Motion of no confidence

A motion of no-confidence, alternatively vote of no confidence, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion, is a statement or vote which states that a person in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position, perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government. If a no confidence motion is passed against an individual minister they have to give their resignation along with the entire council of ministers.

A censure motion is different from a no-confidence motion. Depending on the constitution of the body concerned, "no confidence" may lead to dismissal of the Council of Ministers or other position-holders, whereas "censure" is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers. The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers, but depending on a country's constitution, a no-confidence motion may be more directed against the entire cabinet. Again, depending on the applicable rules, censure motions may need to state the reasons for the motion while no-confidence motions may not require reasons to be specified.

Parliamentary systems

There are a number of variations in this procedure in parliaments. In some countries a motion of no confidence can be directed at the government collectively or at any individual member including the prime minister. In Spain, it is presented by the prime minister after consultation. Sometimes motions of no confidence are proposed even though they have no likelihood of passage, simply to pressure a government or to embarrass its own critics, who may for political reasons decide not to vote against it.

In many parliamentary democracies, there are strict time limits for no-confidence motions: they may only be allowed once every three, four or six months. Thus, the timing of a motion of no confidence is a matter of political judgement; a motion of no confidence on a relatively trivial matter may prove counterproductive if a more important issue suddenly arises which actually warrants a motion of no confidence because it cannot be proposed if one had been voted on recently. Sometimes, the government will choose to declare that one of its bills is a "motion of confidence" in order to prevent dissident members of their own party voting against it.

United Kingdom

Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) is seen to automatically require the government to either resign or ask for a new election, much like a non-confidence vote. A government in a Westminster system that cannot spend money is hamstrung, also called loss of supply. When the upper house of a Westminster system country has the right to refuse supply, such as in Australia during the events of 1975, the convention is in a grey area as Westminster governments are not normally expected to maintain the confidence of the upper house.

Prior to 2011, in the British Parliament, a no-confidence motion generally first appeared as an early day motion although the vote on the Speech from the Throne also constituted a confidence motion.[1] However, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, only a motion explicitly resolving "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is treated as a motion of no confidence.

India

In India, a motion of no confidence can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament of India). The motion is admitted for discussion when a minimum of 50 members of the house support the motion.[2] If the motion carries, the House debates and votes on the motion. If a majority of the members of the house vote in favour of the motion, the motion is passed and the Government is bound to vacate the office. Acharya Kripalani moved the first-ever no confidence motion on the floor of the Lok Sabha in August 1963, immediately after the disastrous India–China War.[3][4] As of July 2018, 27 no-confidence motions have been moved. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi faced the most number of no-confidence motions – 15 times, followed by Lal Bahadur Shastri and P. V. Narasimha Rao (thrice each), Morarji Desai (twice) and Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and All the no-confidence motions have been defeated except when Prime Minister Morarji Desai resigned during the discussions on 12 July 1979 and most recently no-confidence motion against Narendra Modi's (BJP) government was accepted by the lok sabha speaker, but was defeated.[5][6]

With the anti-defection law, the vote of no-confidence has no relevance left in case the majority party has an absolute majority in the House. If the majority party (with an absolute majority in the House) issues a whip to party members to vote in favour of the Government, then it is impossible to remove the Government by a no-confidence motion. Hence the no-confidence exercise of House merely becomes the no-confidence exercise of the Party.[7]

Italy

In Italy,[8] the government requires the support of both houses of Parliament. A vote of no confidence may be proposed if one tenth of the members of a single house sign the proposition and starting from three days before the appointed date, said vote can be brought into discussion. Following the case of Filippo Mancuso in 1995 and the subsequent Constitutional Court sentence in 1996,[9] it is possible to propose an individual vote of no confidence against a single minister instead of the whole government.

Germany

In Germany,[10] a vote of no confidence in the Federal Chancellor requires that the opposition, on the same ballot, propose a candidate of their own whom they want to be appointed as successor by the Federal President. Thus, a motion of no confidence can only be brought forward if there is a positive majority for the new candidate (this variation is called a constructive vote of no confidence). The idea was to prevent crises of the state such as those found near the end of the German Weimar Republic. Frequently, Chancellors were turned out of office without their successors having enough parliamentary support to govern. Unlike the British system, the Chancellor does not have to resign in response to the failure of a vote of confidence, provided it has been initiated by them and not by the parliamentary opposition, but rather may ask the President to call general elections – a request the President may or may not fulfill.

Japan

Article 69 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan provides that "if the House of Representatives passes a non-confidence resolution, or rejects a confidence resolution, the Cabinet shall resign en masse, unless the House of Representatives is dissolved within ten (10) days".[11]

Canada

In federal politics, a vote of non-confidence takes down the government, and votes of non-confidence may be asserted automatically if the House of Commons rejects the government's budget. Provincial governments may also fall if a motion of non-confidence is passed by the legislature or if the legislature fails to pass a confidence measure (e.g. the provincial budget).

In the consensus government system of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, in which the premier is chosen among and by a vote of the members of the non-partisan legislature, a vote of no confidence removes the premier and cabinet from office and permits the members to elect a new premier.[12]

Australia

In the Australian Parliament, a motion of no-confidence requires a majority of the members present in the House of Representatives to agree to it. The House of Representatives currently consists of 150 members; requiring 76 votes in favour of the motion when all members of the House are present. A straight vote of no confidence in a government, or a motion or amendment censuring a government, has never been successful in the House of Representatives.[13] Despite this, on eight occasions governments have either resigned or advised a dissolution following their defeat on other questions before the House.[13] The last time a government resigned after being defeated in the House came in October 1941, when the House rejected the budget of Arthur Fadden's minority government.

Specific motions of no confidence or censure motions against the Prime Minister, ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, Senators and leaders of political parties have been moved and have been successful on some occasions. Motions of no confidence against the government may be passed in the Senate, yet may have little or no impact in the House.[13]

South Africa

On 7 August 2017, Speaker Baleka Mbete announced that she would permit a motion of no confidence in Jacob Zuma's government to proceed in the National Assembly via secret ballot. It was the eighth motion to be brought against Zuma in his presidency and the first to be held via secret ballot. After the vote was held the next day, the motion was defeated 198–177, with 25 abstentions.[14] Around 20 ANC MPs voted in favour of the measure.

Pakistan

The Constitution of Pakistan has provision for a no-confidence motion in all constituents of the Electoral College of the state. The motions can target speakers and deputy speakers of provincial and national assemblies, the Prime Minister, chief ministers of provinces, as well as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate.[15] Before it can be put for vote on the pertinent house's floor, it needs to have the backing of at least 20% of the elected members in all cases except those moved against speakers or deputy speakers, in which case there is no minimum support limit. After being put to vote, the motion is only deemed successful once passed by a majority.[16]

In terms of history, the no-confidence has mostly been used in removing speakers and deputy speakers. Of the 11 times the motion has been invoked in the country's parliamentary history, 9 motions targeted these posts with 4 being effective.[17][16] An incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan has only been subject to a no-confidence vote once, in November 1989, when Benazir Bhutto faced an ultimately unsuccessful motion moved by Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi.[18] The same is the case for a provincial chief minister, as the only instance of its use is the one moved against Chief Minister of Balochistan, Sanaullah Zehri in January 2018, which was successful as Zehri resigned before the vote could take place.[19]

Sweden

No-confidence motions can be levelled against either the prime minister (on behalf of the entire government) or an individual lower-level minister. At least 35 members of parliament (MPs) have to support a proposal to initiate such a vote. A majority of MPs (175 members) must vote in favour of a declaration of no confidence for it to be successful. If an individual minister loses the confidence vote, he/she must resign. If the prime minister loses the no confidence vote, his/her entire government must also resign.[20] The parliamentary speaker may allow the ousted prime minister to head a transitional or caretaker government until parliament elects a new prime minister.

Under the principle of negative parliamentarism, a prime ministerial candidate nominated by the speaker does not need the confidence of a majority of MPs to be elected. However, a majority of MPs must not vote against the candidate, which renders prime ministerial votes similar to a no confidence vote. This means for a prime ministerial candidate to be successful in the parliamentary vote, he must have at least a total of 175 'yes' and/or 'abstain' votes. If a speaker fails four times to have his/her nominee elected, an extra election must be held within three months of the final vote.

Semi-presidential systems

In semi-presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, which removes only the cabinet and prime minister, the legislature may also have the power to impeach an executive or judicial officer, with another institution or the legislature removing the officer from their office.

Russia

In the Russian Federation, the lower house of parliament (the State Duma) may by a simple majority (i.e. at least 226 votes out of 450) pass a motion of no confidence against the Government of Russia as a whole. In this case, the matter goes for consideration of the President, who may choose to dismiss the cabinet (which the President can do at any moment in time at his own discretion anyway) or just to ignore the Duma's decision. Should the Duma pass a second motion of no confidence against the same composition of the cabinet within three months, the President will be forced to make a concrete decision – to dismiss the government or to dissolve the Duma itself and call for new general elections. The State Duma may not be dissolved on these grounds if it was elected less than a year earlier, if it has already initiated impeachment proceedings against the President himself by bringing respective accusations, if less than six months is left until elections of the President, or if there is a state of emergency or martial law throughout the whole territory of Russian Federation. In the above-mentioned cases, the President would therefore be effectively forced to dismiss the Government.

France

In France, the lower house of parliament (the French National Assembly) may by a simple majority vote pass a motion of no confidence against the Government of France as a whole. In this case, the Government is removed from power and the President of France has to appoint a new Prime Minister of France, who will have to form a new government.

History

The first motion of no confidence occurred in March 1782 when, following news of the British defeat at Yorktown in the American Revolutionary War the previous October, the Parliament of Great Britain voted that they "can no longer repose confidence in the present ministers". Prime Minister Lord North responded by asking King George III to accept his resignation. This did not immediately create a constitutional convention. During the early 19th century, however, attempts by prime ministers such as Robert Peel to govern in the absence of a parliamentary majority proved unsuccessful, and by the mid-19th century, the power of a motion of no confidence to break a government was firmly established in the UK.

In the United Kingdom, 11 prime ministers have been defeated through a no-confidence motion. There have been only two such motions since 1925, in 1979 (against James Callaghan) and 2019 (against Theresa May).

In modern times, passage of a motion of no confidence is a relatively rare event in two-party democracies. In almost all cases, party discipline is sufficient to allow a majority party to defeat a motion of no confidence, and if faced with possible defections in the government party, the government is likely to change its policies rather than lose a vote of no confidence. The cases in which a motion of no confidence has passed are generally those in which the government party's slim majority has been eliminated by either by-elections or defections, such as the 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry in the UK which was carried by one vote, forcing a general election which was won by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party.

Motions of no confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form a coalition government. This can mean that there have been many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to defeat a government without means to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic and the German Weimar Republic. More recent examples have been in Italy between the 1950s and 1990s, Israel, and Japan.

To deal with this situation, the French placed a greater degree of executive power in the office of its President, who is immune from motions of no confidence, along with a two-round plurality voting system that makes easier the formation of stable majority governments.

In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of the re-appointed minority government of Canada, requested that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean prorogue Parliament. The request was granted, and it allowed the Prime Minister to delay a potential vote on the non-confidence motion presented by the opposition. (See 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute.) Three years later, in 2011, Harper's minority government was defeated by a motion of non-confidence declaring the government to be in contempt of Parliament, leading to the election that year.

In 2013, during the Euromaidan pro-EU riots, the opposition in Ukraine called for a motion of no confidence against the Cabinet of Ministers and pro-Russian, Euroskeptic Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. At least 226 votes were needed to gain a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament. However, it fell 40 votes short, and Azarov's government prevailed.[21]

On 1 June 2018, the Government of Mariano Rajoy was ousted after a motion of no confidence passed 180–169 following the sentence of the Gürtel corruption scandal which involved the ruling party. Pedro Sánchez of the PSOE was sworn in as the new Prime Minister. This is the first time in Spanish history that a vote of no confidence has resulted in a change of government.[22][23]

On 25 September 2018, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was ousted after losing a vote of no confidence in the Swedish Parliament. This took place in the aftermath of an election held on 9 September, in which the centre-left bloc led by Löfven's Social Democratic Party only won 144 seats in parliament, 31 seats short of an absolute majority and just one seat more than the opposition Alliance bloc. The Sweden Democrats, having just won 62 seats, also voted with the main opposition bloc to express no confidence in the government.[24]

See also

References

  1. ^ "House of Commons Factsheet M7: Parliamentary Elections" (PDF). House of Commons Information office. p. 3. Retrieved 23 March 2011.
  2. ^ "Current Lok Sabha hasn't seen trust vote, no-confidence motion". The Times of India. 11 Aug 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. the move could not even take off as Banerjee's party failed to muster the support of even 506 members, the minimum required for bringing a no trust motion.
  3. ^ "Procedure regarding motion of no-confidence". Archived from the original on 9 July 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
  4. ^ "Rules of confidence". 12 July 2008. Retrieved 9 December 2013. What happens if the prime minister loses a motion of confidence? In such a case, he is obliged to resign
  5. ^ "History gives Congress a slight margin – 60:40". hindustantimes.com/. 22 July 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2018.
  6. ^ "LS to witness 26th no-confidence motion in its history". The Times of India. Retrieved 20 March 2018.
  7. ^ Kumar, S (Jun 2017). "Threatening Indian democratic system: Case of Anti-Defection Law". The Voice.
  8. ^ Constitution of Italy. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
  9. ^ "Sentenza n. 7 del 1996". giurcost.org. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
  10. ^ German Constitution Official English Translation Article 67 - Vote of No Confidence
  11. ^ Wikisource:Constitution of Japan
  12. ^ (CBC)
  13. ^ a b c Motions of no confidence and censure. House of Representatives Practice (6th ed.). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
  14. ^ [1]
  15. ^ "Part III: The Federation of Pakistan: Chapter 3: The Federal Government". The Constitution of Pakistan.
  16. ^ a b "Three speakers removed by opposition in past". The News International. 19 December 2010.
  17. ^ "BA passes no-confidence motion against Aslam Bhootani". Dawn. 26 December 2012.
  18. ^ Burns, John (2 November 1989). "Bhutto Survives as No-Confidence Vote Falls Short". The New York Times.
  19. ^ Zafar, Muhammad (9 January 2018). "Balochistan CM Zehri quits to avoid no-trust vote". The Express Tribune.
  20. ^ "Examines the work of the Government". Sveriges Riksdag.
  21. ^ Marson, James; Bendavid, Naftali (3 December 2013). "Ukraine Government Survives No-Confidence Vote". The Wall Street Journal.
  22. ^ "Mariano Rajoy: Spanish PM forced out of office". BBC News. 1 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.
  23. ^ Jones, Sam (1 June 2018). "Mariano Rajoy ousted as Spain's prime minister". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 June 2018.
  24. ^ Henley, John. "Swedish prime minister ousted after losing confidence vote". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
1741 British general election

The 1741 British general election returned members to serve in the House of Commons of the 9th Parliament of Great Britain to be summoned, after the merger of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland in 1707. The election saw support for the government party increase in the quasi-democratic constituencies which were decided by popular vote, but the Whigs lost control of a number of rotten and pocket boroughs, partly as a result of the influence of the Prince of Wales, and were consequently re-elected with the barest of majorities in the Commons, Walpole's supporters only narrowly outnumbering his opponents.

Partly as a result of the election, and also due to the crisis created by naval defeats in the war with Spain, Walpole was finally forced out of office on 11 February 1742, after his government was defeated in a motion of no confidence concerning a supposedly rigged by-election. His supporters were then able to reconcile partially with the Patriot Whigs to form a new government, and the Tories remained excluded from any realistic hope of forming a government.

1904 Western Australian state election

Elections were held in the Australian state of Western Australia on 28 June 1904 to elect 50 members to the state's Legislative Assembly.

The election resulted in a hung parliament. The Labour Party, led by Robert Hastie, won 22 seats, while the governing Ministerialists won 18 seats, and independents won 12 seats. Walter James, who had been premier since July 1902, initially continued on in the role after the election. The Labour Party elected a new leader, Henry Daglish, on 8 July. Daglish successfully moved a motion of no confidence on 2 August, and after James's resignation became premier on 10 August. He was Western Australia's first premier from the Labour Party.

2001 Fine Gael leadership election

The Fine Gael leadership election of February 2001 was held to find a successor to John Bruton who resigned following a defeat in a motion of no confidence in his leadership of the party.

Bruton, who had been elected leader of the Fine Gael party in 1990 and had served as Taoiseach from 1994 until 1997, had faced several leadership heaves during his eleven-year tenure as leader. On 28 January Michael Noonan and Jim Mitchell, two senior members of the Fine Gael front bench, tabled a motion of no confidence in Bruton as leader of the party following low ratings in recent opinion polls. Other senior party members, including Alan Shatter, had also urged Bruton to step aside. At a special seven-hour meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party on 31 January, Bruton was defeated by 39 votes to 33. He duly resigned as party leader and triggered the leadership contest.

A number of candidates immediately emerged for the party leadership. Michael Noonan and Jim Mitchell, the two men who brought about Bruton's downfall, were both seen as the clear front-runners. Enda Kenny, a former cabinet minister, also declared his candidacy almost a week after the contest had started. Bernard Allen, a former junior minister, was also a late entrant into the contest. Ivan Yates, who many expected to throw his hat into the ring, surprised many when he actually announced that he intended to retire from politics at the next general election. Former party leader Alan Dukes also announced that he would not contest the leadership election after some speculation.

On 9 February 72 members of the Fine Gael parliamentary party met to decide the leadership election by secret ballot. It was only the second time ever that an election took place to decide the party leader. Michael Noonan emerged as the victor and new leader of Fine Gael.

2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

A motion of no confidence in the Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy was held between 31 May and 1 June 2018. The motion was registered by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) on 25 May after the ruling People's Party (PP) was found to have profited from the illegal kickbacks-for-contracts scheme of the Gürtel case. The motion was successful and resulted in the downfall of Mariano Rajoy's government and in PSOE leader Pedro Sánchez becoming new Prime Minister of Spain. Rajoy announced on 5 June 2018 his resignation as PP leader after having led the party for 14 years.Previously to his ousting, Rajoy had hinted at the possibility he may not seek re-election for a third term in office. After resigning as PP leader, he confirmed his withdrawal from politics altogether, vacating his seat in the Congress of Deputies and returning to his position as property registrar in Santa Pola.This was the fourth motion of no confidence since the Spanish transition to democracy and the first to be successful, as well the second to be submitted against Mariano Rajoy after the Unidos Podemos's motion in the previous year.

2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry

On 15 January 2019, a motion of no confidence in the government of Theresa May was tabled in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. On 16 January, the House rejected it by a vote of 325 to 306.

The motion was laid by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition, after the government lost a Commons vote to secure parliamentary backing for the government's deal for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union by 230 votes on the evening of 15 January. That vote, 432 to 202 in favour of rejecting the deal, represented the largest defeat for a sitting government in modern history.

The motion was debated on the afternoon of 16 January before being voted on that evening. It was supported by all opposition parties, and opposed by the Conservatives and Democratic Unionist Party. After the result, Theresa May requested individual meetings with leaders of all parties to discuss how to continue with the process of leaving the European Union. The invitation was taken up by all leaders except Corbyn, who said he would not meet the Prime Minister unless she could ensure that a no-deal Brexit would not occur.

Angela Smith (Sheffield MP)

Angela Christine Smith (born 16 August 1961) is a British politician and former lecturer. She has represented the parliamentary seat of Penistone and Stocksbridge since 2010. Before boundary changes, she was Member of Parliament (MP) for Sheffield Hillsborough from 2005 to 2010. Controversial among left-wing members of the Labour Party for her opposition to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the party's policy of water renationalisation, as well as her support for fracking, in 2018 she lost a motion of no confidence by her constituency party. Smith resigned from the Labour Party in February 2019 alongside six other MPs in protest at Corbyn's leadership, and they formed The Independent Group.

Cabinet of Japan

The Cabinet of Japan (内閣, Naikaku) is the executive branch of the government of Japan. It consists of the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the Emperor after being designated by the National Diet, and up to nineteen other members, called Ministers of State. The Prime Minister is designated by the Diet, and the remaining ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister. The Cabinet is collectively responsible to the Diet and must resign if a motion of no confidence is adopted by the Diet.

Constructive vote of no confidence

The constructive vote of no confidence (in German: konstruktives Misstrauensvotum, in Spanish: moción de censura constructiva) is a variation on the motion of no confidence that allows a parliament to withdraw confidence from a head of government only if there is a positive majority for a prospective successor. The principle is intended to ensure that a replacement head of government has enough parliamentary support to govern.

The concept was first used on a national scale in West Germany, but is today also used in other nations, such as Spain, Hungary, Lesotho, Israel, Poland, Slovenia, Albania and Belgium.

Executive Council (South Africa)

In South Africa, the Executive Council of a province is the cabinet of the provincial government. The Executive Council consists of the Premier and five to ten other members, who have the title "Member of the Executive Council", commonly abbreviated to "MEC".MECs are appointed by the Premier from amongst the members of the provincial legislature; he or she can also dismiss them. The provincial legislature may force the Premier to reconstitute the council by passing a motion of no confidence in the Executive Council excluding the Premier; if the legislature passes a motion of no confidence in the Executive Council including the Premier, then the Premier and the MECs must resign.The Premier designates powers and functions to the MECs; conventionally they are assigned portfolios in specific areas of responsibility. They are accountable to the provincial legislature, both individually and as a collective, and must regularly report to the legislature on the performance of their responsibilities.The Western Cape, the only province to have adopted its own constitution, chose to call its executive council the "Provincial Cabinet", and its MECs "Provincial Ministers".

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 September 2011, introducing fixed-term elections to the Westminster parliament for the first time. Under the provisions of the Act, parliamentary general elections must be held every five years, beginning in 2015.

However, a vote of no confidence in the government, or a vote of two thirds of the House of Commons, can still trigger a general election at any time. Fixed-term Parliaments, where general elections ordinarily take place in accordance with a schedule set far in advance, were part of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement which was produced after the 2010 general election.

Fuller ministry (1922–25)

The Fuller ministry (1922–1925) or Second Fuller ministry was the 41st ministry of the New South Wales Government, and was led by the 22nd Premier, the Honourable Sir George Fuller KCMG, MLA. This ministry was the second of two occasions where Fuller was Premier.

Fuller was first elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1889, defeated in 1894, elected to the House of Representatives in 1901, defeated in 1914, and re-elected to the Assembly in 1917 and serving until 1928. Following the death of John Story, Fuller defeated James Dooley's government on a motion of no confidence and as a result was asked by Governor Sir Walter Davidson to form a government. However, the same day, Fuller also lost a motion of no confidence, and Davidson commissioned Dooley to form a second ministry that lasted until the 1922 state election when Fuller was successful in defeating Dooley.

The ministry covers the period from 13 April 1922 until 17 June 1925 when Fuller was defeated by Labor's Jack Lang at the 1925 state election.

Gang of 22

The "Gang of 22" was a group of Fianna Fáil TDs (members of parliament) who were opposed to the leadership of Charles Haughey in the early 1980s. The very evident division within the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party left a deep split in the organisation.

The origins of the "Gang of 22" was when Desmond O'Malley challenged Charles Haughey for the leadership of Fianna Fáil in 1983. Disillusioned with the unwillingness of O'Malley, George Colley and their supporters to act, a motion of no-confidence against Charles Haughey's leadership was put forward by Charlie McCreevy on his own initiative. This forced O'Malley's hand and he had to declare his intention to stand against Haughey. The vote failed by 55 votes to 22.

Those who made up the Gang of 22 were:

David Andrews

Sylvester Barrett

Thomas Bellew

Séamus Brennan

Hugh Byrne

Sean Byrne

George Colley

Hugh Conaghan

Pádraig Faulkner

Tom Fitzpatrick

Seán French

Jim Gibbons

Mary Harney

Tom Meaney

Charlie McCreevy

Bobby Molloy

Ciarán Murphy

Willie O'Dea

Martin O'Donoghue

Desmond O'Malley

Joe Walsh

Pearse WyseThe name is a pun on the Gang of Four, a political faction in the People's Republic of China who were imprisoned after the death of Mao Zedong.

In September 1991 four backbench Fianna Fáil TDs: Noel Dempsey, Liam Fitzgerald, M. J. Nolan and Seán Power (known as the Gang of Four) put down a motion of no-confidence in Haughey's leadership in Power's name. This prompted Albert Reynolds to resign from the Cabinet and launch a leadership challenge. He was supported by fellow Minister Pádraig Flynn and Minister of State Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and subsequently Noel Treacy. The vote failed by 55 votes to 22.

This is a partial list:

David Andrews

Michael Barrett

Brian Cowen

Noel Dempsey

Jackie Fahey

Liam Fitzgerald

Pádraig Flynn

Máire Geoghegan-Quinn

Brian Hillery

Tom Kitt

Liam Lawlor

Jimmy Leonard

Charlie McCreevy

M. J. Nolan

John O'Connell

Willie O'Dea

Seán Power

Albert Reynolds

Michael Smith

Noel Treacy

Joe Walsh

Interpellation (politics)

Interpellation is a formal request of a parliament to the respective government. It is distinguished from question time in that it often involves a separate procedure. In many parliaments, each individual member of parliament has the right to submit questions (possibly a limited amount during a certain period) to a member of the government. The respective minister or secretary is then required to respond and to justify government policy. Interpellation thus allows the parliament to supervise the government's activity. In this sense, it is closer to a motion of censure. In English, the parliamentary questioning sense of "interpellation" dates from the late 19th century. It has been adopted from French constitutional discourse.

In some countries, for example Finland and Slovenia, interpellations are more or less synonymous with a motion of no confidence because they are automatically connected with a vote of confidence and their express purpose is to determine the confidence enjoyed by the government or a minister. In Finland, the government must reply to an interpellation in a plenary session within 15 days. After receiving the reply to the interpellation, parliament debates the matter and proceeds to vote on whether the government or a particular minister enjoys the confidence of Parliament.

Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, confidence motions are a means of testing the support of the government (executive) in a legislative body, and for the legislature to remove the government from office. A confidence motion may take the form of either a vote of confidence, usually put forward by the government, or a vote of no confidence (or censure motion), usually proposed by the opposition. When such a motion is put to a vote in the legislature, if a vote of confidence is defeated, or a vote of no confidence is passed, then the incumbent government must resign, or call a general election..

It is a fundamental principle of the British constitution that the government must retain the confidence of the legislature, as it is not possible for a government to operate effectively without the support of the majority of the people's representatives. At the national level, this means that the UK government (the cabinet) must retain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons.

It is possible for a vote of no confidence to succeed where there is a minority government or a small majority, or where there are internal party splits leading to some members of the ruling party voting against its leaders. Where there is a minority government, the government may seek agreements or pacts with other parties in order to prevail in the vote and remain in office.

Despite their importance to the British constitution, for a long time the rules surrounding motions of no confidence were dictated solely by convention. However, since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a vote of no confidence must be passed in a specific form in order to create the possibility of an early general election. Under the Act, if a motion of no confidence in the government is passed in express terms, the house must then adopt a vote of confidence in that same or an alternate government within 14 days, or a general election is held.

A no confidence vote was last successfully used on 28 March 1979, when the minority government of James Callaghan was defeated in a confidence motion which read "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government". A no confidence vote can have the effect of uniting the ruling party; for this reason such motions are rarely used and successful motions are even rarer. Before 1979 the last successful motion of no confidence occurred in 1924.Defeat of a motion of no-confidence (or winning a vote of confidence) does not provide protection to the government in power for any specific length of time. MPs from any political party may propose another vote immediately, although are unlikely to do so due to convention and potential weakening of their own standing . Note that this is potentially different to winning a confidence vote regarding party leadership, which depending on party rules may ensure that no further challenge can be made for a fixed time. For example, Theresa May won such a vote in December 2018, ensuring that, as per the Conservative Party rules, another could not take place for one year. Since the leader of the government is usually the leader of a political party they may face both types of confidence vote in quick succession at times of political turmoil. The most recent confidence vote produced by the opposition was held in January 2019; with the government prevailing.

National Alliance (Sint Maarten)

The 'National Alliance' (Dutch: Nationale alliantie) is a political alliance in Sint Maarten, formed by the Sint Maarten Patriotic Alliance and the National Progressive Party. It is one of main political parties within Sint Maarten.

At the legislative elections in the Netherlands Antilles, 18 January 2002, the alliance won 4.8% of the popular vote of Sint Maarten and 1 out of 22 seats. At the elections in the Netherlands Antilles of 27 January 2006, it won one extra seat.

After Sint Maarten became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 2010, NA was part of the coalition of the Second Wescott-Williams Cabinet (2012-2013) and the party leader William Marlin was Prime Minister in two cabinets between 2015 and 2017 (First and Second Marlin Cabinet. After the island was hit by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, Marlin and several of his ministers received a motion of no confidence in the Sint Maarten parliament due to his role in the negotiations with the Netherlands for aid funds and the anti fraud measures. While Marlin offered his resignation after the first motion of no confidence, he did not step down after the second, and the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom eventually instructed governor Eugene Holiday to immediately accept the resignation of the prime minister and replace him. The coalition remains the same, and new elections were ordered.

On 3 January 2018 Silveria Jacobs was elected as the new party leader with Rodolphe Samuel as its deputy.

Neville Fernando

Neville Fernando is a Sri Lankan politician. He was elected to Panadura in the 8th parliamentary election in 1977. He is notable for having moved for a controversial Motion of no confidence against then Leader of Opposition A. Amirthalingam, the first motion of no confidence against a leader of opposition in the world.

Norbert Schmelzer

Wilhelm Klaus Norbert "Norbert" Schmelzer (22 March 1921 – 14 November 2008) was a Dutch politician of the defunct Catholic People's Party (KVP) now merged into the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA).

Serving numerus positions in his career including Minister of Foreign Affairs from 6 July 1971 until 11 May 1973. In 1966 while serving as the parliamentary leader of the Catholic People's Party in the House of Representatives he proposed a Motion of no confidence against the Cabinet Cals and Prime Minister Jo Cals. A shocking and surprised action in Dutch politics, it marked the first time that a motion of no confidence was proposed against a cabinet of the same party. The Cabinet Cals resigned that evening.

State Legislative Assembly (India)

The State Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha in Hindi language) is the lower house of a state legislature in the States and Union Territories of India. In the 29 states and 2 union territories with unicameral state legislature it is the sole legislative house. In 7 states it is the lower house of their bicameral state legislatures with the upper house being Vidhan Parishad or the State Legislative Council. 5 Union Territories are governed directly by the Union Government and have no legislative body.

Each Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) is directly elected to serve 5 year terms by single-member constituencies. In 14 states the Governor of a state may appoint one Anglo-Indian MLA to their respective states Assemblies, in accordance with the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India states that a State Legislative Assembly must have no less than 60 and no more than 500 members however an exception may be granted via an Act of Parliament as is the case in the states of Goa, Sikkim, Mizoram and the union territory of Puducherry which have fewer than 60 members. A Vidhan Sabha may be dissolved in a state of emergency, by the Governor on request of the Chief Minister, or if a motion of no confidence is passed against the majority coalition.

Taom Tanukale

Taom Tanukale is a Tuvaluan politician.

He began his career in national politics when he was elected to Parliament in a by-election in May 2005, as MP for Nui, following the death of his predecessor. He joined Prime Minister Maatia Toafa's parliamentary majority, and was appointed acting Minister for Health and Education, "while the incumbent went overseas for long-term medical treatment".He failed to retain his seat in the August 2006 general election, but regained it in the September 2010 general election. In December of that year, Prime Minister Maatia Toafa was ousted in a motion of no confidence. Tanukale supported Toafa's opponent, Willy Telavi, who became Prime Minister and appointed him as Minister for Health. On 30 July 2013, as the government appeared to have lost its parliamentary majority and was about to face a motion of no confidence, Tanukale unexpectedly resigned from Parliament (and thus also from the government) altogether. The following day, the reason for his resignation became apparent. The Speaker, Kamuta Latasi, rejected the Opposition's attempt to table a motion of no confidence, on the grounds that there was now a vacant seat in Parliament. Latasi adjourned Parliament, and ruled that it would not reconvene until a by-election had been held - thus prolonging Telavi's minority government. This tactic proved fruitless as Governor General Sir Iakoba Italeli intervened on 1 August 2013 and removed Telavi from office, so as to enable Parliament to function. The following day, Parliament (minus Tanukale) formally brought down the government through a vote of no confidence.Taom Tanukale was a candidate in the Nui by-election, 2013, which was held on 10 September. Tanukale came third in the poll with 160 votes. Leneuoti Matusi was declared the winner, polling 297 of the 778 registered voters. Tanukale was a candidate in the Tuvaluan general election, 2015 and received 53 votes, but was not elected to parliament.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.