Talk:Motion of no confidence

Untitled

Oops, did I move this article without fixing double redirects? Sorry. I meant to move it to "Motion of no confidence", since it's not a proper noun. I'll do that now, and ensure I get all the redirects. —Michael Z. 06:52, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

How about moving?

could we possibly move this into the article Confidence_(politics) which is a stub and then also merge motion of confidence too. that seems logical anyone agree?? --Deadman (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supply bill redlink

Although 'supply bill' doesn't exist on Wikipedia, it looks like the concept is covered. So should this link to Money bill or Loss of Supply? -PaulGregory 16:15, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Why Mp prefer to have motion of no confidence

why Mp of parliament would prefer to have motion of no confidence when thsi may not work and if PM give out the general election, Mp may loss their seat in the House of Commons.

Too true, too true.-Ashley Pomeroy 09:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation: "Why would an MP vote for a no confidence motion, when in an election that MP could well lose their seat?"

My answer: The MP would vote in favour if they thought that their party would increase its number of seats This would lead to more clout in parliament. -Joshuapaquin 05:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin

Paul Martin has lost a vote of no confidence, so i added him to the list of Prime Ministers who have lost motions of no confidence. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050511/wl_canada_afp/canadapoliticsvote_050511001051

This has not been considered a formal motion of no confidence, and Paul Martin's Liberals have not been "defeated" by it (yet, at least). His government remains in power, so let's keep his name of the list until the Governor General dissolves parliament.

It doesn't matter if the GG has called the election yet. Little Pauly has NO CHOICE but to dissolve parliament. Waiting to put it on is just stupid Wikipedia beauracracy...Survey says Pauly goes bye byes. His government has been defeated by a no confidence motion, the Governor-General will dissolve Parliament, and there will be an election. A defeat is a defeat, no point pussyfooting around.Rgenung 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A motion of confidence, or lack thereof is an act of the legislature, not the executive. It is irrelevant what the Prime Minister personally does and when he does it to the fact that the Parliament no longer has confidence in him. Xtra 05:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The government was defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of no confidence so the defeat has occured. Whether or not parliament is dissolved etc is a matter for the Governor General but that doesn't change the fact that the government has been defeated. The terminology is correct. Homey 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars (and possibly other fiction)

I have just moved Valorum from Star Wars into a seperate list at the bottom of the article for fictional politicians. Question is, should fictional politics and politicians be on here at all? Valorum has been added and then removed at least once before according to the history. - Lucky13pjn 22:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutly! 78.142.92.95 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has no business in this article -- it's an obvious self-indulgence on the part of a Star Wars fan, and it's unencyclopedic. Rhombus 14:43 20 December 2024

I don't think there'd be anything wrong with having something about no confidence motions in fiction, but we'll need to have more examples than just Star Wars, and I can't think of any of the top of my head. Ddye 15:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit stupid to me, I think it should be removed... 213.140.21.231 10:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Episode I was the first thing I thought of when I saw this artcle linked on the main page, and I only clicked on it to see if it had a section on fictional occurences. Of course it'd be nice to have other examples, but you may find Lucas to be the only widely known writer willing to use such a boring political maneuver to advance a plot. ^_~ AndromedaRoach 19:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. Can you think of any respectable encyclopedia that would list an incident from Star Wars in an article on parliamentary procedure? Homey 21:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. HistoryBA 23:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I am both for and against, with a little bias for for. I think wikipedia should be open to every input that promotes understanding of a concept and when said concept occurs in pop culture I think it should be used. The reason I am against is because the vote in Star Wars might not be entirely acurate to how it works in the real world, but if the entry has a disclaimer stating the differences I see nothing wrong in having it in this article. If anything, it gives people with a less historical approach a way to get an "okay example".

Cion 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with famous fictional votes, as long as they are listed as such. Xtra 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In many other respected wikipedia articles there are refernces to the subject in pop culture. If we could find some other examples that we could add to the list I would be all for putting it in there.

--kralahome 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, though I find it fairly amusing, and while I think that it might help the occasional user understand the real article by manner of comparison, I'm not sure if we should be throwing random references into serious articles. I'm not going to add some aliens from Star Trek into the leprosy article.

--Pastor of Muppets 00:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could tolerate an external link, or even a link to a new, separate article on "Fictional parliaments" but I think including Star Wars in a serious article on parliamentary procedure trivializes the rest of the article and hurts the article's credibility as a source. Homey 16:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This has no business in this article -- it's an obvious self-indulgence on the part of a Star Wars fan, and it's unencyclopedic." If I was a "Star Wars fan" perhaps you would be correct, but I added it since many serious historical categories have fictional counterparts thrown in. See famous last words, or Battle of Normandy with its list of fictional portrayals of the Normandy landings. I would recommend leaving the reference up and seeing if others can find other fictional occurences. If not, yank it. It's a bonafide fictional reference though. The point about using it as a manner of comparison is apt. In Canada, we have a Parliamentary system, but for your average American teenager, what is he going to relate more to - Joe Clark or Jar Jar Binks??Michael Dorosh 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support it's inclusion. Call me blind to the political process, but I had never taken much interest to politics, and the Star Wars occasion was the first time I'd ever heard of a "No Confidence motion". I think it's a valid reference, considering that this was a blockbuster film, and thus millions upon millions of people saw it; some may have heard a political term they had never been aware of (as I did), and looked it up here (as I did). Why is everyone so opposed to the inclusion of this sentence? It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is so discriminatory to information which is verifiable and is in the interest of autodidacts and trivia-lovers across the globe. I feel it's relevant, so please don't deprive others who may find this reference interesting.--C.Logan 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now really, Mr. Dorosh, it's a bit condescending to say that because Canadian politicians are essentially unknown in the U.S., the "typical American teenager" can only relate to Jar Jar Binks if he or she can hope to understand the concept of a no confidence vote. Leaving aside the fact that the prequels totally sucked and that the stultifying Byzantine political mechanations depicted within them were nigh incomprehensible and that even American teenagers hate Jar Jar, the typical American teenager has heard of a parliament, and knows that it's the equivalent of their Congress.

You also say that the Star Wars reference should stay up in hopes that "others can find other fictional references. If not, yank it." You said that on this page in January. It is now September, almost 8 months to the day after you said it. No other fictional references seem to have been posted in this otherwise real-world article. Would you agree, then, that after all this time, the lone fictional reference inside this article should finally be "yanked"? Dablaze 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pompidou

I can't find any references to Georges Pompidou losing a motion of no confidence. In fact it looks like he was fired by Charles de Gaulle. Can anyone find anything that says otherwise?

User:Stereo

Actually, it was the other way around. Pompidou lost a confidence vote but de Gaulle refused to accept his resignation and reappointed him:

"1962 was marked by the reform of the election of the president of the republic. The choice of direct universal suffrage and above all the use of a referendum to have this constitutional modification approved led to a vote of no-confidence and to the downfall of the first Pompidou government. General de Gaulle reappointed him at once as he did following his election in the presidentials of 1965."[1]

"5 October Vote of no-confidence topples the government. General de Gaulle refuses the resignation of Georges Pompidou."[2]

Homey 02:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Stereo 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Baldwin + Ramsay MacDonald

Would not the Baldwin and MacDonald examples more accurately be described as defeats on motions of confidence and be listed on that page instead of here? In neither case did the Commons actually expresse non-confidence in the government. Baldwin lost the vote on the loyal address, while in the MacDonald case the Commons under the terms of the Liberal amendment demanded an inquiry into the government's actions in the Campbell case which MacDonald had said earlier he'd treat as a matter of confidence. - Chrism 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote on the Queen's Speech is a Confidence Motion (because it is the acceptance or rejection of the governments agenda) so voting the Loyal Address down was an expression of No Confidence in the Government, in the case of the Liberal's attempt to launch an enquiry, Ramsey MacDonald had said it was a matter of confidence so although he probably could not have been held to it in effect he would have been discredited having said it was if he was defeated on the matter if he had changed his statements on it and it would anyway have been followed by a Confidence Motion (Which Labour could only win if the Conservatives abstained as a whole, it was a remarkable situation, if you imagine that Michael Howard with 198 seats in 2005 had ended up forming a minority government) - with only 191 seats (far fewer than the Conservative Party had) he was reliant on the votes of Liberal and Conservative MP's and as soon as they decided to move against him then the government could not continue because it could not get it's legislation through.--Lord of the Isles 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More clarification needed

"The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence)." this article needs to have one clear statement explaining what all of this means (ie "every member of parliament votes on whether or not they want to retain the current PM" or something to that effect). it is not clear to the uninformed reader (ie me).

The exact constitutional position is vague, it is down to a mixture of precedent and past legislation and as such is always likely to be unclear - In the UK a Queen's Speech is a motion of confidence in a Government's professed agenda, lose it and that government cannot continue because they are opposed by mopre people than they are supported by in the House, a government can say that any issue is a confidence motion even if it doesn't call itself a confidence motion or state that it is such in the actual measure itself although anything other than the Queens Speech that is not stated to be a motion of confidence or no confidence could technically be ignored although normally it would be followed by a motion of confidence or no confidence if the government had said it was a confidence matter. In effect confidence and no confidence motions are the same thing the only difference being perspective - the former initiated by government or their supporters and the latter initiated by those opposing them. --Lord of the Isles 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions of confidence and no confidence

We currently have articles at both Motion of no confidence and Motion of Confidence, each of which links to the other, stating that a motion of no confidence by the opposition is often converted into a motion of confidence by those in power. While I haven't read the whole articles, these parallel notes seem to leave two questions hanging:

Why is it desirable for those in power to reverse the motion in this way - is it simply a procedural way of saying "bring it on!", or is there some fundamental difference in the two directions of motion (as it were)?
If there is such a fundamental difference, how should this be reflected in the structure and content of our two articles? Or, especially if there is no such difference, should these articles not simply be merged, rather than cross-linking?

Hope I'm not missing a crucial point out of tiredness... - IMSoP 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (note cross-posted to both affected Talk pages)[reply]

Really Confidence and No Confidence Motions are different approaches to the same thing, the first the government enquires whether they have support, the latter the opposition seeks to determine if the government no longer has support - the effects of the government losing or winning either are the same and both relate to the amount of support and opposition to a government or prospective government, it might be better to keep both merely as redirects and have a new merged article Motions of Confidence and No Confidence..--Lord of the Isles 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are the same topic, and have added merge tags.--Kiyarrllston 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Isles, while they may seem similar, they are fundamentally different as one is designed to keep a government in power in many systems and the other to remove a government from power. There are many other variations that just the British system. The implications of losing a motion of confidence vs. a motion of no confidence can, depending on the system (such as a constructive motion vs. a non-constructive motion), be very different. Motions of confidence and no-confidence are polar opposites that are used for many different things. Keeping them separate is the only logical thing here - merging them is merging two polar opposites that occasionally share some similarities, and merging them would be completely counterproductive. Themoodyblue (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two are related, but definitely different. E.g. in Germany, there is both a "motion of no confidence" (de:Misstrauensvotum) where the opposition tries to bring down the government, and a "motion of confidence" (literal translation of de:Vertrauensfrage) where the government investigates if it still has majority support in parliament. Must be unmerged. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recall elections in Canada

The article says that recall elections are passible in Canada. Which provence allows them and when has it ever happened? --Arctic Gnome 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Recall election: British Columbia has recall provisions. Several attempts for recall have been made: although none officially resulted in a member being removed, Paul Reitsma resigned before the recall petition was submitted when it was apparent that it had enough signatures. Kelvinc 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing...

Can someone explain this to me? "A Motion of No Confidence can be proposed in the government collectively or by any individual member, including the Prime Minister". Does this mean that the government as a whole, or a part of the government decides to issue a vote of no confidence? Also why would the prime minister issue such a vote, isn't that basically shooting yourself in the foot? Wheatleya 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that a member of the government could technically issue a motion of no confidence against themselves if they were members of the legislature. I doubt this has ever happened, though. If the Prime Minister wanted an election he would be much better off just calling one. I guess if it was in a place with fixed election dates he could issue no-confidence against himself to get an earlier one, but that seems rather silly. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear as it comes at the start of a paragraph on the Spanish system, and after one on the German system, which the Spaniards appear to have copied in other regards. If I understand correctly, in the German system the Chancellor can't just ask the President to dissolve the Bundestag and call a new election when they feel like it (unlike a UK Prime Minister). However if the Chancellor can demonstrate they are unable to govern with the existing house then the President can dissolve it and call a new election. See Constructive vote of no confidence. Whilst this may appear to be a formality of the Westminster convention that a PM can ask the monarch for a dissolution, it crucially transfers the power from the head of government to the entire chamber and the PM has to engineer their own defeat to use it. Timrollpickering 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teir must be a mistake! With a motion of non-confidence the leader of the GOVERNMENT is attacted, not the head of STATE (as it is writen). That goes for paralmentarien (Germany, Spain) as well as for semi-presidental systems (France!). 78.142.92.95 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separation by country

The article is a very good one, but it's rather hard to follow which countries adhere to which forms of the policy. I suggest that this article reflect the common format for global political articles by organizing and separating the article into smaller sections of the law by each respective country (i.e, Motion of No Confidence in UK, said motion in the USA, in Germany, Israel, etc.). And hopefully from there, each section can be properly expanded by whomever. I think it would add significant coherency to the article and less confusing than it is now as it just arbitrarily switches between countries on a whim and complicates things. If you wish not to, that's fine also.

Thanks,

- Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Confidence in Election

Many organizations during elections have ballots that have choices like:

Person One
Person Two
Write In ____________
No Confidence
Abstain

In this sense, No Confidence means the voter does not believe any candidate would be able to effectively serve. Is this something that should be worked into this article?

Would that necessarily be considered a MOTION OF no confidence or is it a totally different thing? Cubie Newbie (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions of no confidence refer to votes against politicians/other people currently in power. What you describe is partially under Approval Voting and is also written as "against all". Celinayi (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms, it is a gauge of the trust in the current head of government's ability to carry the country forward. Both parties of the legislature would be involved in the vote. The main thing is, within the Westminster System the party that has the most seats becomes the cabinet (and government for that matter.) Therefore, in a two-party system, (to obtain simple majority for a vote of no confidence), they would need some of the party's own members to effectively be voting against their own party's leader. So it is a chance to really deliver a political knock-out to that leader's public perception. If you have a multi-party system, (where multiple parties in the legislature have more combined seats then the entire party making up the government), also known as "minority government", it could be easier for the collective parties which are not leading the government to band-together and vote that they've effectively lost their trust (or confidence) in the current Head of Government's ability to lead them. To my mind voting in an election without choosing a candidate sounds to-me to be more or less spoiling a ballot. In essence you want your vote to be counted in all other parts of the ballot, other than that section where you believe none of the candidates uphold your political views. CaribDigita (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this question, but would it be appropriate to add redirects to this page for "vote of no confidence, a censure motion," and "a no-confidence motion" as listed in the article? Celinayi (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - they are two completely different parliamentary procedures that only occasionally have something in common. Themoodyblue (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article conflates confidence votes with non-confidence votes

At this writing the opening sentence asserts

A motion of non-confidence (alternatively vote of non-confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or confidence motion) is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition

That's all fine for motions of no confidence, but seems completely wrong for confidence motions, which as I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert) are initiated by the government rather than the opposition. There should be at least a separate section, if not a separate article, on votes of confidence, and they should certainly not be equated with votes of non-confidence. --Trovatore (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording has been changed but IMO it's still lacking. A notable point is that confidence and no confidence motions can also AFAIK be different when it comes to ties due to the nature of parliamentary motions. In systems without a casting vote or definitive tie-breaking, like that in NZ or those following Robert's Rules of Order, a motion will fail if it's tied since it needs a majority to pass. So a no-confidence will fail and mean the government survives. But an explicit confidence motion will fail and mean the government no longer has confidence. The later is AFAIK generally the same as a supply bill. In systems with a casting-vote, this situation doesn't really arise since such ties will be resolved in some fashion and I think they are normally resolved in the same way. For example, for those following Speaker Denison's rule the speaker should vote against a no-confidence motion. I think they should also vote in favour of a simply confidence motion. (Supply bills seem a complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spain/Head of state

“For example, in Germany, Spain, and Israel, a vote of no confidence requires that the opposition, on the same ballot, propose a candidate of their own whom they want to be appointed as successor by the respective head of state.”

That is not true in the case of Spain, since the head of the state is the King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.4.116 (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article 113. (1) The Congress of Deputies may require political responsibility from the Government by means of the adoption by an absolute majority of a motion of censure.
(2) The motion of censure must be proposed by at least one-tenth of the Deputies and must include a candidate to the office of the Presidency of the Government.
(3) The motion of censure cannot be voted on until five days after its presentation. During the first two days of this period, alternative motions may be presented.
(4) If the motion of censure is not approved by the Congress of Deputies, its signatories cannot present another during the same period of sessions.

Article 114.(2) If the House of Representatives adopts a motion of censure, the Government shall present its resignation to the King and the candidate included in it shall be understood to have the confidence of the Chamber ...The King shall appoint him President of the Government.

That the head of state is a monarch rather than a president as in Germany or Israel is irrelevant. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No confidence in India

In India no confidence motion can be introduced in state assemblies too. I changed that . Please verify. For ur reference observe recently in Telangana issue. It is introduced in Andhra pradesh state assembly. Svpnikhil (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A government that can't spend money" ...

The article says that a government that can't spend money (UK section) is hamstrung for a reason of supposed loss of confidence.

It is my belief that when a government is unable to spend money on one particular bill, but still able to spend on others, it renders the government partially capable.

Furthermore, there are other things government can do (passing laws etc.) that doesn't involve the spending of new money.

I don't think that it is correct therefore that there is a loss of confidence in this instance, especially as no citations have been given. I feel that there has to be a literal vote of no confidence in order to eject/reject a government.

(Forgot to sign) 86.157.164.214 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion of no confidence vs. censure motion

Since the two terms have different meaning, wouldn't it be logical to separate the entries into two different articles? - B.Lameira (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

Please add the unsuccessful vote of confidence of 2006 in Pakistan. The benazir one wasn't the only one. Plus there's another vote of no confidence on 3rd April. 103.150.209.210 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious info

The India section states.
"Even after the Anti-Defection Law, when the majority party has an absolute majority and it can whip party members to vote in favour of the government; still it is possible to remove the government by a no-confidence motion if the ruling party breaks by more than one third."
and it links to a dead link, so I cant confirm if that was indeed stated by the source. But to the best of my knowledge, this is false. Members can still vote against their party, they just have to accept the fact that they can be removed from their seat afterwards. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]