Talk:Motion of Confidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

As a definition of a formal parliamentary motion, it is written with capitals. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:06 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Why? Michael Hardy 02:34 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think it depends on when it is used. Obviously when it's a formal noun (an Act outlining procedures about what to do), it's capped; otherwise when it's an action passed by Parliament (verb) it can be lowered. I think we're talking about the formal noun definition. Again I'm speculating again, gotta ask Jt.

That is 100% correct. BTW, I've been meaning to say, I lurv the nick. (Opps, bad english there!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:58 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

This needs more information on other parliamentary systems besides the German and Irish ones (Canada, Britain, etc.). Not sure how to go about it. AndrewTouesnard 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Motions of confidence and no confidence[edit]

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:

  1. 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)?
  2. 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)

Please please please read the articles before you start tagging them and proposing all sorts of changes, mergers and drastic edits. The articles clearly explain the differences between the two parlimentary tools and how they are used differently and the different motivations for making the motions.
There is enough information in this article to warrant it being stand alone. The structure seems fine too. Finally if you read the article you will find that it answers your first question - sometimes governments will deliberately cause a vote of confidence to fail in order to bring about an election before one would be mandated constituitionally.
I am removing the merger tag.
--I (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


i thinrk there is one in italy right now!--Sonjaaa (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why two articles?[edit]

We also have Motion of no confidence. On the face of it, that's just silly. (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)