Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

You are OK with funding (and the favours it brings) that is very obvious, many many others not. The fact that despite all of their financial advantages the Tory party were still unable to deliver shows them to be a weak party and "lightweight"? - but again stop playing the silly games of deflection will you and as this is about the ConDem maybe talk about this Gvmt?

I made no comment regarding a preference for funding , merely asked the difference between £18m and £16.7m

Re your last point I must have missed the bit where Woolas and Chaytor joined the Tory party !!

[drat01]

Tony - again you deliberately miss the points - look at the points being raised about the amounts of monies paid out by the Tory party compared to the others, look at the net results (the need to rely on opponents they have spent thousands possibly millions on arguing against, the millions spent in Scotland to get 1 MP elected) and this is all from expenditure that the public can see, nothing at all from the "freebies" from donors, the "interesting" accounts - see Zac Goldsmith - and the millions that organisations like Murdoch will have spent in support for them.

The Tory part of this Gvmt spent an incredible amount of time and money on the last election, to fail in their objectives of winning a majority. The bigger issues are still there in terms of who and what are funding them and the paybacks that are occurring (we are all in this together - pah). But as said you are not bothered by funding - and yes we have discussed it on many times as you know.

[drat01]

Tory promise to be Pro-American

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'

Leaked dispatch reveals how US diplomats are amused by Britain's 'paranoid' fears about so-called special relationship

Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show.

Despite British leaders' supportive stance, the dispatches also reveal – in what some will see as humiliating detail – how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.

One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance". The UK was said to offer "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

The incoming Conservatives appear to have made some wide-ranging offers of political co-operation with the US. The cables detail a series of private meetings with Tory frontbenchers, many of whom are now in the cabinet.

Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".

Fox met the US ambassador, Louis Susman, a year ago. In a 10 December 2009 cable marked "confidential", Susman recorded: "Liam Fox affirmed his desire to work closely with the US if the Conservative party wins power … adding that 'we (Conservatives) intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement'." He reportedly went on: "Increasing US-UK 'interoperability is the key' since the US and UK will continue to fight together in the future" and "expressed confidence regarding US leadership in Afghanistan and optimism about the way forward".

The frontbencher admitted that there was an opposed faction within Tory ranks. "Fox asserted that some within the Conservative party are less enthusiastic, asserting that 'we're supposed to be partners with, not supplicants to, the United States'. Fox said he rebuffed these assertions, and he welcomed the ambassador's reassurance that senior US leaders value the UK as an equal partner."

Hague pledged his own loyalty in an earlier meeting with the US deputy chief of mission, Richard LeBaron. A confidential cable marked "no foreigners" from 1 April 2008 records: "The deputy chief of mission asked Hague whether the relationship between the UK and the US was 'still special'. Hague said he, David Cameron and George Osborne were 'children of Thatcher' and staunch Atlanticists … For his part, said Hague, he has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America and, like many similar to him, considers America the 'other country to turn to'.

"Asking his senior adviser her views, [Arminka] Helic (who is Bosnian), said: 'America is the essential country.'

"Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. He went on: 'We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.' "

These enthusiastic approaches came against a backdrop of what American officials termed British "paranoia" following the arrival of Barack Obama as an unknown presidential quantity.

In a lengthy classified dispatch in February 2009 headed "The British ask, is our special relationship still special in Washington?" LeBaron wrote: "More than one HMG senior official asked embassy officers whether President Obama meant to send a signal in his inaugural address about US-UK relations by quoting Washington during the revolutionary war [against Britain], while the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval office consumed much UK newsprint."

The Times had written, allegedly quoting British embassy sources in Washington, about the distress caused by the removal of the bust, lent to George Bush by Tony Blair from the UK government art collection, in happier times. It was headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over special relationship".

LeBaron noted dryly: "This period of excessive UK speculation about the relationship is more paranoid than usual … This over-reading would often be humorous, if it were not so corrosive."

He advised against taking advantage of British neuroses and said the UK remained highly useful to the US because of its "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims. "Though tempting to argue that keeping HMG off balance about its current standing with us might make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance, in the long run it is not in US interests to have the UK public concluding the relationship is weakening, on either side.

"The UK's commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security."

Britain's willingness to invest in expensive weaponry is a key part of the so-called special relationship. The UK's annual military budget is running at £37bn a year.

Fox's reference to more procurement from the US shows his zest for heavy spending on two future big-ticket items – the joint strike fighter [JSF], and the £20bn replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. The largely US-built JSF will be formidably expensive, and the original scheme was for Britain to buy up to 138 of them at £150m each, to go on giant aircraft carriers.

Fox is having an uphill fight: the recent defence review promised only to buy a cheaper version, and to cut the numbers of planes. Some are urging the purchase of US-made drones instead: the Ministry of Defence recently announced the purchase of 100 small Desert Hawk III drones and five extra Reaper killer drones. Other US purchases may be in the pipeline. Frustratingly perhaps for Fox, decisions on the Trident replacement scheme, which will rely on submarine-launched ballistic missiles leased from the US, have been delayed until after the next election.

This is actually very interesting and shows up a lot of what the Tory part of the Gvmt actually want rather than what they say. (Maybe the "gaffe" from Cameron about being a "junior partner" was just part of a bigger plan?).

[drat01]

Could this be the start of it for Coulson? - Oh I really hope so!

Coulson to appear as witness - under oath - in court

Coulson to appear in court at perjury trial

David Cameron's director of communications Andy Coulson is to appear at Glasgow High Court next week to give evidence in the perjury case of former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan.

The former News of the World editor will be called by the defence on Wednesday or Thursday to answer questions in connection with the publication of sex allegations which led to Mr Sheridan successfully suing the tabloid in 2006. The private investigator Glen Mulcaire is expected to be cited the following week. Mr Mulcaire was jailed along with the newspaper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, for phone hacking in 2007, which prompted Mr Coulson's resignation as editor.

Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, who investigated the affair on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, will also appear.

Mr Sheridan is defending himself in the trial. He and his wife, Gail, who is also charged with lying under oath during the defamation case, deny the charges.

There will no doubt be a lot of loaded questions aimed at Coulson even as a witness - how Cameron can keep in office is amazing while all this is still going on

[Awol]

Tory promise to be Pro-American

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'

Were you expecting "UK Government to run Anti-American regime"?

Not exactly big news.

[tonyh29]

how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.

Could it be more to do with the fact that the US is our biggest export Market and we don't want to piss them off ?

[tonyh29]

. But as said you are not bothered by funding - and yes we have discussed it on many times as you know.

I'm also not bothered by the pope ... But that doesn't make me a pedophile ...

Re - missing the point , I'd say the point was perfectly clear ? But since you were a member of VT in 2005 can you refresh my memory on how many times party funding was an issues when labour was spending it's 18m to lose 6% of it's vote share ?

[peterms]

Drugs policy is now officially free from irritating scientific advice, and can instead be based just on ideology, whims, or spinning the bottle.

Excellent. I hope they will quickly introduce this new approach to education, health and other things. Do away with the bureaucrats pontificating, just get back to good old common sense. I believe they've successfully piloted the approach on the economy, and armed forces procurement.

If any external advice is really needed, bring in a couple of chaps from industry. Men who've worked in the real world, who know one end of a brown envelope from another, and who are worldly-wise enough to pay no taxes. That's what we need, not hand-wringing do-gooders.

Government proposes to scrap need for scientific advice on drugs policy

Amendment removes requirement to appoint at least six scientists to Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

Ministers will not be required to seek the advice of scientists when making drug classification policy in future, under new government proposals.

The police reform and social responsibility bill, published last week, contains an amendment to the constitution of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) that would remove the requirement on the home secretary to appoint at least six scientists to the committee.

A further amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would allow the home secretary to place temporary controls on substances for a year by statutory instrument.

The proposals will be of concern to the many doctors and scientists who have criticised the government's treatment of scientific evidence in the wake of the sacking, last year, of ACMD chairman David Nutt. The then home secretary, Alan Johnson, removed Nutt from the post after the scientist criticised politicians for distorting research evidence and claiming alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

At present, the ACMD is required to have a membership that includes representatives of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry. It is also meant to include people with expertise on the social problems connected with the misuse of drugs.

"The government is ill-advised to hack away at science advisory structures," said Evan Harris, former Lib Dem MP and campaigner for evidence-based policy. "The solution to the poor relationship scientists and Home Office ministers have had is for both to follow their codes of practice, not for ministers to seek to abolish science advisers."

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: "It's incredible that the government are trying to take us back to the time of 'Minister knows best'. Scrapping the need for expertise on the drugs advice is not only bad science, but it's also terrible politics."

He added that the status of the ACMD was still a raw nerve for the scientific community – six of its members resigned last year in protest after Nutt was sacked. "The Home Office would be hard-pressed to find a worse fight to pick with the science community," he said.

Crime reduction minister James Brokenshire said: "Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the government's approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true.

"Removing the requirement on the home secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on.

"We want the ACMD to be adapted to best address the challenges posed by the accelerating pace of challenges in the drugs landscape."

After David Nutt was removed, scientists called on the government to guarantee that any advice they offered to help make policy would remain free from political interference. More than 20 academics drafted guidelines that they said "would enhance confidence in the scientific advisory system and help government to secure essential advice".

The guidelines argued that "disagreement with government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees can not be grounds for criticism or dismissal."

Leonor Sierra of Sense about Science, which helped to publish the independent guidelines, said: "We are rather surprised that instead of improving on the scientific constitution of the advisory council to deal with any shortcomings in the original legislation this bill proposes doing away altogether with the requirement for scientists. Given the recent history, the government really needs to explain how it will maintain objective clarity around evaluation of substances, particularly new substances, in the face of sensationalist or knee-jerk debates."

Harris said the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was ahead of its time in embedding expert and scientific advice into policymaking. "In the forty years since then the need for good evidence to inform policy has increased, yet the government seem to want to go back to a pre-scientific era in policy terms."

Earlier this year, the ACMD members who resigned after David Nutt's sacking launched their own independent committee to provide definitive scientific advice on the risks of drugs. The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs includes scientists, drug-treatment professionals and representatives from the police. It is committed to assess, in public, the evidence on the relative risks and harms of drugs without regard to political sensitivities.

[Jon]

They are in government and I can't see any other way of reading cabinet collective responsiblity (as outlined on p.3 of the ministerial code ) other than that they would have to resign from government in order to not vote for it.

They should all resign, the feckers.

and if they don't after May 2011, then the Lib Party will IMO cease to exist in any meaningful way.

[tonyh29]

and if they don't after May 2011, then the Lib Party will IMO cease to exist in any meaningful way.

did they exist in any meaningful way prior to May 2011 ? :winkold:

[Gringo]

They are in government and I can't see any other way of reading cabinet collective responsiblity (as outlined on p.3 of the ministerial code ) other than that they would have to resign from government in order to not vote for it.

They should all resign, the feckers.

and if they don't after May 2011, then the Lib Party will IMO cease to exist in any meaningful way.

The crunch will be earlier than that. When parliament votes for the AV referendum, labour will oppose because they're the opposition, a large chunk of tories will want to abstain or oppose, and the libdems are left with nothing in return for their support for the condem govt. So do they bring down the govt and force an election that sees them lose half of their seats? Or is that the threat that keeps the tory backbenches in line?

The vote needs/deserves to be defeated because of the undemocratic nature of tying the AV vote to the consituency boundary changes.

[tonyh29]

labour will oppose because they're the opposition

After the "I agree with Nick" TV debate i think Labour made a few noises about it but as a party they were never in favour I seem to recall ?

[drat01]

Jeremy word removed? - :-)

A bit of light relief or maybe subconscious thoughts about Jeremy Hunt or is it word removed? :-)

[avfc89]

I get to vote again.

[blandy]

Drugs policy is now officially free from irritating scientific advice, and can instead be based just on ideology, whims, or spinning the bottle.

Excellent. I hope they will quickly introduce this new approach to education, health and other things. Do away with the bureaucrats pontificating, just get back to good old common sense. I believe they've successfully piloted the approach on the economy, and armed forces procurement.

They did the same with the Badgers and TB - 42 million pound study concluded that a cull would worsen the problem, that vaccination is the way forward and so on, but the farming lobby (largely Tory voting) wants to kill badgers, so "away you go lads".

[blandy]

They are in government and I can't see any other way of reading cabinet collective responsiblity (as outlined on p.3 of the ministerial code ) other than that they would have to resign from government in order to not vote for it.

They should all resign, the feckers.

and if they don't after May 2011, then the Lib Party will IMO cease to exist in any meaningful way.

Absolutely not. They should not resign. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, by remaining in the coalition Gov't, they will get and have got some Liberal Dem policies effected - the tax threshold, delaying trident and so on, and more to follow

Secondly, instability, where the Gov't falls would be very damaging for the country and the economy. It would spook the markets, which much as we don't like the way the markets work, is a fact, and would hurt us all.

Thirdly, it is Lib Dem policy that coalition and partnership is how the country should be run, pretty much. To walk away from a partnership, having signed an agreement to work with a partner would do more harm to them than staying the course.

Fourth, the policy is actual an improvement on the current problem of uni funding. Had it been renamed and not been called tuition fees, but had another name, then half the fuss wouldn't be generated that has been.

Fifth, Labour, for example pledged not to introduce tuition fees, and then did so - the precedents for doing the opposite of pledges is long and indistinguished. At least the Lib Dems can say that they are not in a position to implement all their policies, whereas that's not the case with previous gov'ts.

Aside from the politics, the policy is actually better than the old one and not that far from the intent of a fairer and better system that they actually wanted. The pledge was pretty dumb, and was done no doubt to win votes, and like with other parties in the past has subsequently backfired.

Realistically, a row over student fees for Uni is not anywhere near the sort of thing that should bring down the Gov't of any country. It is just not important enough to cause the upheaval that would ensue.

Finally, they agreed to jointly run the country, and they should bloody well get on and do that, not go off in a sulk because some students are unhappy about the way their education is paid for.

[Awol]

^ Amen, a pity their MP's aren't so clear thinking.

[peterms]

They are in government and I can't see any other way of reading cabinet collective responsiblity (as outlined on p.3 of the ministerial code ) other than that they would have to resign from government in order to not vote for it.

They should all resign, the feckers.

and if they don't after May 2011, then the Lib Party will IMO cease to exist in any meaningful way.

Absolutely not. They should not resign. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, by remaining in the coalition Gov't, they will get and have got some Liberal Dem policies effected - the tax threshold, delaying trident and so on, and more to follow

Secondly, instability, where the Gov't falls would be very damaging for the country and the economy. It would spook the markets, which much as we don't like the way the markets work, is a fact, and would hurt us all.

Thirdly, it is Lib Dem policy that coalition and partnership is how the country should be run, pretty much. To walk away from a partnership, having signed an agreement to work with a partner would do more harm to them than staying the course.

Fourth, the policy is actual an improvement on the current problem of uni funding. Had it been renamed and not been called tuition fees, but had another name, then half the fuss wouldn't be generated that has been.

Fifth, Labour, for example pledged not to introduce tuition fees, and then did so - the precedents for doing the opposite of pledges is long and indistinguished. At least the Lib Dems can say that they are not in a position to implement all their policies, whereas that's not the case with previous gov'ts.

Aside from the politics, the policy is actually better than the old one and not that far from the intent of a fairer and better system that they actually wanted. The pledge was pretty dumb, and was done no doubt to win votes, and like with other parties in the past has subsequently backfired.

Realistically, a row over student fees for Uni is not anywhere near the sort of thing that should bring down the Gov't of any country. It is just not important enough to cause the upheaval that would ensue.

Finally, they agreed to jointly run the country, and they should bloody well get on and do that, not go off in a sulk because some students are unhappy about the way their education is paid for.

However, despite all that, to remain in office voting through this shite will consign them to the outer limits of politics for a generation, with a reputation for a complete lack of principles undermining their one core proposition, that of being untainted and sea-green incorruptible.

It's not surprising that they're twisting every this way and that over how to vote this week. None of the options are at all attractive for them. They face a choice of splitting the party, saving a few MPs at the expense of others, alienating many of the people who voted for them, or probably a combination of all three, and it's now out of their control. All they can do is try to sandbag the front door as the river swells up the garden path.

In seasonal mode, may I add "Ho, ho, ho".

[snowychap]

Rather than quote Blandy's post again, that's all very well but it does rather miss the point about being in government and voting against or abstaining from a vote on government policy. In that situation, one cannot be in government and not support government policy.

I disagree with some of the other points Blandy made, too, (1, 4 and 5, I think) but the fundamental point is that it appears that some of the upper echelons of the Lib Dem party have been wanting to appear in public as eating their cake and having it, too.

Like so many others in politics, they have appeared to me either foolish or knavish. I think their own decisions are probably falling in to the latter category whereas their relationship with the Tories is in the former - they're over a barrel and are being rogered senseless.

[peterms]

...the fundamental point is that it appears that some of the upper echelons of the Lib Dem party have been wanting to appear in public as eating their cake and having it, too.

Like so many others in politics, they have appeared to me either foolish or knavish. I think their own decisions are probably falling in to the latter category whereas their relationship with the Tories is in the former - they're over a barrel and are being rogered senseless.

I think they want to eat their cake and have it, but be perceived by others as having donated it to a Carmelite nunnery or some such.

Similarly, I don't think they force us to choose between foolish and knavish as adjectives to describe them. Both work.

And yes, they are over a barrel and are being rogered senseless, but at the same time they are crying out "Take me, Dave! Oooh, that's what I call a mandate!"