But seriously...

I may be missing something, but I can't see why there's all this fuss over the proposed legislation to fix Parliament for five years and require 55% of MPs to vote for dissolution.

Having read lots and lots of online comment, many seem to have confused 'dissolution of Parliament' with 'vote of no confidence in the Government'. Some quotes:

Labour MP Paul Flynn: "Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote."

Er... no.

Iain Martin in the Wall Street Journal: "If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?"

It isn't being suggested.

Scott Styles, senior lecturer in the school of law at Aberdeen University: "The [...] much more fundamental problem is the raising of the bar of a no-confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MPs present and voting."

Nicely put. But wrong.

As I say, I may be missing something, and all and any corrections are welcome. But as I understand the proposal - which has yet to go through Parliament - the 55% bar is set only for the dissolution of Parliament, not a no-confidence vote. Should such a vote be passed, another Government could be formed to serve out the remaining term of the Parliament.

I posted a comment along these lines on the Times 'Law Central' blog, where I got the Scott Styles quote above, but evidently the moderation process takes a little while as it hasn't appeared yet. I expect they're busy, possibly on the phone to Scott Styles.

Some of the commentators have called this proposal undemocratic. I can't see it myself. Under the existing system, a Prime Minister (who, let's recall, is not voted by the people into that position) can request the Queen to dissolve Parliament without reference to anyone else. This has long been seen as a powerful political advantage, though few in recent years have used it. Gordon Brown could - and should - have gone to the country within a year of taking over from Tony Blair. He would very likely have been returned to power. John Major also bottled it.

The Prime Minister is proposing to relinquish this personal power in favour of Parliament. How is that undemocratic? The Scots have adopted a similar system - they have a fixed term of four years, but require two-thirds of MSPs to vote for dissolution. I don't recall cries of 'undemocratic' when that came in.

I gather the idea was put together by David Howarth, who stepped down as the LibDem MP for Cambridge at the election. I heard him speak last year and he struck me as very impressive - a very experienced politician and academic. The 55% bar on dissolution effectively protects the LibDems in the coalition from the Tories deciding - as it might be on good opinion polls - from junking the agreement and going to the country in a few months' time. Doubtless the Tories will have worked this out and accepted it as one of the compromises necessary to put the coalition together. Whether or not you put it down to political expediency, it seems to me to be a step forward for democracy rather than a threat.

Talking of Scotland, it was an astute move for Cameron to head north today. Even the famously grumpy Alex Salmond admitted as such. Well, not in those exact words, but he wasn't as rude as usual about the Tories. Maybe that's progress.