Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Rehashed? - interesting then that the Met are now reopening the investigation?

They have asked to see the evidence to see if the investigation needs to be re-opened on the basis of these allegations. So it hasn't been reopened - yet - and may not be.

Even allowing for the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I'm quite uncomfortable having the director of communications at number ten so closely linked to all of this (if not at the very centre of it).

From Campbell to Coulson. Wow.

Don't get me wrong Darren if he is found guilty of directing this phone tapping then he needs to go, no question about that. However it appears that currently this based on an allegation by a former NOTW hack (aren't they all) who has suspiciously stayed silent about this up to now.

I wonder what his personal or political motivation could be for making this allegation just as Parliament is about to resume?

I know what you mean about Campbell to Coulson though, both lower than a snakes' ballbag.

[Gringo]

Coulson's guilty as hell as all private eye readers would agree. However, we must remember that these crimes were committed in the days before murdoch became evil.

[avfc89]

I love this current Government, they amuse me deeply

[drat01]

Theresa May getting absolutely mullered in the HOC

[Gringo]

Theresa May getting absolutely mullered in the HOC

Must be costing her a fortune, they put the prices up today.

[markavfc40]

Theresa May getting absolutely mullered in the HOC

Yes was just watching that Ian. Even for this Government so stands out as being out of her depth and an embarrassment.

[snowychap]

Not a clever effort (especially on the back of Graham Allen's comments yesterday evening about the lack of scrutiny that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee were able to undertake of the voting system and constituencies bill):

Fixed-term parliaments open to legal challenge, clerk of Commons warns

A major potential flaw in the coalition's bill to introduce fixed-term parliaments was exposed when the clerk of the Commons today warned it would open the way for repeated legal challenges if parliament passed a vote of no confidence in a government, leading to a general election.

Malcolm Jack, parliament's most senior legislative expert, said the bill could mean the courts would "be drawn into matters of acute political controversy such as whether an election should be held".

It is rare for the clerk of the house to stray into criticism of the government, and only happens if he feels legislation will undermine parliament.

In evidence to the political and constitutional reform select committee, Jack said the legal challenges could be passed to the European court of justice.

In a memorandum to the committee, he argued that the fixed-term parliament bill – due to have its second reading next week – gives powers to the Speaker to issue a certificate declaring that a vote of no confidence in the government had been passed, prompting a general election before the planned five year fixed-term ended.

He said these certificates would be open to legal challenge, potentially bringing the courts and parliament into conflict and undermining parliamentary privilege.

Jack warned that any interested party could challenge whether a motion of no confidence had been correctly worded or processed, whether the decision had been correctly reached and recorded and whether the casting vote of the Speaker had been used appropriately.

He also criticised the government for failing to produce such complex legislation in draft form and revealed he had not been consulted before the bill was published, and said it was not wise for the government to be introducing piecemeal reform to parliamentary privilege when it also had plans to introduce a major bill reforming the law on privilege.

He suggested the bill needed to be recast so the plans for motions of no confidence were taken out of it and put into standing orders, making them less available to legal challenge.

Jack Straw, the shadow justice secretary, said: "A matter of months after entering office, Nick Clegg is presiding over a constitutional shambles.

"The legislation providing for fixed-term parliaments has been severely criticised by the Clerk of the Commons.

"The Deputy PM needs to get back to go back to the drawing board and work with all sides to achieve genuine, fair, progressive political change. The opportunity is still there."

Tristam Hunt, a Labour MP on the committee, said the cler's comments "show the bill has not been thought through, since it opens up the calling of a general election to judicial review, and putting judges in charge of our democracy, including the date of a general election".

The Cabinet Office challenged Jack's view, saying they did not think it was a realistic prospect that confidence motions would be subject to legal challenge in the courts.

Some government sources said constitutional reform often came up against individuals opposed to change.

A cabinet office spokesman rejected Jack's arguments, saying the government "believes it is not realistic to expect that the Courts would start trespassing on such highly politicised issues and matters related to the internal workings of parliament".

The spokesman added: "There is no reason to believe that the courts would not continue to regard matters relating to the internal operation of the House as 'proceedings in parliament', in which they cannot interfere.

"The bill specifies that the Speaker's certificate [of (a) when the Commons has passed a motion by two-thirds or ( the no confidence process set out in the bill has been complied with] is conclusive for all purposes, meaning the decision about whether the conditions for an early election are satisfied is for the Speaker, not for the courts or the executive."

Jack warned that the provisions as currently constructed in the bill "make the Speaker's consideration of confidence motions and the house's practices justifiable questions for determination by ordinary courts".

Labour stressed it did not believe Jack's warnings justified its MPs voting against the bill at the second reading, but the party will raise detailed concerns at committee stage.

Jack's remarks may also intensify Tory backbench concerns about the bill, especially the prospect that the European courts could be involved.

Ministerial sources said inserting the provisions into standing orders was wrong because such orders could be ventured by a simple majority.

The government has already changed the bill to clarify the procedure when the Commons passes a motion of no confidence so it is clear parliament must be dissolved if no new government can be formed 14 days after the motion is passed.

Previously, the bill simply said a fixed-term parliament could only be brought to by a two-thirds majority of MPs.

The bill is intended to end the considerable advantage a governing party enjoys by virtue of the prime minister being able to tactically plan and choose an election date most favourable to his party.

[kidlewis]

Interesting points about this not so new "cuts hits the north more than the south shocker"

Today's research reveals a clear north-south divide. It is a divide which is a legacy of government policy over decades.

The Tees Valley in general and Middlesbrough in particular are places which became rich on heavy industry.

William Gladstone famously went to the original town hall in Middlesbrough and proclaimed it an "infant Hercules".

Go to the same spot now, as I did, and you find a sad, boarded-up building surrounded by wasteland and a few abandoned, crumbling houses.

The area found it increasingly hard to compete in global markets and, over time, government felt obliged to pump in state support to prop up and regenerate the declining economy.

The result is that a town like Middlesbrough has become state-dependent.

link

with changing global economies and much of our industry moving abroad because it's cheaper to produce has led to places like Middlesbrough dependent on the state. They had to replace the jobs going abroad with something else, which was public sector jobs.

Didn't someone on here point out that a massive percentage of jobs in the north east are public sector.

It's quite clear they were going to be hit more, I just hope that the freeze in public sector pay means there isn't as many job losses as there would be if they just carried on upping the wages.

What I can see happening though is that many who live there, who want more jobs available might be more welcoming than other areas of the country to large wind farm developments and renewable energy construction, therefore making it easier for those companies to develop, as there will be no one standing in their way.

Already in the Cotswolds there is a proposal for a development being met with fierce local opposition, with plenty of cash too judging by some of the houses in the villages that are protesting about it.

I play cricket over there a lot and there are signs all over some villages protesting about it.

I am sure many residents in the North East would have that development up there if they were to get the jobs.

[drat01]

Will Osborne ever answer any question in the HOC?

Totally and utterly out of his depth again in the debate re welfare - one of his own people calling him unethical and weak

Different subject but over 30,000 new members to Labour in the past couple of months with over a 1/3 coming from ex-Lib Dems

Also I see no mention about yet another attack on the rules of parliament from this more and more corrupt Gvmt - the Queens speech being moved from its usual date in Autumn to Spring. No other justification than it will allow them to force through some of their policies. Absolutely amazing !

[Awol]

Also I see no mention about yet another attack on the rules of parliament from this more and more corrupt Gvmt - the Queens speech being moved from its usual date in Autumn to Spring. No other justification than it will allow them to force through some of their policies. Absolutely amazing !

I've just read about this and was a bit puzzled too. Hasn't happened since 1949 or something like that and it would suggest that maybe they have some controversial legislation in the pipeline. I think calling it corruption is wrong because it's obviously not but the reasoning needs to be explained clearly.

On another note it will be interesting to see how the coalition deals with the anarchy that Bob Crow and company seem intent on bringing to the streets in the near future.

[drat01]

Thing is Jon - this is another change to our "constitution" - something if Labour had done, I suspect you and many others would have been up in arms about. There is no need other than a underhand (i.e. corrupt) way of forcing through their own legislation and choosing to ignore the rules that are currently in place because they don't fit in with their own agenda. You add that to the other things, and its a disgusting way of running a gvmt

:-) at your Bob Crow comment - I see you have taken in the right wing scare media headlines. If you actually read what the TUC are saying you will see that it is fair and reasonable and within all laws of the land. Anarchy it is not.

[TrentVilla]

Fair and reasonable and Bob Crow in the same breath, that could just be the first time those things have been said together.

[snowychap]

I don't think that the moving of the Queen's speech from Autumn to May is any problem (as long as fixed term parliaments come in to being).

One problem is that this means that the current session of parliament will be a two year one. Why is that necessary or desirable?

Another problem (and this is the real one) is that it is yet another example of the flagrant disregard of the executive for parliament.

The old lot did it, this lot are now doing it. This lot of bastards are as bad as the previous lot of bastards.

[drat01]

:-) - Me thinks the TUC as a whole is a lot bigger and has a lot more power than Mr Crow - His sabre rattling rhetoric is very much the minority voice from what I have seen and read today.

No doubt the Tory media will concentrate on that though rather than Osborne's avoiding the questions in the HOC re massive and unfair welfare attacks. Nor will they concentrate on the abuse of power that seems to be the norm now for this lot in power.

On a very much side point the one Lib-Dem councillor on Barnsley council today moved to Labour - she has said that the LibDems have betrayed the people and those who voted for them. The trickle from the old LibDem party to Labour is now becoming bigger

[drat01]

Its from the Sun - (which often raises questions about credibility) - BUT can you imagine the uproaor if this had happened under a Labour gvmt

Gvmt screws soldiers in Afghanistan - sacking some of them

WAR heroes are to be secretly sacked on the cheap as they fight on the frontline, The Sun can reveal.

The Army is planning to select soldiers for the chop WHILE out in Afghanistan.

But the troops will be told only AFTER they return home from tough tours of duty.

The betrayal emerged as Robbie Williams and Gary Barlow joined a star-studded concert last night to pay tribute to Our Boys and raise cash for heroes.

In a parallel programme of cuts, many other troops will lose out on cash from redundancy packages and pension

The moves, revealed in Army documents leaked to The Sun, come as the MoD is braced to slash manpower to save money.

One angry officer said: "Secretly sacking blokes on the cheap as they are fighting is about as low as the MoD has ever gone."

Thousands of soldiers could be made redundant because the MoD has been warned to expect budget cuts of up to 20 per cent.

But many others will be booted out under controversial regulations which were shelved years ago and have been quietly reintroduced. The system known as Manning Control Points, or MCP, will see troops given only a measly one-off cash sum and lose pension money.

Advertisement

MCP was stopped in 2002 after a flurry of court cases and fears it could be illegal - but resurrected in the last days of the Labour government. Many soldiers targeted for the axe will have young families.

The documents also show injured Servicemen who have been medically downgraded could be targeted - "regardless" of their condition.

The MoD stood by the secret sacking policy when confronted by The Sun. But senior defence sources insisted decent redundancy packages would also be offered.

Meanwhile Kingsman Darren Deady, who died in hospital after being shot in Afghanistan, was described as having "the heart of a lion".

Darren, 22, from Bolton was serving with 2nd Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. The death toll is now 335.

[peterms]

Also I see no mention about yet another attack on the rules of parliament from this more and more corrupt Gvmt - the Queens speech being moved from its usual date in Autumn to Spring. No other justification than it will allow them to force through some of their policies. Absolutely amazing !

I've just read about this and was a bit puzzled too. Hasn't happened since 1949 or something like that and it would suggest that maybe they have some controversial legislation in the pipeline. I think calling it corruption is wrong because it's obviously not but the reasoning needs to be explained clearly.

On another note it will be interesting to see how the coalition deals with the anarchy that Bob Crow and company seem intent on bringing to the streets in the near future.

It really doesn't matter whether there's a Queens Speech or not. Me, I'd rather there wasn't another one, ever. So whether Lord Snooty and his chums play fast and loose with the British Constitution in this particular respect is really of no concern. Though I'm sure some of their further plans for constitutional improvisation will exercise me more.

And Bob Crow and allies protesting against the current plans of this hotchpotch government, which didn't stand for election as a coalition and has no manifesto or mandate to act as such, is really very far removed from anarchy. It's a traditional and legal protest which is much less deserving of the description of "anarchy" than the MPs' expenses scandal, Coulson et al being buggers, or squaddies kicking people to death in a helicopter, for example.

[Awol]

And Bob Crow and allies protesting against the current plans of this hotchpotch government, which didn't stand for election as a coalition and has no manifesto or mandate to act as such, is really very far removed from anarchy.

Bob Crow calling for civil disobedience and emulation of the poll tax riots seems very much like an insightment to anarchic behaviour. If he doesn't like the fact that the country cannot and never has been able to afford 20% of the working population being employed by the State then that is his problem. Bluntly, the diverstiy councillors, 5 a day fruit and veg facilitation teams and carbon footprint reduction managers (as lampooned examples of the many current public sector non-jobs) are not sustainable from the public purse when our national finances resemble a shit house that's been hit by a meteorite.

The current government didn't stand for election as a coalition, but it is the perfectly constitutional result of the recent general election. We got what we voted for so bleating that they have no mandate is just daft.

It's a traditional and legal protest which is much less deserving of the description of "anarchy" than the MPs' expenses scandal, Coulson et al being buggers, or squaddies kicking people to death in a helicopter, for example.

I wouldn't argue at all that our MP's have dragged our democracy (Ha!) through the mud, but that has nothing to do with a bunch of trotskyite knobbers who think it's still 1975, trying to drag a struggling country even further into the mire - although Mr Crow did acheive an inflation busting pay rise last year whilst shedding crocodile tears about "the workers".

As for a few insurgents getting battered to death in a war zone, well, that's registered a big fat zero on my giveafuckometer.

[snowychap]

As for a few insurgents getting battered to death in a war zone, well, that's registered a big fat zero on my giveafuckometer.

Who is to say that they were 'a few insurgents', Jon? :?

[peterms]

Bob Crow calling for civil disobedience and emulation of the poll tax riots seems very much like an insightment to anarchic behaviour. If he doesn't like the fact that the country cannot and never has been able to afford 20% of the working population being employed by the State then that is his problem. Bluntly, the diverstiy councillors, 5 a day fruit and veg facilitation teams and carbon footprint reduction managers (as lampooned examples of the many current public sector non-jobs) are not sustainable from the public purse when our national finances resemble a shit house that's been hit by a meteorite.

If you call peaceful protest anarchic behaviour, then I respectfully suggest you widen the horizons of your capacity for describing political action.

And if you think the people employed as healthy eating advisors (how many? 20? 100? In the entire UK?) are the problem, rather than the millions of old people who can't be supported by the shrinking tax base (set to shrink further under Osborne's proposals), then you need to read a bit wider.

The current government didn't stand for election as a coalition, but it is the perfectly constitutional result of the recent general election. We got what we voted for so bleating that they have no mandate is just daft.

Obviously they have no mandate, not having stood on this platform. Did you read their manifestoes? Did they mention coalition? No. It's not "bleating", it's a simple factual description of the situation. Do you disagree? If so, why? If you don't, why try to impugn it with such terms?

I wouldn't argue at all that our MP's have dragged our democracy (Ha!) through the mud, but that has nothing to do with a bunch of trotskyite knobbers who think it's still 1975, trying to drag a struggling country even further into the mire - although Mr Crow did acheive an inflation busting pay rise last year whilst shedding crocodile tears about "the workers".

As for a few insurgents getting battered to death in a war zone, well, that's registered a big fat zero on my giveafuckometer.

So cold blooded murder registers less with you than legitimate political protest? Interesting set of values.

[leviramsey]

Radley Balko"]

After setting out a promising agenda of government cuts and restoration of civil liberties ("a bonfire of unnecessary laws"!), then launching a website where Brits could make yet more suggestions on how to roll back the U.K. Nanny State, the Cameron-Clegg coalition government is moving toward actual implementation.

And how.

One hundred and seventy-seven taxpayer-funded bodies are to be abolished under Coalition plans seen by The Daily Telegraph.

A further 94 are still under threat of being scrapped, four will be privatised and 129 will be merged, according to a Cabinet Office list compiled this week, while 350 other bodies have won a reprieve.

The list discloses for the first time the extent of David Cameron’s plans for the "bonfire of the quangos", designed to save the taxpayer billions of pounds. Thousands of jobs will go as part of the reforms...

However, ministers will point to the billions of pounds that are likely to be saved after the number of taxpayer-funded quangos soared under Labour to cost an estimated £65 billion a year and employ more than 100,000 people.

A senior Whitehall source said: "These reforms represent the most significant rolling back of bureaucracy and the state for decades. Our starting point has been that every quango must not only justify its existence but its reliance on public money."

This is the closest thing we libertarians get to porn this side of ... well ... actual porn.

Hats off to David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The phrase "left and right setting aside their differences and coming together to get things done" usually forebodes a disastrous expansion of government reach and power. It's almost miraculous to see the two sides embracing—rather than shedding—their limited government tendencies upon assuming power.

Anyone know where I can get a "Daniels-Feingold 2012" bumper sticker?