Dissolution not confidence ...

When I was reading the deal that was agreed between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, I appear to have misunderstood what was being proposed in relation to what is becoming known as 'the 55% rule' - and I don't appear to be alone in that misunderstanding.

What is being suggested is that it is only a Government proposal to dissolve Parliament that would be subject to the 55% rule, so requiring the Government to obtain assent from at least one other party in order to dissolve Parliament and precipitate an election - the deal was silent on 'votes of no confidence' which I understand will continue to be subject to the old rule; if the Government loses such a vote by 1 vote, then the Government ought to resign and an election would be called.

I continue to have concerns about the 55% rule, but I understand why parts of the coalition would want to seek protection from the larger party deciding to seek a dissolution vote alone in circumstances where it would effectively end the deal at a time when the larger party thinks that it can take advantage of such a dissolution immediately and so reduce the scope of the Prime Minister and his party to continue to have the choice to end a Parliament early - something that is intended to be removed by the introduction of fixed terms.

An additional concern arises out of the furore over this issue - that when people write things down, they ought to be very clear what it is that they are proposing.