UK question: Does loss of confidence always lead to a general election?

[You kip if you want to...]

Just going through my course notes on parliamentary procedure, confidence votes and everything and my course stuff gets quite vague on one thing. Does a loss of confidence always have result in a general election?

If, for example, the Liberals lost confidence in the government, but they had a "back-up" deal with Labour on the sidelines, could Ed Miliband be automatically invited to form a government with the Liberals as the junior partner?

The government side would be 258 Labour and 57 LibDems (Government = 315), probably with the support of the SNP, Plaid, Alliance, Caroline Lucas, Sylvia Hermon and the SDLP against 306 Tories, supported by the DUP.

Of course, this'd never be viable, but i'm talking completely hypothetically.

Didn't something similar happen in Ireland in the 1990s?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Theoretically a new government could be formed, provided that it could win the confidence of the house. In practice a dissolution is more or less automatic.

[tpfkaw]

Ironically, the Lib Dems' low polling numbers are making the coalition far more stable than it would otherwise be.  (I thought it wouldn't last half a year, at the time of the original agreement).

[Hash]

Not automatically. This is what was supposed to happen in Canada in 2008: the opposition would bring down the government, inform the GG that they could form a government which could win confidence, win confidence and govern. Also, that's what happened during the King-Byng affair, where the GG got the Tories to form government and attempt to win confidence after refusing King a dissolution.

[Јas]

Didn't something similar happen in Ireland in the 1990s?

I don't think there was a motion of confidence passed against the FF-Labour government.

Albert Reynolds lost the support of Labour, and initially it seemed that FF-Labour would be able to continue under Bertie Ahern - but John Bruton (FG) came in with a better offer, FG having changed their mind on their earlier unwillingness to go into government with Democratic Left.

[Yamor]

If a suitable* amount of time has passed since the last  election, the prime minister has the choice of recommending the queen either to call new elections or to approach someone else (recommended by the prime minister) and ask him to form a government.

If it is too soon after a general election, the prime minister cannot recommend for a new election to be called.


* the time required is not defined and would depend on circumstances etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not automatically. This is what was supposed to happen in Canada in 2008: the opposition would bring down the government, inform the GG that they could form a government which could win confidence, win confidence and govern.

Why did this attempt fail, BTW ? I've heard about the coalition talks but never understood why they didn't work.

[afleitch]

IIRC there was a vote of no confidence just before the 1997 election (as the Tories had lost their majority) but an election was scheduled anyway.

[You kip if you want to...]

This is why i'm not getting how the 5-year fixed term is going to work. It implies that if the current coalition falls apart, then an alternative coalition will need to be formed to last until May 2015. Also, it binds future parliaments, which goes against the principle of our parliamentary democracy and the unwritten constitution.

[minionofmidas]

That is why they aren't tampering with what happens in case of a loss of confidence.
They are merely ending the practice of allowing prime ministers to set GE dates at will, as currently.
Of course, they are ignoring the issue of their thus effectively lengthening the term of parliament - on average that is - but otherwise it's a perfectly sensible proposal.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/fixedtermparliaments.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It doesn't bind future parliaments (or even the current one) because the rules can always be changed.

[minionofmidas]

It doesn't bind future parliaments (or even the current one) because the rules can always be changed.

That too - if you can't find a two-thirds majority to dissolve and don't want to arrange a fake loss of confidence, you could theoretically repeal the bill with a simple majority and then dissolve. But a fake confidence vote (as in Germany 1983 and 2005) would be simpler.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It doesn't bind future parliaments (or even the current one) because the rules can always be changed.

That too - if you can't find a two-thirds majority to dissolve and don't want to arrange a fake loss of confidence, you could theoretically repeal the bill with a simple majority and then dissolve. But a fake confidence vote (as in Germany 1983 and 2005) would be simpler.

In terms of this parliament, yeah. But in general you could easily get rid of it early in a parliament with little fuss.