needs only a single MP willing to talk it out, i.e. keep talking until no time for voting remains. Thus in practical terms the vote can be postponed forever.
Only government business falls within the guillotine powers of the government's business managers.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
It is useless for the Opposition to introduce any motion, because they are by definition the opposition. They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion, so they cannot introduce a Guillotine motion to curtail debate and force a vote on their main motion! Thus opponents of the confidence motion could talk it out (a fillibuster), by continuing to debate it until it ran out of time, so that no vote on it was ever held.
So, Labour could table such a motion, could allocate it time, could even debate it; but the confidence vote will never be taken, because it needs only a single MP willing to talk it out, i.e. keep talking until no time for voting remains. Thus in practical terms the vote can be postponed forever.
Only government business falls within the guillotine powers of the government's business managers.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
answered Dec 18 '18 at 16:13
Ed999Ed999
1435
1435
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
|
show 6 more comments
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
The MPs Guide to Procedure specifically mentions Opposition Day debates as being a common use of closure motions.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 16:50
1
1
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
I'm afraid this is wrong on at least a couple of issues: (1) "They do not have sufficient votes to pass any motion,": if all the opposition parties work together, they do have more votes than the government, though not by much. Labour is delaying probably because a VoNC requires DUP support, and that's not guaranteed yet.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:51
1
1
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
(2) I think you're confusing guillotine and closure. You're right that a guillotine is a non-starter. Closure, however: "A closure motion is a proposal that the Commons should stop debating and make a decision on the matter being discussed. It may be moved at any time during a debate if the Speaker allows it - but only once - and will only be successful if the majority in favour has at least 100 MPs."
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 16:52
3
3
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
Support the Government not the prime minister. Yes, the DUP in theory should vote against a motion of no confidence in the government, but their confidence and supply motion has no bearing on a confidence vote on an individual minister, even the prime minister, or indeed on a closure motion.
– Ty Hayes
Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
1
1
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
@Ed999: re confidence and supply: indeed, but the rumour is that, if the government cannot some reassurance from the EU about the backstop, the DUP may withdraw from the C&S agreement. If that happens, that is the point at which Labour will propose a VoNC.
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 17:26
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37211%2fhow-long-can-a-vote-of-no-confidence-against-the-prime-minister-be-delayed-or-av%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37206/…
– Steve Melnikoff
Dec 18 '18 at 10:43
Note that a vote of no confidence in the government and a vote of no confidence in the PM are not the same thing
– Richard Tingle
Dec 18 '18 at 20:11
@RichardTingle : I & the question (read it again, a bit more carefully this time perhaps) are aware of that :)
– Pelinore
Dec 18 '18 at 20:14
1
@V2Blast : Changing any quote to something other than the actual words quoted would simply be wrong, while calling a suggested edit that would change a quote into anything other than the original words "fixed quotes" is at the very least shamelessly inexact if not deliberately mischievous, so I have to reject your suggested edit, please don't do it again.
– Pelinore
Dec 19 '18 at 1:26