UK Parliament / Open data

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

He immediately called the general election. My noble friend is quite right to correct me, but it amounts to the same thing. My point is that there was no negotiation. He announced the general election immediately, and the public and the parties knew where they were. Unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, can explain it to me, there is a double fault in the Government's position. Am I right in assuming, first, that the Government think that it was wrong for Jim Callaghan to go to the country when he did; and, secondly, according to other parts of the Bill, that the Government should have gone on for another six months until October 1974 without a majority to complete the five-year fixed-term period? That builds absurd rigidity into the system. I cannot see what they are trying to deal with. If the noble and learned Lord cannot answer those two specific questions about what Jim Callaghan did wrong, he ought to remove the provision. I agree with my noble friend's amendment. To distil it, it simply says, ““If a Government lose a motion of no confidence, there shall be a general election””. I would love it if someone would follow me to say, ““It is a risky, false proposition that if a Government lose a motion of no confidence, they should go to the country””. Why fiddle about with it? What on earth are the Government doing? Why do they not save us all a lot of time and energy and just withdraw the provision?
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1095 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top