This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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.
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
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)
Absolutly! 78.142.92.95 ( talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Cion 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-- kralahome 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Pastor of Muppets 00:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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?
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)
Thanks!
Stereo 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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).
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Many organizations during elections have ballots that have choices like:
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)
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)
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)
At this writing the opening sentence asserts
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)
“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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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.
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
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)
Absolutly! 78.142.92.95 ( talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Cion 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-- kralahome 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Pastor of Muppets 00:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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?
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)
Thanks!
Stereo 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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).
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Many organizations during elections have ballots that have choices like:
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)
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)
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)
At this writing the opening sentence asserts
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)
“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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)