Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

No, that's my point, it isn't what happens in practice. The theory is that people select between individuals. The practice is that most people vote on party lines. Our constitution, such as it is, doesn't really recognise the primacy of party in voting behaviour. Though party loyalty is waning, in general this still holds true. Many people can tell you the name of the party they voted for, but couldn't name the candidate.

If we really did vote only for individuals, we wouldn't have much clue what sort of government would emerge (bit like PR, I suppose). As it is, we are accustomed to electing people who vote overwhelmingly on party lines, so that the government which emerges is pretty well aligned with the position of the majority party - until they start to drift away from it, but that's another story...

Okay, this might just seem a bit of an argument about semantics surrounding the phrase 'in practice' but I think it's rather important.

Just because people 'in practice' vote along party lines (candidates having usually purported to be a member of a party) does not mean that they are 'in practice' electing a government of a particular hue. They are, in practice, electing their representative, someone who is supposed to represent that constituency, regardless of whether the particular constituent actually put a cross by their name. Just because they don't approach it in that way does not mean that, in practice, they are not actually doing it.

It's pretty much the same for an MP who loses the party whip or crosses the floor. The reason that there is no by-election called is because they, as individuals, are the ones who receive the votes.

People may believe that they are voting for a particular flavour of government or a particular party to govern but they need to be slapped around the face again and again with the proverbial wet fish (preferrably something rather large and smelly) until they recognize that they aren't.

This situation (the coalition) should seek to educate the public as to the constitutional practice rather than be an opportunity for people to moan because the system isn't what they stupidly thought it was.

[leviramsey]

We had a similar debate along these lines (and perhaps it's a good idea to have a constitutional/political structure thread (I did think about "bollitical" there, but I think that a more abstract thread has the potential to be less bollitical) for these sorts of things) in the party-leadership debates.

I posted then that it may well be a good idea to make the PM more directly accountable to the people. Whether that means a more presidential prime minister or some other reform, I don't know.

(again, as might be clear from my postings in these sorts of threads, ideologically I find the idea of a Liberal/Conservative coalition government to be the best possible government... I'm not putting this forth out of any desire for a different government (as I suspect is the case with some who insist on calling the government unelected))

[leviramsey]

This situation (the coalition) should seek to educate the public as to the constitutional practice rather than be an opportunity for people to moan because the system isn't what they stupidly thought it was.

It is perhaps difficult for the coalition to educate the public about the constitution when they are continuing the practices of the previous few decades in putting in place major changes in the constitution. I guess that's to be expected when you have a constitution largely consisting of customs and simple-majority laws.

[snowychap]

This situation (the coalition) should seek to educate the public as to the constitutional practice rather than be an opportunity for people to moan because the system isn't what they stupidly thought it was.

It is perhaps difficult for the coalition to educate the public about the constitution when they are continuing the practices of the previous few decades in putting in place major changes in the constitution. I guess that's to be expected when you have a constitution largely consisting of customs and simple-majority laws.

Ah, I'd be hoping that the situation itself (partly by means of self-education and partly by means of serious, knowledgeable commentators - and we do still have a few but in no way by means of the politicians themselves) would have led to that education.

p.s. Don't be having a go at our constitution. :winkold:

We've got a bill of rights, too, y'know.

[drat01]

To round off a really bad / good week for this Gvmt it seems that the following stories are happening on a regular basis

Tory MP abuses constituents - alling them "primitives who hold up their trousers with string".

Quite shameful comments from him really

This one is interesting and shows more off shore money being ploughed into the Tory party funds

Interesting that the source is the Daily Mail who seemingly really dislike Cameron and his followers.

The shady City past and friendship with Air Miles Andy of new Tory treasurer

is the headline

The old chestnut about not hitting the NHS (a usual Tory target) is being blown away. This from the Torygraph!!

Axe falls on NHS services

NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured. .....

Some interesting sources for those stories - you would expect it from the Mirror but with the Mail and the Torygraph now seemingly running anti-Cameron and anti-Tory stories you have to wonder what is happening here.

[peterms]

No, that's my point, it isn't what happens in practice. The theory is that people select between individuals. The practice is that most people vote on party lines. Our constitution, such as it is, doesn't really recognise the primacy of party in voting behaviour. Though party loyalty is waning, in general this still holds true. Many people can tell you the name of the party they voted for, but couldn't name the candidate.

If we really did vote only for individuals, we wouldn't have much clue what sort of government would emerge (bit like PR, I suppose). As it is, we are accustomed to electing people who vote overwhelmingly on party lines, so that the government which emerges is pretty well aligned with the position of the majority party - until they start to drift away from it, but that's another story...

Okay, this might just seem a bit of an argument about semantics surrounding the phrase 'in practice' but I think it's rather important.

Just because people 'in practice' vote along party lines (candidates having usually purported to be a member of a party) does not mean that they are 'in practice' electing a government of a particular hue. They are, in practice, electing their representative, someone who is supposed to represent that constituency, regardless of whether the particular constituent actually put a cross by their name. Just because they don't approach it in that way does not mean that, in practice, they are not actually doing it.

It's pretty much the same for an MP who loses the party whip or crosses the floor. The reason that there is no by-election called is because they, as individuals, are the ones who receive the votes.

People may believe that they are voting for a particular flavour of government or a particular party to govern but they need to be slapped around the face again and again with the proverbial wet fish (preferrably something rather large and smelly) until they recognize that they aren't.

This situation (the coalition) should seek to educate the public as to the constitutional practice rather than be an opportunity for people to moan because the system isn't what they stupidly thought it was.

Yes and no, Snowy. The constitutional position is as you describe. What I'm talking about is more what it seems most people think they are doing when they vote.

Voting is often an expression of tribal loyalty (as I say, declining). Sometimes it's just wanting to give encouragement to a minority party, knowing they have no chance but that every vote will matter to them. Very occasionally, eg when a candidate has been deselected but stands anyway as an independent, it's a vote for the individual over the party.

Mostly, I think, when people vote they are expressing a preference for which party they would prefer to see form the government. Whether that is technically, constitutionally what they are doing isn't the point I'm making.

Our constitution is a bit opaque, but I'm not sure I go along with wet fish as a teaching aid. If you're set on the idea, though, may I recommend a week-old plaice? Light enough not to cause real damage, flat enough to cause an impressively loud impact, old enough to be smelly but not a major health hazard.

[snowychap]

What I'm talking about is more what it seems most people think they are doing when they vote.

What I am arguing is that it doesn't actually matter what people think they are doing in terms of the result.

What happens in practice is what their vote results in.

Whether that is technically, constitutionally what they are doing isn't the point I'm making.

I get that, Peter, but what I was arguing was as above.

If people put food out in order to feed badgers and it actually ends up attracting and satisfying the hunger of rats then what they have actually done, in practice, is feed rats.

Our constitution is a bit opaque, but I'm not sure I go along with wet fish as a teaching aid. If you're set on the idea, though, may I recommend a week-old plaice? Light enough not to cause real damage, flat enough to cause an impressively loud impact, old enough to be smelly but not a major health hazard.

I was thinking more of

with the 'last word' (big fish) being the constitutional reality. :winkold:

[blandy]

...what they have actually done, in practice, is feed rats....

Brilliant on several levels.

[drat01]

Well Newsnight was interesting last night. The LibDem MP on there was a complet and utter shambles, Dave Willets tried and tried but failed on every count to try and justify the Gvmt ideas.

The most damning for anyone who voted LibDem would have been Tebbits admission that the LibDems allowed bigger and more severe cuts because they can deflect the blame.

Shame on you who allowed this!!

Also for those who maintain that there are two separate parties read this

Tory MP: we won't fight Lib Dems at the next election

Tories will not put up candidates against most Lib Dem MPs, predicts Mark Field.

Speculation that there will be some sort of Tory-Lib Dem pact in 2015 has been growing for several weeks, with Michael Portillo recently suggesting that the two parties should fight the next election under the banner of "the coalition".

Now, in a fascinating post on ConservativeHome, Tory MP Mark Field has said that his party is almost certain to give "most Liberal Democrat incumbents" a free run in their seats, with the Lib Dems reciprocating by not standing against the most vulnerable Conservative MPs. Field may only be one MP but his piece could be indicative of thinking elsewhere in the party.

The implications of such a pact would be profound. Since the Tories would struggle to win a Commons majority without taking seats off the Lib Dems, a pact would amount to an effective endorsement of permanent coalition government. Cameron's recent assertion that he views the coalition not as an alliance of convenience, but as a vehicle to realign British politics, suggests he may be open to this option.

Interestingly, while Field's proposal makes a lot sense under first-past-the-post, it would make little under the Alternative Vote [AV]. Under AV, the coalition partners would likely advise their voters to give each other second preferences, while putting up candidates in every constituency.

But should Field's prediction come to pass, we can expect a record number of candidates from UKIP and the non-aligned right for all those Tory voters who wouldn't dare lend their support to Nick Clegg's party.

Tags: David Cameron Nick Clegg

How interesting

[drat01]

Cameron insists that Turkey must join the EU

David Cameron has promised to "fight" for Turkey's membership of the European Union, saying he is "angry" at the slow pace of negotiations. ...... more on link

Oooh now this is an interesting one.

[Awol]

Cameron insists that Turkey must join the EU

David Cameron has promised to "fight" for Turkey's membership of the European Union, saying he is "angry" at the slow pace of negotiations. ...... more on link

Oooh now this is an interesting one.

Good or bad interesting Ian?

[drat01]

It depends Jon.

I can see a lot of the "old school" Tory party being very anti this. The old Lib Dem idea of embracing all of Europe will be up for a test because of the challenges that Turkey being in the EU would bring. The alliances that Cameron had been making within the EU are very anti this, so where would that leave those ideas? Add to that Greek / Cypriot anti Turkish views, NATO views and the theories behind the use of Turkish airbases for possible attacks on Iran and support for Afghanistan.

I get the impression that this is more Cameron trying to be statesman like on a trip to what is classed as a growth economy rather than a true belief of the merits of Turkish integration into the EU .

[Awol]

It depends Jon.

I can see a lot of the "old school" Tory party being very anti this. The old Lib Dem idea of embracing all of Europe will be up for a test because of the challenges that Turkey being in the EU would bring.

In the sense that the French, Germans and Austrians are very anti Turkish entry then yes it will make waves.

The alliances that Cameron had been making within the EU are very anti this, so where would that leave those ideas? Add to that Greek / Cypriot anti Turkish views, NATO views and the theories behind the use of Turkish airbases for possible attacks on Iran and support for Afghanistan.

Well Turkey is a key NATO country and withdrew it cooperation for the Iraq invasion at the last moment - the Brits were supposed to go in from the North and not through Basra - so I don't see them having part in an attack on Iran.

I get the impression that this is more Cameron trying to be statesman like on a trip to what is classed as a growth economy rather than a true belief of the merits of Turkish integration into the EU .

Why make statements such as this when as you acknowledge it will alienate all kinds of people if you don't actually believe it? I think he's taking the broader (and incidentally the American) view that it's better to have Turkey inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. The alternative is Turkey drifting off into the orbit of the Middle East which in the long term is more threatening to both Israel and Greece.

If the continental europeans can't be brought around to that view he still has the kudos of trying to do the 'right' thing and showing the broader Muslim world that we are not anti-Islamic and therefore a good place to invest, sell energy to and buy arms from.

All in all a smart geo-political move from the boy Dave.

[drat01]

The thing is Jon, Turkey being admitted into the EU is probably not going to happen for a long time due to the factions that are anti-it so Cameron making these statements are interesting because they will piss off a lot of people.

A quick trawl on typical "old school" Tory media such as the Mail make interesting reading and when you consider what his EU allies say on this I can't see how this can be a smart move?

I would also be interested in his views on immigration if Turkey were to be in the EU.

[Awol]

I can't see how this can be a smart move?

I've just described above why I think it's a smart move geo-politically, not least staying onside with the people who control our energy supplies.

We won't fall out with any of the big EU players over this because it's not in their interests to do so - France for example see the future of their defence capability as very much tied to ours so it's a no lose situation for Dave. Frankly who gives a monkeys chuff whether the Mail are bleating or not? It makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

I would also be interested in his views on immigration if Turkey were to be in the EU.

Well IF it happened I'd imagine something similar to what France and Germany did when the Eastern \Euro nations joined - a moratorium on free movement/settlement of people from that country in their nations for X number of years.

[snowychap]

I'm sure the standard advice is to read through and check one's answers before handing them in:

Gove ignored advice on buildings list, says quango chief

The education secretary, Michael Gove, ignored advice to check an error-strewn list of cancelled school building projects before it was published, a quango chief claimed today.

Tim Byles, chief executive of a quango responsible for an axed £55bn initiative to rebuild the country's schools, told MPs he had warned Gove's office to check his facts before telling hundreds of schools whether their new buildings would go ahead.

But he said that Gove's staff disregarded this, and published a list earlier this month that was found to have 25 errors.

On reading the list, schools celebrated the news that their new buildings were to go ahead only to discover, later in the day, that their rebuilding projects had been binned. Many teachers and local authorities had spent several years and millions of pounds negotiating the plans. Gove was forced to apologise in the Commons.

Ministers later appeared to blame Byles, head of the quango Partnerships for Schools, for the errors.

But Byles told the cross-party Commons education select committee that when Gove asked him to collect information for the list, he had explained to him that his quango only had data relating to schools that were in the advanced stages of obtaining a new building.

"I told [Gove's] department that they should check with local authorities, but this advice was not followed," he said. "We advised that it would be better to validate the data."

However, he admitted that his quango was responsible for errors that resulted in schools in Sandwell, West Midlands, thinking their building plans were going ahead when they had in fact been scrapped.

"We had people working 24 hours a day for three weeks to compile the list," he told MPs. "But that was our mistake."

Earlier this month, Gove cancelled the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative started under the previous government, because he said it had been hit by "massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy".

Byles accused Gove of misinforming the public about BSF. Gove told the Commons last month that, under the initiative, schools had to "measure the distance between cycle racks before they could go ahead with construction [of a new school]. Unless [the measurement] was between 600mm and 1 metre, the school could not be built."

He said: "It is that sort of absurd, pettifogging, centralising bureaucracy that we need to sweep away so that money goes where it needs to go – towards the frontline."

But Byles said there were no such rules on cycle racks. "There isn't enforced guidance on cycle racks, as it is sometimes said," he told MPs, adding that he dealt "in the matter of facts" and was "committed to truth and fairness".

Byles admitted that BSF had come up against problems of bureaucracy and waste, but said this was the fault of European Union rules on procurement. He said money was wasted on commissioning several designs for a new building to ensure local authorities had options to choose from.

This means designs are "fully worked up and then put in the bin", Byles said. "Much of the regulation is completely out of our control – it is European regulations."

But Byles said many schools, such as Oxclose community school in Sunderland, had dramatically improved their results because, in part, of a new building. The proportion of Oxclose's pupils achieving A* to C grades in five GCSEs including English and maths has shot up from 19% to 60% in two years.

[Ads]

Awol, I agree with your tent pissing analogy! I’ve heard of concerns from within Turkey of certain factions in the political establishment and even the army looking more Eastward and indentifying less with the secular principles that Turkey as a modern state was founded on.

[avfc89]

Well Newsnight was interesting last night. The LibDem MP on there was a complet and utter shambles, Dave Willets tried and tried but failed on every count to try and justify the Gvmt ideas.

The most damning for anyone who voted LibDem would have been Tebbits admission that the LibDems allowed bigger and more severe cuts because they can deflect the blame.

Shame on you who allowed this!!

Also for those who maintain that there are two separate parties read this

Tory MP: we won't fight Lib Dems at the next election

Tories will not put up candidates against most Lib Dem MPs, predicts Mark Field.

Speculation that there will be some sort of Tory-Lib Dem pact in 2015 has been growing for several weeks, with Michael Portillo recently suggesting that the two parties should fight the next election under the banner of "the coalition".

Now, in a fascinating post on ConservativeHome, Tory MP Mark Field has said that his party is almost certain to give "most Liberal Democrat incumbents" a free run in their seats, with the Lib Dems reciprocating by not standing against the most vulnerable Conservative MPs. Field may only be one MP but his piece could be indicative of thinking elsewhere in the party.

The implications of such a pact would be profound. Since the Tories would struggle to win a Commons majority without taking seats off the Lib Dems, a pact would amount to an effective endorsement of permanent coalition government. Cameron's recent assertion that he views the coalition not as an alliance of convenience, but as a vehicle to realign British politics, suggests he may be open to this option.

Interestingly, while Field's proposal makes a lot sense under first-past-the-post, it would make little under the Alternative Vote [AV]. Under AV, the coalition partners would likely advise their voters to give each other second preferences, while putting up candidates in every constituency.

But should Field's prediction come to pass, we can expect a record number of candidates from UKIP and the non-aligned right for all those Tory voters who wouldn't dare lend their support to Nick Clegg's party.

Tags: David Cameron Nick Clegg

How interesting

Very interesting indeed, I wonder how Liberal supporters will feel about this potential arrangement.

[thetrees]

It depends Jon.

I can see a lot of the "old school" Tory party being very anti this. The old Lib Dem idea of embracing all of Europe will be up for a test because of the challenges that Turkey being in the EU would bring. The alliances that Cameron had been making within the EU are very anti this, so where would that leave those ideas? Add to that Greek / Cypriot anti Turkish views, NATO views and the theories behind the use of Turkish airbases for possible attacks on Iran and support for Afghanistan.

I think that you will find that there is plenty of scope to launch an attack from Afghanistan and Diego Garcia.

Presumably it is the Americans who would require the bases, and as both the French and Spanish kicked them out, I very much doubt whether a country's EU membership has any particular positive points for American military planning.

[Awol]

David Cameron agrees nuclear deal with India against official advice

British companies will be free to strike deals worth billions of pounds under the new regime which will be based on a “presumption” that export licences will be granted for products intended for civilian use unless there are specific concerns about a deal.

The move will be announced today during a three-day trade mission by the Prime Minister to India, and includes a pledge to share research.

The last, Labour government had blocked the export of nuclear technology on the grounds that India had refused to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

There were also concerns that, despite requests from the Americans, India had failed to ensure a proper separation of its civilian and military programmes.

The move is part of a wider push by the Prime Minister to strengthen trade ties and capitalise on India's rapidly growing economy. However his attempts threaten to be undermined by a row over an immigration cap which threatens to prevent thousands of Indian workers from coming to Britain.

In June, a few weeks after the Coalition came to power, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, wrote to the entire Cabinet proposing that the restrictions be lifted, on the grounds that the United States had agreed to trade with India two years ago, and British firms were missing out on a multi-billion pound industry.

He suggested that Britain continue to make the case for the Indians to separate their military and civilian nuclear programmes, and under a programme of “assessed risk,” deals which raised specific concerns continue to be blocked.

Following the letter, the Prime Minister “held back” relevant ministers after a Cabinet meeting to discuss the matter – and it was agreed that exports would be allowed.

Downing Street confirmed that the decision made despite official advice from both the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Senior civil servants were said to have urged more “caution,” although the previous administration is said to have been “leaning towards” relaxing the export regime.

Rolls Royce and Serco are already said to be in the process of applying for licences.

As well as the business aspect of the policy change, Britain and India will today announce that the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will take part in a £2.4 million programme with the Indian Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to develop research. The costs are being shared between the two countries.

Also during the visit by the Prime Minister, and the 60-strong delegation of business leaders he has brought with him, defence firm BAE is expected to sign a deal worth around £500 million to supply India with 57 Hawk jets. Westland helicopters also hopes to conclude a trade agreement.

Mr Cable said that he had “no qualms” about providing India with such expensive equipment when millions of children were starving, saying that the country was a democracy enjoying rapid economic growth.

Mr Cable said UK firms: "potentially could do a large amount of business in India".

He added: "There are obvious security sensitivities. We are conscious of those, as are the Indians.

"But within those constraints we really want to push ahead with civil nuclear co-operation.

"That would be quite a big sector within which we could really make progress."

Liking this. India is the biggest democracy in the world and a huge market that will advance with or without our help. Seems that the 'Britain is open for business line' is being backed up with firm action.

Good move.