Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Gringo]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies

But what policies ?? for example the Lib Dem scrap Trident policy has now become a Con-Lib policy of keeping trident but ensuring it is monitored and gives value for money or whatever it is they have agreed on ... and which one will the Libs be putting in their next manifesto ?

No, the LibDems still have a policy of scrapping it, but in order to form a coallition have compromised on what policy they can pursue for the term of this parliament.

[kidlewis]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies

But what policies ?? for example the Lib Dem scrap Trident policy has now become a Con-Lib policy of keeping trident but ensuring it is monitored and gives value for money or whatever it is they have agreed on ... and which one will the Libs be putting in their next manifesto ?

No, the LibDems still have a policy of scrapping it, but in order to form a coallition have compromised on what policy they can pursue for the term of this parliament.

scrapping trident maybe but not scrapping a nuclear deterrent, according to clegg in one of those televised debates.

they were going on the assumption that they could find another way of doing it better and cheaper.

[tonyh29]

Apparently Labour have received nearly 5000 new applications to become members since this happened which is incredible for a party that is apparently "lost" the election.

When the source for this figure is the labour party itself i would take it with a huge truckload of salt but on the same basis the Liberal Democrats have also recorded an increase in party members since the election ..

besides which could the increase be down to Gordon leaving rather than the Lib / Con Alliance ?

[drat01]

these policies aren't as black and white as the beeb make out on their website, even though Lord Failner seemed to think it was when he quoted that beeb article.

Saying no to the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear

weapons system, which could cost £100 billion. We will hold a full

defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future

security.

We will strive for global nuclear

disarmament, showing leadership by committing not to replace the Trident

nuclear weapons system on a like-for-like basis

Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons

system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime it is unaffordable, and

Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives. We support

multilateral nuclear disarmament and will ensure that the UK plays a

proactive role in the arms reduction talks starting later this year.

Above the LibDem manifesto

We support the decision to renew Britain’s

submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on

the Trident missile system

We will maintain a submarine-based nuclear

deterrent, based on Trident, to ensure we are protected from nuclear threats in the long term.

Above Trident in the Tory manifesto

[drat01]

is this 55% not to prevent tories and lib dem MPs who oppose the coalition voting against them?

a single majority can still motion no confidence but this 55% is to merely prevent 1) the tories calling an election whenever they feel like (when it's best for them to do so, and screwing over the lib dems) and also preventing these internal opposer's to a coalition biting their noses off to spite their face.

that is how I see it.

So what you are saying is that MP's from the ConDem's cannot vote against it? - that is scandalous

what was wrong with the previous system?

[drat01]

Apparently Labour have received nearly 5000 new applications to become members since this happened which is incredible for a party that is apparently "lost" the election.

When the source for this figure is the labour party itself i would take it with a huge truckload of salt but on the same basis the Liberal Democrats have also recorded an increase in party members since the election ..

besides which could the increase be down to Gordon leaving rather than the Lib / Con Alliance ?

Of course the source is the Labour party - unless the ConDems have made it a new rule that you have to tell them?

A lot of LibDems are joining - more and more people from the LibDems are questioning their leadership it would seem. And to use your logic maybe the LibDem new members are ex-Tories who are fed up with Cameron? :-)

[snowychap]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies

But what policies?

They'll campaign on the policies which they, as a party, want to put in their manifesto.

And so will the Tories.

At least I hope that will be the case.

Separately, on the dissolution/confidence issue and fixed term parliaments, a couple of points:

My first worry is that what me might be left with is only a binding motion on this particular administration because primary legislation could end up getting derailed (mainly by vested interests).

The super-majority idea is tricky for a couple of reasons, in my view. Firstly because of it actually being a 'super-majority' rather than a simple one and secondly because of the rather suspiciously contrived number of 55%. Why not the 66% used in the Scottish Parliament, for instance?

I think it all needs some sensible discussion to look at how you deal with opportunistic attempts to force a dissolution of a short term parliament. A premature dissolution should only really be allowed to occur when the House has actually lost confidence in the governments ability to govern, I think. That's a rather tricky one to decide as, for instance, the Labour government of '74-'79 apparently survived something like 42 lost divisions and a couple of losses on major bills (ref) and yet still made it through 5 years.

What I really don't want, would be to allow a huge loophole that enables a current government to effectively get around the fixed term as it would rather defeat the object. Perhaps only a motion of no confidence or dissolution motion could be tabled by the official opposition? Perhaps any such motion (even if tabled by the government) should be looked at by the backbench house business committee put forward by the Wright committee, the proposals of which the coalition document said would be brought forward in full.

[kidlewis]

is this 55% not to prevent tories and lib dem MPs who oppose the coalition voting against them?

a single majority can still motion no confidence but this 55% is to merely prevent 1) the tories calling an election whenever they feel like (when it's best for them to do so, and screwing over the lib dems) and also preventing these internal opposer's to a coalition biting their noses off to spite their face.

that is how I see it.

So what you are saying is that MP's from the ConDem's cannot vote against it? - that is scandalous

what was wrong with the previous system?

because they are voting to bring the government down because they don't like the coalition, not because of not having confidence in the coalition itself.

it's "It didn't go how I wanted it to go therefore I'm going to screw it up".

[kidlewis]

these policies aren't as black and white as the beeb make out on their website, even though Lord Failner seemed to think it was when he quoted that beeb article.

Saying no to the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear

weapons system, which could cost £100 billion. We will hold a full

defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future

security.

We will strive for global nuclear

disarmament, showing leadership by committing not to replace the Trident

nuclear weapons system on a like-for-like basis

Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons

system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime it is unaffordable, and

Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives. We support

multilateral nuclear disarmament and will ensure that the UK plays a

proactive role in the arms reduction talks starting later this year.

Above the LibDem manifesto

We support the decision to renew Britain’s

submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on

the Trident missile system

We will maintain a submarine-based nuclear

deterrent, based on Trident, to ensure we are protected from nuclear threats in the long term.

Above Trident in the Tory manifesto

nowhere does it say that lib dems wouldn't create a nuclear system for britain. they say they want to work towards nuclear disarmament and I think even the tories do, even the US and Russians signed an agreement to reduce their nuclear capabilities didn't they? instead of being able to destroy the world over each 10 times they can only do it 7 now!!!!

Lib dems stance on unilateral nuclear disarmament is like myself saying I want to be greener. I do bits, but it's not really going to happen anytime soon.

I'm not going to be living like a hobbit anytime soon and there are going to be countries with nuclear capabilities a long time after I am dead.

tories have conceded to reviewing trident as the nuclear option, looking into alternatives, which essentially is as far as the lib dems would go anyway.

There would be no way the lib dems would just scrap all our nukes and ability to use them because they think the rest of the world would follow.

[tonyh29]

Of course the source is the Labour party

well the point being If Labour told us grass was green I don't think anyone would believe them ..but spin is all Labour and it's supporters have to cling to for the next 5 years ..so good luck with that

For the rest of us hopefully we can look at the future with some optimism again at last ..

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties so long may it continue

[drat01]

well the point being If Labour told us grass was green I don't think anyone would believe them ..but spin is all Labour and it's supporters have to cling to for the next 5 years ..so good luck with that

Yawn yawn yawn - I see then from your comments you are happy with the 5 year / 55% rule change? Hmmm interesting change of stance Tone?

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties so long may it continue

Yes those new ConDem people have really shown us what we will look forward to - one rule so far and already an erosion of them

[Condimentalist]

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties

Something I agree with Tony.

I couldn't vote for Labour in the future unless they made a firm commitment to curb the authoritarianism that grew and grew over the last 13 years. I hope whoever takes up the mantle at that party realises that many people feel the same.

[snowychap]

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties so long may it continue

Well, (apparent) intent is very different from action, so I think it would be sensible to wait and see before acclaiming it as such.

I'm not so sure how easy it will be to roll these things back (one only needs to look at Obama and Guantanamo to see that it isn't as easy as just saying something and it getting done).

[tonyh29]

I see then from your comments you are happy with the 5 year / 55% rule change? Hmmm interesting change of stance Tone?

can you quote me exactly where i've said that ? I've not even made a single comment on 55% rule ...maybe best not put words into peoples mouths ...

[Morkery]

Anybody else think Samantha Cameron looks like Nicolas Cage?

[drat01]

I see then from your comments you are happy with the 5 year / 55% rule change? Hmmm interesting change of stance Tone?

can you quote me exactly where i've said that ? I've not even made a single comment on 55% rule ...maybe best not put words into peoples mouths ...

Come on then Tony as this is the subject of the day, what are your views?

I remember various Tory supporters "demanding" me to put forward my views during the election process, or is this another "rule" that has been ripped up? :-)

[kidlewis]

Anybody else think Samantha Cameron looks like Nicolas Cage?

no, mainly because I would shag Sam and not Nicolas Cage.

[blandy]

Labour being booted from power was a great day for civil liberties so long may it continue

Yes those new ConDem people have really shown us what we will look forward to - one rule so far and already an erosion of them

WHat has the proposal of an additional rule as to how parliament behaves, in terms of its own system for what to do after a vote of no confidence got to do with civil liberties?

(Note: - "Nothing" is the correct answer).

It is valid to criticise the proposal as being a change to an (unwritten) constitution, but then again MPs will have the opportunity to reject the proposed change.

It seems reasonable to me, for the benefit of the country, for stable government. Putting in place a new, extra rule which is aimed at stopping the tories from opportunistically pulling the plug at a time they feel best suits them whilst also tying the LDs to act responsibly and not strop off in a hissy fit - to act in the best interests of the Country, not of the MPs or of Parties is a good thing.

Just listening to the radio, reading papers and internets it seems an awful lot of people just can't get their heads round what has happened. A lot are through force of habit, or through tribalism, still more interested in pure party politics than the act of governing the country.

I gues it will take a while to get used to, or alternatively the people on the attack from the start will poison the mood and and weaken the will of the people involved to actually continue to work together.

[drat01]

Anybody else think Samantha Cameron looks like Nicolas Cage?

She is like the UK previously shagged by a Thatcher loving tory and will no doubt be done again once the next couple of months are out of the way.

[Demitri_C]

the guy is an absolute cretin. Watching it now, he was saying that what Simon Hughes was saying about the negotiations with Labour wasn't true.

How the **** does he know, was he there? no.

Even Dimbleby put him in his place.

EDIT: Hessletine shot his argument to sh*t as well

cretin is a good wod, all he did was attack, attack. easy to do really but when it came to him he would just turn it around hessletine made him look like bafoon