DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

a horribly formed thread title for horribly formed times

luckily I was too hungover to find the bleach this morning

let's have a sweep on when the Nu SDP breaks away from Clegg's softcore Tory party

"a good comparison would be pizza, yeah? The first person to put ham & pineapple together and you think, that's gonna be horrible, yeah?"

FIVE YEARS OF THIS

NOT IF I FIND THE BLEACH

So farewell then, Liberal Democrat party.
Cynical people may have accused you
Of being a touchy-feely version of the Tories.
But it turns out
You weren't that touchy-feely tbh.

what a horribly formed "coalition"

So farewell then, Liberal Democrat party.
Cynical people may have accused you
Of being a touchy-feely version of the Tories.
But it turns out
You weren't that touchy-feely tbh.

― Coalition (Remix) (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, May 12, 2010 Bookmark

Well this is not a great start for the opposition!

Remember when people were all like "don't be stupid they're not really a bunch of Tory shitbags" and then it turned out they were really a bunch of Tory shitbags?

Ham & Pineapple is one of the most popular pizzas! If you can sell that disgusting combination...maybe there is hope for the LDs.

Remember when Labour and the LDs and SDLP put together got less than 326 MPs?

Ham & Pineapple is a dope combination and people need to a) stop fronting, and b) stop tarnishing it with LD/Tory comparisons.

^^^

Remember when Labour and the LDs and SDLP put together got less than 326 MPs?

Not sure how this equates with "let's get it on with Cameron" tbh

I am loving the line "we will put aside party differences and work together for the common good", like "party differences" doesn't mean "disagreements about how to achieve the common good".

But this is for the National Good! Just feel the National Goodness flowing thru the country even as we kvetch

Ham & Pineapple is a dope combination

The seeds of opposition infighting have been sown!

Someone had to get it on with someone, and one of those someones was always going to be the conservatives. is your problem really that they've entered a formal coalition rather than confidence and supply?

Someone had to get it on with someone

Why?

My problem is £6b cuts this year which I didn't see in the LD manifesto.

I mean I only skimmed through it obviously.

The LDs have more in common with Labour than Con and not much in common with either tbh, so those "they're not Tory shitbags" people were right, but you don't always get to form a coalition with the party your policies are most aligned with. Something to do with MPs and votes of confidence and the ability to pass legislation iirc.

srsly I am gonna be less radge when I've had breakfast, but I'm not sure why you'd think this was a reasonable or rational move for the LDs given their alleged political principles.

Someone had to get it on with someone

Why?

― Coalition (Remix) (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:49 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what was the alternative?

republican-style shutdown

or c&s

Relax, it's not like they put rocket on that pizza.

Oh wait I tell a lie - We have already identified over £15 billion of savings in government spending per year - so £6b not so bad then. Unless savings aren't the same as cuts.

tory minority government may have be easier to swallow, but it still involves a formal relationship with the LDs. i don't get the impression your problem is the details of the relationship, but the fact that it exists at all, in which case yes, go and have yr breakfast ; )

You do realise we're going to have to look at this thread title for the next FIVE YEARS?

Surely they can't just go "right, we're having fixed-term parliaments"? It's a pretty big constitutional change that someone needs to approve, right?

And if we're having fixed-term Parliaments at least fix them at four years...

what was the alternative?

refusing to support a party whose policies you're supposed to be opposed to?

Also why are the LDs so keen on AV all of a sudden? AV is less proportional than FPTP from what I can see, it'd only enforce a two-party squeeze. Is this just reform for reform's sake?

republican-style shutdown doesn't work in the parliamentary system. we'd have to have had an election in june. would have been seen as "waaah i didn't get the result i wanted, let's have another election".

NV isn't angry about the distinction between C&S and coalition.

Tories in this incarnation certainly don't have a mandate for five years of power, so how could five years happen?

it can't and it won't

Even from a "lol the Labour party needed to die" perspective I was only half-kidding about Lloyd George. When you've been out of power for 90-odd years it mightn't be the best thing to do to repeat the same mistake that killed yr party the next time you get a sight of the big time.

it won't last five years because the lib dem rank and file comprises men and women of character and backbone who won't be able to stomach.... oh shit

at least he looks sorta guilty about this

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/12/1273654747693/David-Cameron-Nick-Clegg--001.jpg

The Libdems are basically as split as every other party, but the right wing - the Orange Book brigade (with the exception of Susan Kramer - ahh diddums) - have got everything they wanted (and more) despite the party's wishes at conferences. Pretty clever moves all round. Ignore your party, lose seats = power!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=louXPUW7tHU

clegg has only been in parliament for five years. no-one knows ne thing about him. can we see his birth certificate?

I was too busy watching Blackpool's march to the Prem last night, can Clegg get this deal thru his MPs?

One of your top guys playing second fiddle to Cameron and the other playing second fiddle to Osborne doesn't strike me as power really worth having. They're going to be treated like shit once the novelty of power wears off for the Tories, the question is how much they can stand.

DIDN'T THE DAILY MAIL SAY HE WAS BORN IN...RUSSIA?

xp
I don't think he needs to now, but I'm confused at what the LDs actually do (as opposed to what they say they're gonna do).

can Clegg get this deal thru his MPs?

they put up a brave, brave fight, there were many resignations and declarations of principle, but in the end...

no-one knows ne thing about him.

Louis Theroux knows.

I was too busy watching Blackpool's march to the Prem last night, can Clegg get this deal thru his MPs?

They voted unanimously in favour of it.

There's some slight satisfaction in all yr darkest cynicism being proved right, I guess.

DIDN'T THE DAILY MAIL SAY HE WAS BORN IN...RUSSIA?

Aye half Russian half Dutch, Spanish wife, speaks far too many languages iirc.

Don't the LDs realise they've basically wiped themselves out for decades? Are they going to campaign separately and against the Conservatives at the next election while defending the exact same record?

You know how takeovers are sometimes called mergers then everyone forgets the little guy?

White Obama morelike Shite Obama.

You can use that one.

Can't wait for the detail on how the hell they're going to keep to this 'fixed-term' parliament through the heavy weather of economic, political crisis (over immigration and Europe) or any as yet unforeseen events (another banking crisis, or a Tory scandal).

Also the aftermath of this vote on AV (which will prob take place in the coming year) will lead to bitter fighting as different members of this coalition campaign for different outcomes. If relationships are frosty in 10 months this campaign could force them to breaking point. And NOW that vote will now probably serve as some kind of early referendum on this coalition (if they get 95% against AV for example), and then you have any coming council/local/euro elections (don't know when those would be) if it looks like some of their base is wiped out this will put a huge amount of pressure on the LD MPs.

Tbh if this 'fixed term parliament' is a nonsense (and who can tell at this point...don't be surprised if its somehow made to work, it is a first parliament for this lot not a tired third one, ppl are way too hungry for power) the only it could work for LDs if the economy and virtually everything else is doing great and then they can go back and face their constituents again.

And what's the Daily Mail saying now?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/12/article-1277599-09895752000005DC-244_964x323.jpg
They are so with it, man.

Don't the LDs realise they've basically wiped themselves out for decades?

a friend's sister is an LD councillor (their parents are 1970s lefties) and i'd be astonished if she stuck with them. reckon some lib dems will be departing, as NV said upthread. can't see lynn featherstone retaining her seat for example.

So in by-elections, will both the Tories and the LDs be fielding separate candidates?

Yes, it's not like the LD party has been completely swallowed up by another party, oh wait...

NV isn't angry about the distinction between C&S and coalition.

I would've been less shocked by a C&S deal akshully

lol at the british not getting the concept of coalitions

ps: i'm not defending this, through

I think a Confidence & Supply dealy would've been defensible, just. I don't see anything in this coalition that promotes anything that the LDs campaigned for, and presumably won votes for.

Will Hutton is claiming that this is Cameron's "Clause 4 Moment" - that in a single stroke he's transformed the tories into a Euro style Christian Democrat centre-right type party. Surely ignores the fact that Blair/Mandy actually ripped the heart out of transformed Labour before taking power, rather than grafting on an external moderate wing on the fly?

Oh I am sure that people *get* coalitions - it's just that nobody *wants* this one.

hutton is off his meds if he thinks that

ashcroft ain't gonna 'ave it!

So in by-elections, will both the Tories and the LDs be fielding separate candidates?

Dunno. Will the LDs even have their own policies anymore?

What's depressing me at the moment is that the LDs actually proposed NOT ringfencing the NHS from cuts. I figure Cameron won't take too much convincing to "bend" on that issue.

Cameron and Clegg are the Jedward of politics. You hope they'll fuck off after a few months, but the fear is that they're here for the long term. So fucking glad I didn't vote LD as I'd be feeling ten times more burned than I feel right now.

Cable-Osborne is the interesting one here, given Cable is far more economically literate than Gosbourne there could be massive tensions there. One good thing here is that Cable is in a better position than anyone else to work out what to do with the banks, but whether he'll get any reform past the Tory Party is anyone's guess. Still, biggest potential flashpoint from what I can see.

New Labour leader is going to have to get used to being the third most important party leader in the country. That'll be chastening.

What's depressing me at the moment is that the LDs actually proposed NOT ringfencing the NHS from cuts. I figure Cameron won't take too much convincing to "bend" on that issue.

Dunno, this is pretty totemic for Cameron, it's like Blair's pledge not to raise income tax. He'll be hammered if he does that.

a horribly formed thread title for horribly formed times

― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 09:22 (1 hour ago) Bookmark

time to eat a pizza bagel and get stoked for the sadness, I guess

New Labour leader is going to have to get used to being the third most important party leader in the country. That'll be chastening.

Not sure about that. As Michael Crick pointed out last night, when there's a debate on telly you can't exactly have Labour, Con and an LD spokesman all on the show because that would mean the opposition was outnumbered 2-1. How long will it take for the LDs to start becoming more or less invisible?

given Cable is far more economically literate than Gosbourne there could be massive tensions there.

can't believe gideon osborne is actually chancellor of the fucking exchequer. incredible.

Osborne's first job was to provide data entry services to the National Health Service to record the names of people who had died in London.[8] He also briefly worked for Selfridges. He originally intended to pursue a career as a journalist, but after failing to become one at a national newspaper, was informed of a vacant job at the Conservative Central Office.[8]

Tory bloggers already going in on Cable as their #1 bogeyman for the next five years.

They'd still be less powerful than Cameron and Clegg, TV debates or no TV debates.

Don't think we're gonna get debates next time anyway, given two out of three parties seem to have decided they were A Bad Idea.

Just wondering if this means a flatshare at No 10? Couldn't give a toss about any of the other details in this ugly union tbh.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/12/1273654747693/David-Cameron-Nick-Clegg--001.jpg

so used to seeing no 10 waving pic of husband and wife that it looks like clegg and cameron just announced their civil partnership

nothing civil about it imo

hatesex as legislative process, should be interesting

Considering emigration, cd you put us up until I can get a cushy job as a builder?

What's depressing me at the moment is that the LDs actually proposed NOT ringfencing the NHS from cuts.

Why? I'm not one to stan for public sector cuts but if there are savings to be made in the NHS *without affecting quality patient care, staff well-being, etc.* why shouldn't they be made? Should we cut an efficient and useful branch in another department while ignoring a wasteful/useless branch in the NHS because the NHS is somehow untouchable?

(sounding like Vince Cable now. Hope NV's got some bleach left)

nah man I agree the NHS needs to be a bit less sacred cow

I'm not just talking about election debates, more that the way politics tends to get talked about and presented is binary. The LDs have struggled against this mightily with a bit of success - sometimes winning a place at the table in a panel discussion on the radio, for instance. But now that they're part of the ruling party even this half-hearted attempt at equal representation in the media will be out the window. Or at least up in the air. Hung out to dry?

this five years shit is so the conservatives can avoid the vestigial remains of the lib dems kinda like that american woman driving home with a critically injured vagrant on her caved-in windscreen

Should we cut an efficient and useful branch in another department while ignoring a wasteful/useless branch in the NHS because the NHS is somehow untouchable?

YES MY ARGUMENT IS OBVIOUSLY YES, WE SHOULD CUT EFFICIENT AND USEFUL THINGS WHILE KEEPING WASTEFUL ONES WELL DONE

No, the reason I'm depressed about NHS cuts is that I don't trust the Tories to do them.

Why? I'm not one to stan for public sector cuts but if there are savings to be made in the NHS *without affecting quality patient care, staff well-being, etc.* why shouldn't they be made? Should we cut an efficient and useful branch in another department while ignoring a wasteful/useless branch in the NHS because the NHS is somehow untouchable?

Any money that's being saved should be reinvested in the health service IMO.

saving money and improving services can be done
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/doctors-nhs-cuts-guardian-letter

george osborne's approach to the nhs will be informed by his childhood vivisection experiments w/ rabbits and voles

New Labour leader is going to have to get used to being the third most important party leader in the country. That'll be chastening.

Heseltine was talking about the deputy PM role last night and called it an 'all or nothing' job iirc - suggestion seemed to be that his position there was 'all' and Clegg's... wouldn't be

xp. swans and peasants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t16PTMOnLEc&feature=player_embedded#!

Funny

Considering emigration, cd you put us up until I can get a cushy job as a builder?

― Coalition (Remix) (Noodle Vague), 12 May 2010 09:50 (25 minutes ago)

jeez we really having been paying any attention to the Irish Politics thread, have we kids? a darraghmac will be starting an emigration nominations thread as of gf's graduation next year iirc

cable 'delighted'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677174.stm

these two men look the same

So with two Eton boys in No.10, is Clegg basically Cameron's fag now?

YES MY ARGUMENT IS OBVIOUSLY YES, WE SHOULD CUT EFFICIENT AND USEFUL THINGS WHILE KEEPING WASTEFUL ONES WELL DONE

This is live on an international message board. Dignity. Dignity.

That's actually never going to get old.

clegg is a westminster boy.

terrible, terrible people

jokes bruv

ken clarke is justice minister. oof.

i keep forgetting the home office is split now. theresa may just in charge of keeping immigrants out then?

I for one am utterly shocked that the Liberals turned out to be Liberals to the core.

Liam Fox defence, Theresa May home sec. Awful, awful, awful. It's not going to go away. It's like 2004 when I thought everyone would see that we'd been conned and the Bush victory was illegitimate. You can't get rid of these bastards.

She's an idiot, based on not being able to win an argument with *me* at a youth in politics function - and if she's the only woman in Cabinet it will tell you all you need to know about her (Tory women suffer from Queen Bee syndrome ie. 'I'm the only bitch in this room, the rest just make the coffee').

Primary and secondary education should be more of a sacred cow than the NHS imo. And they would be if more voters didn't pay for private schools than private hospitals.

theresa fucking may

Let's 'shop today's Telegraph headline, shall we?

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/pub/files/photos/news/13785/master.telegraph1.jpg

theresa fucking may

Oh don't worry, Dave says they have a commitment to decentralising power and protecting civil liberties, though secretly I fear that this will mean no CCTV on our slop buckets rather than no more Ian Tomlinsons.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01042/Cam6280_1042165a.jpg

Yes he Cam ... our celebration image

Nice double-chinny pic there, Sun.

Primary and secondary education should be more of a sacred cow than the NHS imo. And they would be if more voters didn't pay for private schools than private hospitals.

― snakebite and a passable pinot noir (Upt0eleven), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:55 (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

they have pledged to preserve funding for schools. you're out of luck if you're studying at an fe college or university though.

http://www.daleklinks.co.uk/media/66500/ironside-poster.jpg

lib dems will contest thirsk and malton against the tories, should make for an awkward campaign.

This is Northern. Could Labour win it through the motivating factor of RAGE?

you're out of luck if you're studying working at an fe college or university though

Apparently Mrs V overheard our kids plotting emigration this morning, no lie. Might as well given imminent decimation of employment

Not that kind of North. This is basically Vale of York and Ryedale in a new constituency - 20-25pt Con majs.

xp

(xposts) In '05 Tories had over 50% to Lab at 20% and Lib at 18%, so unlikely, but some RAGE would be nice.

(Do Lib Dems like Tories more or less in very Tory constituencies? Perhaps I should know this since I voted Lib Dem in one in '05.)

Big Tory vote from the baboons at Flamingoland.

Apparently Mrs V overheard our kids plotting emigration this morning, no lie. Might as well given imminent decimation of employment

Oh no, and I only just got a job about 10 mins from Bondi...

here's a consolation: at least james delingpole is unhappy.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100039479/10-reasons-to-be-cheerful-about-daves-new-coalition-of-the-unwilling/

I bet the flamingoes aren't too keen on all those baboons coming in and taking their jobs. xps

Coldest May night since 1966 last night - -6C in Scottish Highlands, -4C in rural Wales, 0C in London. Day after the 1987 election (mid-summer), the sky was leaden all morning, like a meteor had hit and the debris had blotted out the sun. Mother Nature is not a Tory.

Coldest May night since 1966 last night

got the World Cup on lock now

Coldest May night since 1966 last night - -6C in Scottish Highlands, -4C in rural Wales, 0C in London. Day after the 1987 election (mid-summer), the sky was leaden all morning, like a meteor had hit and the debris had blotted out the sun. Mother Nature is not a Tory.

there have been several unseasonably cold days lately, it's felt quite apt

on the plus side I've just bought Kebab flavoured Pringles so maybe this is the dawn of a brilliant new era

What, in a "hell freezes over" kind of way?

Can I just say that now everyone I know in the UK realizes what it was like to be a lefty American in 2004?

lefty American = Lib Dem iirc

http://labservative.com/

^^^ kinda would have thought LD's new media time would have taken this down by now.

Um, no NV: you have to consider that half of the Dems in the US are to the left of Obama and hate 'blue dogs'; my own Dem congressman and senator would be more like Old Labour types.

I wonder how the "we got RATM to #1, let's get the Lib Dems into government" Facebook krew are doing?

"Killing (Foxes) In The Name Of"

So I'm guessing that Environment, Scotland and being Dave's deputy are the jobs that none of the Conservatives wanted. Fantastic bargaining by the LDs.

i wz half-joking suzy but come on I don't think American lefties have got anything to teach about misery to us Brits who are over 20 and anywhere to the left of Ken Clarke

It is such an endlessly recycled media meme that I am generally poised to cry bullshit whenever I see it, as with any generalizations about America produced by Brits on a press junket.

Ahaha apparently Alan Rusbridger phoned Clegg telling him he had a duty to not form a government with the Tories because it'd make the Graun look like twats for endorsing the LDs at the last minute.

The comments on the Graun's "maybe this isn't so bad after all, right guys?" editorial weren't pretty.

Coldest May night since 1966 last night - -6C in Scottish Highlands, -4C in rural Wales, 0C in London. Day after the 1987 election (mid-summer), the sky was leaden all morning, like a meteor had hit and the debris had blotted out the sun. Mother Nature is not a Tory.

There was a pretty rainbow above Westminster while Dave was on the way to the Queen, but I assume the BBC superimposed it on the footage at Dimbleby's request.

"Every one of the Lib Dem negotiators gave an individual report back of their meeting with Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Adonis, and they each reached the same conclusion: that the Labour team were uninterested, with no movement on ID cards, the third runway at Heathrow, or increasing the proportion of renewable energy from 15% to 40%."

this would maybe have been acceptable if they forced the libdems into confidence & supply but now it's created this fucking abortion it looks kinda unforgiveable that they didn't even ~try~

― nakhchivan, Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:02 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

there's going to be a lot of claim and counter-claim on those negotiations. some lab people claim clegg only got into it to make the tories (whom he instinctually wanted to go with) jealous. i don't believe that the tories could in good faith agree to that green pledge.

There was a pretty rainbow above Westminster while Dave was on the way to the Queen, but I assume the BBC superimposed it on the footage at Dimbleby's request.

Rather like the way they deftly remixed the location sound on the collage clips later in the day, to obscure the booing and shouts of "Tory scum" on Whitehall.

Yes, Clegg is on the right of the LDs, but I don't think his instinctive affinity had much to do with who he ended up forming a coalition with as much as the maths and the (lack of) labour concessions meaning that coalition was pretty much unworkable.

But yeah, I'm sure there'll be some interesting stuff in the papers about what really happened over the next couple of weeks.

That was just all kinds of WRONG. xpost

But not surprising: a couple of weeks ago there was a piece on Churchill going to look at bombed tenements post-Blitz and the meme of 'East End cheers on plucky Churchill/Royals' was shown to be a bit of a concoction. Basically, my best friend's dad was a surgeon in the war and his account of jeering not cheering was one I'd known since I was a student.

http://labservative.com/

^^^ kinda would have thought LD's new media time would have taken this down by now.

― Meowsy McDermott, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:53 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh look unmoderated comments box :D

http://www.labservative.com/comment-page-1/#comment-708

:( never noticed

"Your comment is awaiting moderation."

laws is chief secretary to the treasury. cable is bidness secretary. osborne is reichschancellor.

Tom Oates
Posted May 6, 2010 at 8:50 am | Permalink

This party is sexy as. To be fair I want the lib dems in charge and before anyone asks I am a student. If mat bellamy ran a party I would vote for it hands down. But as it stands cleggy will do ;)
any signs for conservative or labour I see I rip down or take them for my room :) it’s now looking colourful :) love you all xxx

can't see this getting through
http://i43.tinypic.com/nv4fnk.jpg

55% rule on no conf votes means Tories can keep power on their own (with their 47%). Can't believe LDs gave that away.

yah, that's appalling. is it more than a rumour at this stage?

Mr Hague told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a five-year fixed-term parliament had been introduced to help guarantee stability: "We have done everything possible to lock ourselves together to avoid the dangers of instability and haggling that are of course present in any hung parliament."

The BBC has learned that the only way to remove a government before the five years is up would be in a vote of confidence backed by 55% of MPs. Current rules are that the votes of 50% of MPs, plus one, can remove a government.

Yes, Clegg is on the right of the LDs, but I don't think his instinctive affinity had much to do with who he ended up forming a coalition with as much as the maths and the (lack of) labour concessions meaning that coalition was pretty much unworkable.

Read the Orange Book people, it's all in there, it was foreseen!

...goes away muttering...

oh great, xp.

I don't think there is any moral ground for them to insist on a fixed term and those margins when their authority is this shaky - it would feel more legitimate after a normal result.

yeah, fixed terms and enhanced majorities is the kind of thing you should have a much, much more explicit mandate for.

xp to myself
And then read this published in March. Sums up the reasons for it happening and the reasons it might not work quite well. (PDF file alert)
http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/a-lib-con-trick.pdf

Iain Duncan Smith! It's like they're playing the worst game of Fantasy Football ever.

was in parliament working for the LDs when the orange book came out, so i've read it. will read that pdf on the train home.

but my point was that, whatever clegg's natural affinities are (and i don't disagree that they are more con than labour), with labour showing zero flexibility and LD + lab + sdlp still being short of a majority, i don't think his personal preferences came into it.

Where can find more on this 55% for No Confid motion / four-year fixed term stuff? Because if that's passed (and even if it's a free vote and half the LDs vote against it, it'll pass), we need to wheel Rifkind out again to see if he'd like to reframe his Mugabe comments of Monday. Truly outrageous.

Mr Hague told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a five-year fixed-term parliament had been introduced to help guarantee stability: "We have done everything possible to lock ourselves together to avoid the dangers of instability and haggling that are of course present in any hung parliament."

The BBC has learned that the only way to remove a government before the five years is up would be in a vote of confidence backed by 55% of MPs. Current rules are that the votes of 50% of MPs, plus one, can remove a government.

is all i've seen.

mugabe endorsed the tories, game recognize game.

Fixed term parliament is the worst thing about it.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:56 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

otm

55% would require every single LibDem to rebel plus a handful of Tories as well, right? If that goes ahead we are actually stuck with them for five years.

what if the lib dems refused to pass a tory budget? it wouldn't meet the new no confidence rules, but if you can't pass a budget you can't govern. they'd be forced to have an election anyway, right?

WHAT THE FUCK

Still sounding too ridiculous that they would get such a major reform through without anyone having mentioned it before the election or anything. Tell me there is some way that this might not happen. Or at the very least that people will be outrageously pissed off and make it known in some exciting way.

i can see the logic of fixed-term parliaments in theory, but introducing FIVE-year terms with such a weak mandate is some bullshit

they're about to make a statement together which this will presumably be in

also, this purports to be the lib-con agreement http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

And there it is. Christ, needs to be a front-page splash in Mirror, Graun, Indie, whoever else will fucking listen... They have changed the bloody rules because they fell short of the winning post. You can remain in government with 293 seats, effectively.

theresa may also women's minister wonder why

"freedom, fairness and responsibility"

sounds like one and a half a piece

NEEDS ODD COUPLE THEME INTRO MUSIC

gl'uk

You can remain in government with 293 seats, effectively.

doesn't this benefit the opposition too tho, potentially?

ironically, nagl uk

NEEDS ODD COUPLE THEME INTRO MUSIC

― tweedledee and tweedledem (suzy), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:24 (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Nah, use the "Terry and June" one.

use THE HORST WESSEL SONG more like

"What'll I do...when you...are gone away...and I...am blue, what'll I do..."

Next poll?

"It's cold outside, there's no kind of atmosphere..."

Are they still campaigning? What is this risible shit?

god bless hooky street

"Everybody needs good neighbours, with a little understanding, you can find the perfect blend..."

"We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’."
oh godddddd

These press questions are total softballs!!!

any sign of a proper inquiry on iraq?

god bless hooky street

no inheritance tax, no STV
no money back, no guarantee?

Good election to lose ha fucking ha

Black or White?
Rich or Poor?

like everything in section 10 except Mail-pleasing "mechanism to prevent proliferation of criminal offences"

(two questions from the Bullingdon club application form)

xpost Myself!

so weird

xxxp We'll cut public services by the score!

itv in with the first question

C4 surely? It was Gary Gibbon.

"new politics" such a fucking meaningless soundbite

first actual question i mean, not a "so will you be awesome?". probably because they're pissed off that they're not getting ad reform out of ofcom

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

*cough* back door General Election *cough*

*cough*Clegg in trouble then*cough*

10% of constituents? So that's about a fifth of voters in most seats. The larks that could cause, especially on a tiny majority like this.

This 55% thing is making my head explode.

These laughing buffoons in the press gallery are fucking contemptible.

yeah that's got a lot of possibilities tbh

(xp)

Don't worry, there'll be safeguards to prevent people from actually being able to do anything!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FnmnuDiVno

I don't think there is any moral ground for them to insist on a fixed term and those margins when their authority is this shaky - it would feel more legitimate after a normal result.

and this shit will be depicted as grand constituional reform when 55% is chosen so transparently for immediate advantage

difficult to watch that bloviating nonce cunt boulton sitting fat and happy

so many simpering shits in the press corp

*constitutional

55% presumably chosen because it's the smallest number that prevents the LDs effectively calling an election.

^^^ clutching at straws

guys they're srengthening the govt, you ppl need stability don't u see?

Why not go ahead and make David Cameron Emperor. That'd be super-strong.

^visionatory^

was hoping the hacks would throw confetti at the end :(

You can remain in government with 293 seats, effectively.

doesn't this benefit the opposition too tho, potentially?

Don't see how. From this point forward, it's virtually impossible for the Tories to be unseated by a no confidence motion. There'd have to be 358 in favour. Even if the LDs suddenly broke off the coalition, the Tories would stay in power until May 2015. Quite how they'd govern with only 47% of the MPs, I have no idea. (But the LDs aren't going anywhere. Better get used to it).

When I was little, I used to thing the Conservatives were called Tories because they all had conservatories.

55% presumably chosen because it's the smallest number that prevents the LDs effectively calling an election.

and also binds the conservatives if they think they can try for a majority

darragh there is a time and a place

Even if the LDs suddenly broke off the coalition, the Tories would stay in power until May 2015. Quite how they'd govern with only 47% of the MPs, I have no idea. (But the LDs aren't going anywhere. Better get used to it).

― Michael Jones, Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:59 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

am a little shaken by this news but i still can't believe it'll last. we're only 14 hours in atm.

xp seems like the tories know that too, tbf

i may be misremembering, but weren't fixed-term parliaments something that the LDs were already calling for? (maybe in their manifesto?) so that it would prevent governments from calling/not calling elections based on what was politically opportune for them

or actually opportune for the electorate

xp, yes

strengthening the case for an airtight-secure personal voting system online that can kick a govt out with no notice tbh.

democracy delayed is democracy denied etc

Anybody done any thinking about how a 55% threshold would play in a parliament with proportional representation?

Felt a bit physically sick watching Simon Hughes hopping from channel to channel blowing smoke up Tory arses. Never trust a Liberal. Ever. Ever. Ever.

Again, I would be more than happy for this to happen at the behest of a government with a clear mandate, ie. one that did not take five days crawling to Downing Street. Also the fake-Americanizing of the process annoys me; in the US we have the congressional midterms to leaven our four--year fixed terms and not just the odd, pissly little byelection.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKETY FUCK. My only silver lining was that this wouldn't last the year. FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you also have a separation between executive and... it's just a different system! and five years is way the hell too long. there's no damn reason for it except immediate gain for the coalition.

xpost

tracer otm but im still on "this is never gonna come off"

It's not really in the LibDems interests to rock this particular boat at all, they might as well all jump off a cliff.

we can only hope.

being politicians, i think they genuinely believe that "gain for the coalition" is "in the country's best interests".

buy yeah, this is not going to last five years. uncharted territory, but there's so many ways this could collapse. all this modern legislation doesn't change the fact that you're dealing with a fundamentally barmy and incompetent conservative party.

Thinking it'll all come down to how that first Tory budget is received.

and if this shit passes how will it die? it wd take both tories and libdems (facing electoral annihilation) to dissolve the coalition

fuck, i am an angry bastard today. for reallies, not in a talking-smack-on-ilx way. not been a very productive week.

More depressed than angry

it wd take both tories and libdems (facing electoral annihilation) to dissolve the coalition

not a big ask tbh.

just feeling rly dismayed more than fucked off right now

didn't expect anything good to come out of this election but this shit is beyond the pale

ha xp

Basically it's the second worst outcome (Tory majority being the worst).

Yeah, fuck New Labour and Labour in general but this is like a kick in the guts

I have v few opinions abt fixed-term vs not, but 5 years is too long, the mandate is too slim (but not slim enough that there seems much chance of it not going through), and just dropping it on us like this is fucking nuts, no? Why are twitter / the streets not full of people shouting about this?

yeah, i'm stanning for this deal, but i'm not feeling good. still, bigger picture: charles clarke lost his seat.

just the sinking feeling of the inevitable but horrible confirmation of names like osborne, hague, lansley, may, duncan-smith, pickles, ad nauseum

not a big ask tbh.

difficult to envisage likely situations in which it wd serve both parties tho

And, by the way, what arguments are the Tories going to use in favour of FPTP now? I can't work that out.

i was looking forward to a truly hilarious summer, but i suspect something they've forced into a metastable state in this way is going to take a while to implode. not five years tho.

actually quite like this coalition stuff, but unfortunately all the people involved are wankers.

"rainbow coalition" incl. nationalists is about 330, so this would would require about 20-25 conservative MPs to rebel (depending on the details of what 55% is in re: sinn fein and the speaker)

would be some moment if the SF seats took their seats to remove the tories

didn't cameron just say constitutional reform was deputy pm's responsbility? 55% arguably serves the lib dems more than conservatives, clegg wanted a coalition for a fixed period tho i don't think anyone expected this

haha, that would be awesome, but not going to happen.

20-25 is doable given their previous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Rebels

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100039501/europe-will-split-david-cameron’s-coalition-apart-before-long/

norman tebbit otm

think i might turn agent provocateur, start winding up guido fawkes, conservativehome etc. try to hasten the shit-flinging. literally the least one can do.

Not really cheered by the mention of a rebellion happening 12 years into the last era of Tory rule tbh, was hoping for something a little speedier

and the rebel conservatives wd have to find some common cause with virtually all of lib dems and labour

not simply a policy difference but a will to terminate tory govt

maastricht was the first really substantive vote on europe of the conservative govt., wasn't it? (not sure)

i'm not sure what's coming down the pipe now. something good, i hope.

and the rebel conservatives wd have to find some common cause with virtually all of lib dems and labour

Labour can just kid on they're outraged

http://dev.null.org/scrapbook/2005/1022_barley.jpg

Args for FPTP = "woe, hung parliament!"

By then, they'll be ready to offload the libs back into nopowerland...

Why are twitter / the streets not full of people shouting about this?

I've done my bit on Twitter and FB and now I'm going to go outside and knock a bobby's helmet off.

tebbit...

There is however another novel factor which will come into play when the coalition does come apart. If we have legislated for a fixed term Parliament, what happens then? What if no one can command the confidence of the House of Commons and there cannot be a general election to resolve the issue?

Liz 2 steps up

the conservatives may fuck up everything and the coalition may become comepletely dysfunctional, but even the hard right won't want to call (with lib/lab) an election they are likely to lose

the tories wd then govern as effectively a minority govt w/ day-to-day suppport until 2015

but even the hard right won't want to call (with lib/lab) an election they are likely to lose

they have tried it in the 90s. i think it's difficult to under/overestimate them.

"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

• A freedom or great repeal bill;

• The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point database;

• Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission;

• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency;

• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database;

• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury;

• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest;

• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech;

• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation;

• Further regulation of CCTV;

• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason;

• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences."

Seems like all good stuff. What say ye?

the markets would not like that

xpost re minority govt till 2015

no 'freedom to make dumb tweets about blowing up airports' no cred

needs more stuff about evidence-based policy, but that there is your silver lining.

such as it is.

And they're going to make Miaow Miaow legal again...

they have tried it in the 90s. i think it's difficult to under/overestimate them.

as APC alluded to, that was after more than a decade of tory govt w/ will-to-power flagging and some of the 'let's regroup in opposition' sentiment labour have shown in recent days

could happen sure but i wouldn't think it a likelihood

with luck the civil liberties stuff will work wonders on labour: now they don't have to worry about an attack from the right on that, they're safe to move leftwards. but they might just as well decide that authoritarianism is their u.s.p.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47834000/jpg/_47834611_cameronandclegg226282in_get.jpg

David Cameron explains to Nick
Clegg where the wheelie bins are and
how often they get emptied

"those muffled cries for help you can hear are in fact just the wind, moving on..."

Yeah, really like that section. But:

• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences."

with luck the civil liberties stuff will work wonders on labour: now they don't have to worry about an attack from the right on that, they're safe to move leftwards. but they might just as well decide that authoritarianism is their u.s.p.

this shit was about more than just outflanking the tories, on terrorist issue maybe but id cards were their own invention

sincerely share your hope tho

also oops for incorrectly initializing APS

Digital Britain? I'm guessing that one disappeared through the cracks *clutches YSI*

Did nobody point out to Labour that the Lib Dem's had a policy in their pocket that would have made a Rainbow Coalition's slim majority pretty much rock solid?

"Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason" <- isn't this just the sort of thing that yr Tory small business owner rails against endlessly, what do I have to sign up to all this paperwork about not storing emails for, legislation gone mad etc? Or is this just for government? What is an "internet record"?

(yeah, I'm picking on the small stuff because the big stuff sounds charming enough, but the devil is surely in the details and I don't trust the Tories' idea of "civil liberties" to be new liberties across the board and not just for the big guys in suits)

that's talking about ISPs

Did nobody point out to Labour that the Lib Dem's had a policy in their pocket that would have made a Rainbow Coalition's slim majority pretty much rock solid?

:(

Which was?

55%

lest we forget
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/liberal-democrat-tory-coalition-threatened-eurosceptic

Did nobody point out to Labour that the Lib Dem's had a policy in their pocket that would have made a Rainbow Coalition's slim majority pretty much rock solid?

- Think the level of opposition to PR in the Labour ranks is pretty strong

- Imposing PR with a fragile coalition would be almost as much of a dick move as what ConDem are currently trying to do.

Also 55% is an awful policy no matter which party is imposing it. You can't just change the rules in order to prop up a fragile coalition government, it's undemocratic.

There's nothing in the Lib Dem manifesto about 55% that I can see, just fixed term parliaments. The 55% is new.

The 55% is because it's a coalition.

yep what matt said. five-year fixed terms are heinous whoever imposes them. shoring up this horribly formed coalition isn't sufficient reason to do it. a lib-lab pact would not have bee stronger -- given that it involved nationalists, it would probably have been weaker -- and i don't think that would have gone the half-decade distance either.

Will be interesting (nauseating) to see if the 55% thing has a time limit of this parliament.

The silver linings are the civil liberties stuff and the fact that the labour party didn't commit suicide.

What's this 55% thing?

why don't they make it 100%?

110%!!!

i want to see our parliament accept nothing unless everybody is giving 110%

mps can be recalled if they fall too low in the capello index

What's this 55% thing?

― Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:29 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

they've imposed five year fixed-term parliaments and the only way to bring a general election sooner is to get a 55% result in the house in a vote of (no) confidence

MW:

Mr Hague told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a five-year fixed-term parliament had been introduced to help guarantee stability: "We have done everything possible to lock ourselves together to avoid the dangers of instability and haggling that are of course present in any hung parliament."

The only way to remove a government before the five years was up would be in a vote of confidence backed by 55% of MPs. Current rules are that the votes of 50% of MPs, plus one, can remove a government. The Conservatives currently have 47% of MPs.

Tax break for married couples and civil partners (Lib Dems able to abstain)

http://i39.tinypic.com/24cs7s1.jpg

The silver linings are the civil liberties stuff

I'll believe all that when I see it, wait for the Chief Constables to start bleating and see what the Tories do then

nah I think there's room to cut back some of Labour's worst law and order excesses without pissing off the police and it makes for relatively cheap political capital. Looks good when you start cutting back all that awful health and safety and employees' rights red tape too.

Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission

what's this all abaht then?

no more finger painting

some schools use fingerprint scanners for library books, paying for school meals etc. opponents: http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/

it might relate to the Tory-friendly Academy schools that run their security, libraries and school dinners using biometrics. How else are they gonna keep the Epsilons out tho?

In their manifesto, the Tories said they wanted to allow residents to stop councils raising taxes (by making it possible for them to make council tax increases subject to a referendum). This will probably be an area for dispute in the future.

I think they should talk to Arnie about that one.

some schools use fingerprint scanners for library books, paying for school meals etc. [...] Tory-friendly Academy schools that run their security, libraries and school dinners using biometrics.

blimey

So the Big Society Decentralising Power for U Party wants to remove more power from local councils? How surprising.

Par for the course for Tory governments

I think they should talk to Arnie about that one.

When did teh UK get so referenda crazy?

Par for the course for Tory governments

But the power wants to be free, maaaaaaaan! All power to the people, build your own schools, learn how to do your own heart surgery, get together with some community-minded guys and form your own local paedo-beating clubs, come oooooooon, won't somebody get The Man off our backs once and for all??

im think ima set up a google alert for "daniel hannan" and "shitfit"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100039465/the-first-test-of-the-new-government-will-come-at-the-june-eu-summit/

Cameron introduces new minister for Local Government:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/08/20/gal_1968-6.jpg

(by making it possible for them to make council tax increases subject to a referendum).

Aren't local councils elected?

But they keep electing the wrong ones

raising council tax is the tory govt's job

... that was the problem the last time the Tories were in (xp)

I'm guessing there's going to be a whole lot more Labour councils in the coming few years than there have been in the last few years

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08dNa5450334k/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0f8i92u5Z5bcm/x610.jpg

... that was the problem the last time the Tories were in (xp)

Poll taxes?

Always think a good Tory MP needs to look like a Dickens villain, and Pickles brings that in spades.

Also, does this coalition thing mean that Messers Cameron and Clegg have to wear blue and yellow ties, repectively, for the next five years?

Hadn't thought about this:

The government could still change mid-term (a PM loses confidence of House, Queen asks someone else to see if they form a new government), but the parliament would stay in place.
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/05/12/libcon-agreement/

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bg8abp4YF6hJ/610x.jpg

He's going to be the most ridiculed figure in politics in a couple of months. Apart from Gosbourne maybe.

pickles brings a lot in spades

Is he really heterosexual?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00fv3rPgM34Je/610x.jpg

Don't know who Pickles is but his tailor certainly needs horsewhipping. (The Tories are still for that, right?)

what's this all abaht then?

Well, when I started middle school every child was fingerprinted by the police, this would be the early 80s. I thought this was widespread practice.

The on who smelt it dealt it, eh Ken? (xxp)

The government could still change mid-term (a PM loses confidence of House, Queen asks someone else to see if they form a new government), but the parliament would stay in place.

Ah, pining for the days of the Long Parliament, eh?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bg8abp4YF6hJ/610x.jpg

This image is amazing. Like an Edward Hopper painting done by Banksy.

haha, don't.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gHLdmo4H30YQ/x610.jpg

ws.

Ok, so 55% thing might solely refer to dissolution of parliament (and GE trigger)? If sitting gov't Queen's Speech is voted down, PM will have to resign and allow another coalition to form? Trying to imagine how this would work in practice; LD-Con lose major supply bill vote (due to substantial LD rebellion (can this happen? Whipped so it can't?)) by just a couple of votes (not 358-292+), Cameron has to stand down and allow another gov't to form?

Can't believe people are still doing Frank Spencer in 2010.

Ooooh Betty! The Dems has done a whoopsie on the country!

I think it only applies to the confidence votes which force an election, but yeah, if there's no 50%+1 majority to get anything done then i don't see how cameron can avoid calling one.

I guess this means what we're actually stuck with, give or take by-elections/defections, is five years of 307-258-57-28. How those numbers actually arrange themselves into governing blocs, or who is in charge at the top, can change without the 55% proviso. You just don't get another election.

I'm still not happy.

Hopefully the libdem vote will implode in the Thirsk and Malton election in a fortnight's time and the libdem's get a screaming case of the wobblies.

We understand that Baroness Warsi is to become Conservative Party chairman. She will part of the cabinet - the first Muslim woman ever to hold such a senior political position.

^^^ pickles out.

yeah, if there's no 50%+1 majority to get anything done then i don't see how cameron can avoid calling one.
this is worst of all though, because now he *can't* call one unless he does a German-style dodge.

this is the kind of thing the lords are there to block right?

god bless the house of lords

Pickles is now Communities Secretary iirc xxps

yeah, it's not in any manifesto so surely. xp

5.20pm: Here's an afternoon summary.

• David Cameron has continued to appoint new ministers to his government. Downing Street has not published a full list, but according to reliable reports the new appointments include: Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary; Philip Hammond, transport secretary; Andrew Mitchell, international development secretary; Francis Maude, Cabinet Office minister; Eric Pickles, communities secretary; Caroline Spelman, environment secretary; and Lady Warsi, Conservative party chairman.

Con+Lib in Lords 260, Lab+x-bench 356

Just remembered that the Olympics will happen midway through this parliament, am revolted by the idea of David Cameron revelling in any glory from that.

Still am x1000 more annoyed by Boris revelry in same. We know who secured the Olympics.

Ken can be back in time for the olympics though?

or can he?

can I?

im p revolted by the incredible waste of money that is the olympics tbh! what glory?

Let's wait and see if they're actually profitable xposts

has an olympics ever been profitable?

hoping for Broken Even Britain at least

xxxxp

Obviously missing something, but who is that gorgeous women up the page a bit? don't tell me she's Tory

nick clegg's wife

Thought he might have meant Eric Pickles.

If this coalition holds together then it would likely be in the interest of the tories Tories to change their position and support AV. AV as a voting system can institutionalize coalition governments (at least it has in Australia). LDs and Tories can run candidates in the same electorate without disadvantaging either party, provided they exchange preferences.
Of course the coalition or the LDs will probably break apart in the meantime anyway, so...

Ever get the feeling like you just got played?

We know who secured the Olympics.

sebastian coe?

could you vote, tracer?

Nope. Not a citizen.

Funny how they still allow me to pay taxes, though.

Taxation without representation? You gonna stand for that?

bet u cd turn up at a polling station and busk it

xp

Driving from site to site @ work today, I kept getting the rage. Dismal result, + the proprietor-mouthpiece press in this country is a fucking disgrace.

Some knobend from conservativehome had this piece in the guardian with nauseating entitlement dripping from every fucking sentence. Among the bits was something about how the tories had twice as much money to spend as labour, and "was able to afford the most professional marginal seats operation ever seen in british politics". Well, that's a fair system isn't it? I mean, that's really RIGHT, a level playing field for everyone.

I wish I had been born in a smarter, better country than this one.

did the bbc really edit the sound of their OB so that the shouts of "tory scum" were removed? Is there a before/after clip of this somewhere? That's Stalin's Russia shit, fucking outrageous if so.

You could hear it in the live broadcast but come the montage - gone. And described as 'cheers' when on live.

why aren't more people outside of here making a bigger deal of this 55% thing?! It's a pretty fucking big deal - they've just ensured that if the coalition falls and the Lib Dems break away we STILL won't be able to go to the polls and decide if the government is legit. this is so fucking undemocratic.

i know! practically no one mentioning this 55% thing anywhere as far as i can see.

If sitting gov't Queen's Speech is voted down, PM will have to resign and allow another coalition to form?

does anyone know if this will remain the case under 55?

How to get the 55% through the Lords:

In the interim, lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

From the coalition agreement.

If sitting gov't Queen's Speech is voted down, PM will have to resign and allow another coalition to form?
does anyone know if this will remain the case under 55?

― nakhchivan, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:45 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

We can be like belgium.

Dammitall now I want moules frites

Suspect Pickles might've eaten all the frites tho

Hmm:

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/05/12/libcon-agreement/

That sounds almost as crazy - I think we're going to see the actual text of what's presented. This, though, would seem to make a mockery of the 'unelected PM' rubbish - if the LibDems switch, then the next Labour leader could be made PM with no election, right?

going to need to see

oh and scary that chris grayling got shafted from home secratary (presumably for the gay b&b remarks) for teresa may who has a WORSE record for voting on lgbt rights (basically consistently against everything) - and she's also the Equality Minister.

The government could still change mid-term (a PM loses confidence of House, Queen asks someone else to see if they form a new government), but the parliament would stay in place.

Could lead to some hellish negotiations though – similar to the ones we saw this week, but without the fresh mandate that leaders enjoyed.

It also makes a full term for this Parliament much more likely than we’d all thought.

this shit -if it passes- will be all time in terms of tory nefariousness

now i wonder how easy it wd be for the lib dems to change their leader(ship)

it's easier than it is for the other parties, but it takes a ton of members

It's just completely illogical and dare I say against the constitution, which requires the PM to command the "confidence of the Commons" (aka more than 50% - exactly why we got a hung parliament and needed a coalition in the first place). The vote of no confidence is simply a vote to demonstrate that the government cannot command a majority and therefore cannot pass laws. It would be pointless for a government to remain "in power" if it could only command the votes of less than 50% of the house - you'd have a government that could pass nothing.

too logical

so it's possible for a new govt to be formed from the same parliament but it seems unlikely that (nearly) all the lib dem mp's (including the orange book cunts) could switch allegiances

It would be pointless for a government to remain "in power" if it could only command the votes of less than 50% of the house - you'd have a government that could pass nothing.

Except the government could fall, it's just that the next one would need to be formed from the existing House.

It's a remarkably dumb move for several reasons:

How can you be called conservative if you've not only failed to conserve a long-standing tradition but introduced one which actually makes Parliament and the nation less representative and less responsive?

If their is a failure of confidence in govmt, the best remedy IS to vote the bums out and give the incoming govmt their proper and timely mandate.

Yes, the incumbents use the calling of elections to their own advantage. I fail to see what's wrong with that if they actually get enough to form a govmt or increase their majority - it means the people actually like them bettter or have been swayed to better support their policies. If, otoh, they don't, they've not only disappointed the people but showed themselves to be politically naif as well.

Irony of ironies, Callaghan would never have lost the confidence vote in March 1979 and could have waited until Autumn when they would have had a much better chance of winning.

if the 55% rule was in force then of course.

'David Cameron side view'

callaghan wouldn't have lost if that one labour mp who died a few days later would have been allowed to go to the commons to vote. to think, if callaghan had cared slightly less about this guys health & safety thatcher might not have got in.

Mind you, he'd already survived one vote by bribing the Ulster Unionists through breaking up their constituencies into smaller ones to give them more seats. (Or more correctly promising to, which he then did. They didn't then all support him in the second vote.)

Full cabinet list

Tory Broken Promises

m. white dropping knowledge all over this thread

word

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley

Dude gets his own MP?????????????

[lame gag involving the word 'represent']

Does that mean that the Con-Lib coalition will now be in power for the next five years come what may?

No. The legislation will provide for a general election to be called if 55% or more of the Commons votes in favour. The convention since 1782 has been that a significant defeat on a major issue can lead to a vote of no confidence in the government. If they lose that vote then they are obliged to resign or call a general election. This happened twice in the last century – in 1923 and 1979.

The fixed-term parliament legislation will take away the power of a prime minister to call an election in these circumstances. But it will also mean that if the government falls the sitting prime minister can try to form a new coalition government from among the opposition parties. If that fails in other fixed-term parliaments, such as in Germany, the head of state can call an election, but in Britain there is no wish to involve the Queen in such decisions.

So they have settled on a threshold of 55% of MPs to force a general election. The 55% figure is significant because the Conservatives have 47% of MPs and it ensures that the Lib Dems cannot simply walk out of the coalition and vote with the opposition to call a general election as they can only muster 53% of the vote.

That doesn't really answer the key question that we've been asking on here: if the coalition falls apart and the Lib Dems no longer support the Tories, but the opposition can only muster 53% in a vote of no confidence, and Cameron can't actually call an election, and nobody is willing to form a new coalition, are we basically left with a minority Tory government that cannot pass ANYTHING because no majority of MPs will vote for it, dragging on for months or years until the five-year term is finally up? Because that's really fucking stupid.

that's really fucking stupid

^^^ otm

sounds like a constitutional crisis.

And seems somewhat contradictory to the 'right to recall mps' policy.

The right to recall MPs smells like bs to me, the bar will be raised so high that in practice it'll never happen.

That doesn't really answer the key question that we've been asking on here: if the coalition falls apart and the Lib Dems no longer support the Tories, but the opposition can only muster 53% in a vote of no confidence, and Cameron can't actually call an election, and nobody is willing to form a new coalition, are we basically left with a minority Tory government that cannot pass ANYTHING because no majority of MPs will vote for it, dragging on for months or years until the five-year term is finally up? Because that's really fucking stupid.

― Home Taping Is Killing Muzak (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 21:13 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. it's still stupid and breathtakingly unprincipled imo but they'll make it work. mind you, if the lords are any use at all, they'll block this.

xpost

It's 5 percent of the electorate I thought? That's not insane if somebody wanted to get organised and hilarious, but the "wrongdoing" caveat cd be fucked with to mean anything or nothing I guess.

I just mean the principle that if an MP can no longer rely on the support of his constituents (say, via a scandal) he can be recalled for an election, but if a government can no longer command support of the commons (say, via a scandal), we're stuck with them until the end of the term.

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. it's still stupid and breathtakingly unprincipled imo but they'll make it work. mind you, if the lords are any use at all, they'll block this.

But with a three-line whip Tory MPs couldn't vote for it.

Getting 5% shouldn't be difficult nowadays, just needs a facebook page to get started. As NV says its how they decide on 'wrongdoing', and if something's serious enough for say criminal investigation to take place then it's likely to be construed as prejudicial to any investigation.

under those circumstances, they'll just call another no confidence vote and more mps will support it if the sitting govt really can't govern. .

But Tories can vote it down on their own. What Tory is going to reject the whip to vote the Tories out of power? Bar is unjustifiably high

i'm not defending the system, because it's stupid and unjustifiable, but in practice i wouldn't expect the whips to keep alive a govt which can't pass any legislation or even make a budget because the long term damage would be catastrophic. also, aren't whips some of the biggest schemers among mps? maybe i'm just thinking francis urquhart here, but i reckon a lot of them would see their chance and be quite happy to stick the knife in.

So, to get the party in power out, they have to start knifing amongst themselves - that's great for stability.

Yeah, tho to get to that point not only does the coalition have to crumble the Tories themselves have to implode well beyond the point they ever have -- this allows them to keep power while they elect a new leader and have him reform a coalition. Xp

m. white, my point is only that the worst case scenario of having effectively no govt for months or years because the coalition has broken down but a no confidence vote can't be passed isn't very realistic. this deal is good for stability - just like a real majority government, it will have to implode to be removed before its time is up - but the mistake is thinking stability is the only virtue. the system should allow for the fact that people haven't given anyone much of a mandate and we may want to rethink things in a short while. that's why the fixed term is a disgusting power grab.

xp stet, that's prob true.

That's basically it -- it gives a minority govt the same privileges as a majority one, which the public hasn't given it.

this allows them to keep power while they elect a new leader and have him reform a coalition But how long would we have to wait for the party to choose a new leader in the first place and what government would we have in the mean time? And what if this new leader can't reform a coalition? There doesn't seem to be any mechanism to bring things to an end: it relies on the MPs that form the government voting out their own government without obliging them to do so.

Yes, exactly. Is ludicrous. No mention on BBC yet, either.

im just amazed how little the media has picked up on this. five-year parliaments are comparatively rare, aren't they?

1959–64
1992–97
2005–10

see a pattern?

oh and the glorious 1974–79 of course, which also fits the pattern

I'm amazed how little the media which was so fair and balanced during its coverage of the election and negotiations has picked up on this

Hold on, it's even more stupid than I thought. Presumably a future majority government could call an election whenever it wanted (as long as it had at least 55% of the seats) by calling and winning a motion of no confidence in itself, whereas a minority government would be obliged to continue to the end of the five years even if it didn't want to. What a load of shit.

lol yes I considered this earlier

ha, ha, ha

i guess the LDs are counting on no more majority governments. instead you can just come last and still get cabinet seats!

At what point does "short-lived" in this thread title become an unbearable mockery btw?

As soon as the Parliament Reform Act gets through the Lords, I guess!

Still, looking forward to DUP having to think up questions every week for PMQs...

"if there is hope, it lies in the lords."

Every time I think about this 55% thing it makes me angry. I'm sort of hoping the BBC, Guardian, Independent etc haven't picked up properly on this because there's been so much else going on and it'll become a bigger issue later. This government has a reasonable mandate to govern, the Tories got more votes than anyone else, but changing the entire system just to keep it propped up for five years is against all logic.

Finally some traction on this on Newsnight - Kirsty Wark grilling Jeremy Hunt on it.

lil bit in the times:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2010/05/plans-for-fixedterm-parliaments-not-credible-and-dangerous-says-law-expert.html

"momentous moment" - good start d-mil.

the guardian and independent must be deep in shock atm

Yeah - Kirsty Wark asked Jeremy Hunt, Tory shitebag ESQ, about it and his response was "Fixed terms have been discussed many times" and she said no, it's not about fixed terms it's about the change from 51 to 55, that's a significant change and feels like you and the Lib Dems have just hustled this up to help yourselves. His response was "It's a small change, and necessary for a strong, stable government". Then she moved on. I think there is such a huge number of bullet points that interviewers and columnists have to get through - having been told by their editors to address them - that nothing is really getting a hard look at this point.

Also Crick did an interview a constitutional expert on Newsnight and he was saying this was basically up to no good.

I think there is still an assumption that the 55% will not stop a breakdown, should it happen - hence the lack of queries on it and/or anger. xps

people seem to be more concerned about equality minister theresa may not being all that into equality, which i guess is...easier to fit into 140 characters, or something. actually massively shocked this hasn't been picked up on to a greater extent.

struggle to find a Tory MP who was that into equality tho

Tracer, there is of course the issue of the newscaster varying her question and getting six stonewalling/similar answers.

kirsty wark informs our cabinet is now 65% oxbridge, 61% privately schooled

I think that if the coalition collapsed then a sufficient number of Tories would have to end up voting against the government in a no confidence vote. The alternative would be keeping a crippled govt on life support for what could be years. The Tories just could not do that, they would be rightly blamed by the electorate for an unprecedented period of stasis and absolutely massacred at the next election.

kirsty wark informs our cabinet is now 65% oxbridge, 61% privately schooled

― ogmor, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 22:16 (43 seconds ago) Bookmark

tbf this is still a lower percentage than pretty much any British national newspaper

kirsty wark informs our cabinet is now 65% oxbridge, 61% privately schooled

― ogmor, Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:16 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark

surprised it's as few as that tbqh!

http://noto55.com/

tory twitters arguing it's just for dissolution, and that Holyrood model (if no govt forms 28 days after a no confidence vote dissolution is automatic) will be adopted, but haven't seen that anywhere yet.

I just want to say that Cameron's voice is already making the hair on the back of my neck stand up with poisonous hatred.

lib dems already caving on banking reform, great job so far guys: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/osborne-cable-bank-reforms

struggle to find a Tory MP who was that into equality tho

well indeed!

tbf this is still a lower percentage than pretty much any British national newspaper

there is no balance reinstated by noting this similar shitpile, just a sensation of yr skin cooling as you think about the UK

kirsty wark informs our cabinet is now 65% oxbridge, 61% privately schooled

― ogmor, Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:16 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark

surprised it's as few as that tbqh!

― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Wednesday, 12 May 2010 23:18 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

paul waugh of the standard is speculating that letwin and george young (leader of the house) are not given a seat at the cabinet, even though their jobs would normally deserve one, because cameron doesn't want this figure to look any worse (they're both etonians as well).

lib dems already caving on banking reform, great job so far guys: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/osborne-cable-bank-reforms

lol they couldn't even get to midnight on the first day of the coalition

struggle to find a Tory MP who was that into equality tho

Nick Herbert was an openly gay member of the Tory Shadow Cabinet, but I think he got dropped?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/02/17/gay-tory-nick-herbert-says-party-has-made-rapid-conversion-on-gay-equality/

Support from the LGBT community for the Conservatives dropped from 39 percent in 2009 to 6% at the time of the election.

Big up Chris Grayling.

prime minister cameron will never underestimate the pubescent double-barrelled lesbian vote again

think I've seen that video

are you thinking of portillo's progress?

toby young, loathsome human being, tries and fails to make cameron seem likeable:

At a recent college gaudy I sat next to a contemporary of Dave’s who told me about the the moment he was told he might be rusticated after letting off a fire extinguisher in the offices of Cherwell, the university newspaper. He was sitting in Old Quad, feeling a bit down in the dumps, when Dave wandered up and asked him what the matter was. After he told him, Dave insisted on driving this forlorn 21-year-old to his family home in Berkshire where they spent the afternoon lounging by his swimming pool and eating chocolate cake.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100039418/david-cameron-the-brasenose-years/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook#*x119x97x115

assume that's how he won over clegg too.

Dave insisted on driving this forlorn 21-year-old to his family home in Berkshire where they spent the afternoon lounging by his swimming pool and eating chocolate cake bumping enormous lines of coke.

haha, if cameron took this approach individually to solve the Deep Social Problems facing broken britain it wld be the dawn of an infinitely superior generation of tory clown

I'm pretty sure universal access to etonian's to lift yr spirits at their houses of inherited furniture is the most common definition of equality of opportunity

We need to hit up a certain music critic for contemporaneous Brasenose stories.

But can Broken Britain provide enough chocolate cake in these economically challenged times? (xp)

Let them eat chocolate cake, by the pool.

oh god dealin with tory apologists for this on twitter is infuriating. it's only day 1, ffs.

Awesome I've just remembered we've got fruit cake in the bread bin

wow looks like David Macaroon was right, I feel better already

^^^ i'm all right jack

George Young...my best friend (who is not a Tory) interned for him in '92. I will go ask for some kind of character study.

We don't have a swimming pool so I filled a bucket to lounge by.

It doesn't really add anything tbh

'vince cable to appease bankers' fears on bonuses' : /

Sterling work in less than 12 hours, eh?

thank fuck for that, last thing this country needs is some worried bankers

maybe he shd send them bonus cake

worried bankers = the world's most powerful concern trolls

Console yourself with some class was schadenfreude here: Post photos of worried/agonized stock exchange traders here

no 'was' but class 'war', obv.

Adonis makes it sound like the 55% idea was one of the LDs' negotiation points:

I was shocked by the Lib Dem proposal, in our negotiating session with them, that the alternative vote should be introduced before a referendum, as "a big down-payment we need to go in with you" (in the words of one Lib Dem negotiator). The commitment in their coalition agreement with the Tories to gerrymander the fundamental basis of parliamentary legitimacy – proposing that votes of confidence will henceforth require the support of 55% of MPs – is presumably another such unprincipled "down-payment".

I supported the last cabinet's decision to open discussions with the Lib Dems, at the point at which senior Lib Dems told us (misleadingly, as is now clear) they did not wish to sustain a Tory government. However, what then happened was an attempt by the Lib Dem leadership to conduct a dutch auction, inviting Labour to outbid the Tories on a shopping list of demands. Although I believe it might have been possible to form a principled Lab-Lib coalition supported on "confidence and supply" by minor parties, it was not on the basis of such an auction.

The Lib Dems are attempting to blame their Tory coalition on our failure to negotiate "seriously". More comically, "negative body language" is said to have been at fault. We were perfectly serious, but we were not prepared to engage in constitutional gerrymandering.

No idea whether the LDs thought of it first, or the Tories brought it to them as a bargaining chip.

The wholly reasonable argument in favour is that this was actually designed to give parliament the power to dissolve itself, instead of just the PM having it. Moving the bar to 55% was probably just icing.

sry that's total nonsense -- is meaningless power with fixed terms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/fixed-five-year-parliamentary-term?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

and the public being given the right to have a particular issue debated in the Commons.

Can't wait to hear Miliband vs Clegg on which download we should all gang up and buy to stop X Factor being the Christmas number one.

55 making my head hurt.
1. It protects Clegg from Cameron calling snap election.
2. It protects Cameron from Lib-Lab calling an election (which they previously couldn't do anyway)

But

3. Lib-Lab could still win a vote of no confidence, forcing Cameron to resign and forming a govt themselves.
4. Only protects fixed-terms in a narrow range of hung parliaments: party w/more than 55% can still call one.
5. No Holyrood-style automatic election if no stable govt forms after 28 days. So wrangling cld go on right up until term.

Seems a very ad hoc and un-mandated change just to protect Clegg. If it also changes no-confidence votes in order to protect Cameron too, it's outrageous. Confusin.

(Growing storm about it does show how little honeymoon period these guys are going to get. Day 1 and everyone's already on the lookout for antics)

Did find this:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_2#pt1-pb2-l1g3

The pecedent in British politics seems to have been set by the Labour Party when they set up the Scottish Paliament, with a whopping 66% needed to call no confidence.

Jack Straw had a good point this morning, in his fumbling, whiny way - the only time that the difference between 51% and 55% matters is when the government has already lost the confidence of the majority of the Commons. It appears purely designed to keep such a government in power, and would appear to make the actual passing of legislation unworkable.

It's true that it protects Cameron from LD defection but am coming around to the view that it is really designed to stop Cameron from calling a snap election and wiping out the LDs.

But he wouldn't be able to do that at 50% without the support of other parties, and he will still be able to do that at 50% *with* the support of other parties. Or am I missing something?

Sorry, that should read "will still be able to do that at 55% with the support of other parties" - can't see how this meaningfully adds any constraints to the tories

Hmm yes. Head = hurts.

ppl predicting a VAT rise

can't even be bothered to check whether it was in the manifesto of either party

VAT is super-regressive

a brief interlude

GIS david cameron side profile (no quotes)

VAT was always predicted to be increased to 20% at the least, whatever the promise.

You can call no confidence at Holyrood with 51% -- but there's a 28-day cooling-off period to allow a new govt to form.

66% is just for dissolution votes, and if you're going to allow them the barrier needs to be v high in a PR body to stop them calling elections all the time. But there's no point in it at Westminster.

ppl predicting a VAT rise

can't even be bothered to check whether it was in the manifesto of either party

VAT is super-regressive

― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:18 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Former Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg warned us about this Tory tax bombshell only a few weeks ago.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-reveals-tories-13bn-vat-bombshell-18755.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/LibDem_Tory_Bombshell-300x150.jpg

The bombshell being that it wasn't enough I suppose

I'm sorry, but when I saw

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01632/clegg-and-cameron_1632536c.jpg

I couldn't help thinking:

http://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Ant_&_Dec_929470.jpg

+ 20 years

Was reading the Daily Mail over somebody's shoulder on the bus just now, and they made the same comparison. (not implying that you're a Daily Mail journo, obvs.)

Letter in Metro the other day compared Sam Cam with Nic Cage which made sense to me in my head but I can't find good photos to show it.

The "Dave and Nick show" article on the BBC site reminded me of it, tbh (xpost)

this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8678370.stm

I had them more as Gilbert and George, but hey.

guys it's over you lost can we please get somebody back into the football threads now?

xp Two shits, certainly.

afaict the actual first thing this govt did was to take down the signs at the dept for children schools and families and change it to dept for education, even though that doesn't make sense because it's only responsible for schools and children's care not universities and colleges. can only assume that this was done out of visceral hatred for ed balls, like when brian clough in the damned utd gets don revie's desk and chops it up and burns it.

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=18111&channel=0&title=Green+Party+councillor+dies+in+accident+

Obviously wasn't hugging it hard enough.

xpost

I thought the Libby Demmies had persuaded them to keep the DCSF?

I thought this government wasn't going to do these cash-wasting ego-strokin' departmental name changes? HMSO bills will mount up.

Maybe they can just charge it on expenses to the Parliamentary Resources Unit, whatever that does?

Oh fuck they've rebranded as the first step to killing it I guess. Great week for the Vague household, hats off to our Liberal overlords.

nv - same dept, different name: http://education.gov.uk/. they had new signs up by 3pm yesterday.

vince will probably still be in charge of colleges though, except for 16 to 19 stuff, fwiw.

until they create their 90s revival funding body and principals can go back to perpetrating massive frauds.

Mrs V. is pretty connected to the non-Education aspects of the, um, Department of Education.

my condolences

ah fuck it, there's gonna be some grim satisfaction lulz with peeps who told me "nothing could be worse than Labour" this month.

"They've re-badged it, you fool!"

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/2/10/1265809183944/Alan-Partridge-005.jpg

t/s "nothing could be worse than Labour" vs "something's gotta be better than labour" vs "labour have gotta get better eventually"

Just remember: Things! Can only get better!

Oh god: YES. Thank you, internet. Dave/Nick slash.

http://rhaegal.dreamwidth.org/23404.html

(may not be safe for work, though it is only text based)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1276721/Gordon-Brown-resigns-Pound-plunges-dollar-markets-express-horror-Lib-Lab-coalition-talks.html

It started the day around $1.483, soared above $1.5 as the prospect of a deal with David Cameron grew - but plunged back below $1.5. Tonight, it was trading around $1.4850.
Harry Adams, a senior currency trader from the foreign exchange firm Schneider, said: 'The fall confirms that the market is looking for a Conservative government - and anything else won't do.

― mierda defensa ... no impedir ... espectador (onimo), Monday, 10 May 2010 22:06 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

£1 now = $1.4758 --- seems the market has changed its mind. Expect Daily Mail "POUND PLUNGES!" story any minute...

Speaking of the Pound:

Says one Arsenal regular at the match with his wife and teenage son: ‘Usually, if you are an away supporter in a box, you keep very quiet. We were in front of this executive box and I heard a stream of abuse.

‘Two ladies behind me said they couldn’t believe the language being used, and that they thought it was coming from an MP. I turned round and recognised Stephen Pound.

‘He called out to Sol Campbell ­saying: “You are a big f***ing fairy.” I was so shocked that I wrote what he said down in my programme. It was the language of the gutter.

‘He went on to shout abuse at the ref saying: “What game are you at — you f***ing w****r.” Then I saw him leaning over the box to make an ­offensive gesture. A steward went up to him to remonstrate.’

Lol @ kate's link, especially how innocently it all builds up

It's only a story if the dollar makes gains on the Labour pound, silly.

Kate's link even provides 'frisson' in the 3rd para.

Oh my god, I've discovered the motherlode...

"Don't you see?" gasped Cameron, passionately. "It's destiny. Look at our logos - you're the little yellow bird, frail and defenseless. I'm the big, open oak tree, spreading its boughs, offering respite for your weary, tiny wings. It's perfect - it couldn't be more perfect. And obviously so long as you don't crap on the Bentley, but that goes without saying."

And now I'm going to go and dive head first into some smutty public schoolboy tennis fic action...

::explodes with joy::

LOLLLLLLLLL

Dave knows he's good at this; you don't become leader of the Conservative party without knowing how to suck cock.

smutty public schoolboy tennis fic action

Uhhhhhhhhh, smutty public schoolboy tennis fic action starring Nick Clegg and David Cameron?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/21/article-1079486-00971ED800000259-434_468x390.jpg

^^^LOL@ tube socks/black loafers man in the front.

Dunno if they're better or worse than the beefburgers on the guy on his left. Cameron's in loafers too I think?

Seriously needs animating:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/12/1273700169630/David-Cameron-and-Nick-Cl-006.jpg

Theme from Dr. Zhivago playing in the background

His face seems to be morphing into Michael Winner of late.

http://noto55.com/

It's a face only Nick Clegg could love

smutty public schoolboy tennis fic action

Uhhhhhhhhh, smutty public schoolboy tennis fic action starring Nick Clegg and David Cameron?

― Whirlwind Bromance (Tom D.), Thursday, 13 May 2010 13:02 (3 minutes ago)

Yesss! yes yes yes...

::falls off chair::

This has been the ONLY good outcome from this entire election.

We need a sweepstakes on how much weight Cam gains over this year, as it's starting and no more cycling 4U. It will be Boultonesque.

I am only laughing at tennis boi in the spirit of Welcome To 1985, Meet The One Guy Who Still Likes Nik Kershaw.

So apparently it started on the Guardian, rather than Livejournal!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/clegg-cameron-steps-downing-street-conversation

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/12/1273687801254/Nick-Clegg-and-David-Came-006.jpg

Cameron God, but I love you . . .

Clegg It is the love that dare not speak its name.

Cameron To hell with what anyone may think, I want the whole world to know I would gladly melt into your arms for ever.

Clegg Say you'll never leave me.

Cameron I'm yours and yours alone. At least for a couple of months.

Clegg I've got to have you. Right here, right now.

Cameron That tie goes so well with your hair.

Clegg You feel a-m-a-a-a-a-zing. Your arms are so buff.

Cameron I bet you say that to all the boys.

Clegg Don't tease me. I'm feeling very vulnerable.

Cameron Has anyone ever told me how much you remind me of my fag?

Clegg I would have died to be your fag.

Cameron Your political career just has.

Clegg That's odd, so has yours.

I like the ones where Clegg is the top.

I like the ones where I can stop throwing up within an hour of reading them.

Was too busy thinking the guy in front of DCam in that tube socks pic was Nick Clegg to notice it was actually a DCam pic.

Good piece on the World At One about the 55% thing by a constitutional expert. His main points:

Ppl need to stop saying this is for no confidence, it's for dissolution. He even went as far as calling Jack Straw "stupid" for continuing to claim it was.
It's a consequence of fixed term parliaments and nothing more, to try and hold them together. In his opinion it was set too low, that anything under 60% was still too easy to dissolve at a whim.
An easy way round it, if it were sought, would be to raise a bill to change the date of the next election - this would only require 50%+1 of voting MPs.

The way I would then see it working would be as follows (and this is my interpretation):

In an LD/Con split, LD and Lab could force a motion of no confidence and win at 50%+1. David Cameron would then have to resign as PM. There would then be a vote for dissolution. If >55%in favour then there is an immediate election. If <55% in favour then the sitting parliament could try and raise a new PM - LD/Lab, LD/Con on different/improved terms, Rainbow Coalition) - which presumably has a time limit for formation before an election becomes the default status.

This answers all of stet's points to me earlier this morning I think. Given that complete PR seems still to be the LD gameplan (Simon Hughes on the radio on Tuesday talking about AV+ as a target in the life of this parliament, and STV this decade) it would appear to be consistent with their policies to start putting in building blocks that support it now like making it harder to dissolve a parliament with NOC.

that's at about 26:00 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00s8k9f

cambridge constitutional dude (30:00 onwards) is a former LD MP btw

Hmm.

Simon Hughes on the radio on Tuesday talking about AV+ as a target in the life of this parliament, and STV this decade

He's unlikely to get re-elected otherwise!

tbf, he also thinks it's a good idea for other reasons.

Good piece on the World At One about the 55% thing by a constitutional expert. His main points:

Ppl need to stop saying this is for no confidence, it's for dissolution. He even went as far as calling Jack Straw "stupid" for continuing to claim it was.
It's a consequence of fixed term parliaments and nothing more, to try and hold them together. In his opinion it was set too low, that anything under 60% was still too easy to dissolve at a whim.
An easy way round it, if it were sought, would be to raise a bill to change the date of the next election - this would only require 50%+1 of voting MPs.

The way I would then see it working would be as follows (and this is my interpretation):

In an LD/Con split, LD and Lab could force a motion of no confidence and win at 50%+1. David Cameron would then have to resign as PM. There would then be a vote for dissolution. If >55%in favour then there is an immediate election. If <55% in favour then the sitting parliament could try and raise a new PM - LD/Lab, LD/Con on different/improved terms, Rainbow Coalition) - which presumably has a time limit for formation before an election becomes the default status.

This answers all of stet's points to me earlier this morning I think. Given that complete PR seems still to be the LD gameplan (Simon Hughes on the radio on Tuesday talking about AV+ as a target in the life of this parliament, and STV this decade) it would appear to be consistent with their policies to start putting in building blocks that support it now like making it harder to dissolve a parliament with NOC.

― BLOODY BOLLOCKS HELL! (aldo), Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:45 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

but we don't need fixed-term parliaments. only a tiny number of disproportionately powerful MPs were elected saying they'd bring it in.

that guy on TWAO says that a vote of no confidence needn't lead to a general election but to a new government. in other words more coalition bullshit no-one wants.

i.e. in practice no-confidence votes DO lead to dissolution, even if they don't "necessarily" (what is this, france?)

Useful cribsheet on just how rich our new overlords are

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/10/oxford-universitywealth-school

Election Winning leader Alma mater
1945 Clement Attlee University of Oxford
1950 Clement Attlee University of Oxford
1951 Winston Churchill Non graduate
1955 Anthony Eden University of Oxford
1959 Harold Macmillan University of Oxford
1964 Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1966 Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1970 Edward Heath University of Oxford
1974 Feb Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1974 Oct Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1979 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1983 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1987 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1992 John Major Non graduate
1997 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2001 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2005 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2010 David Cameron University of Oxford

LOL Chris Grayling

fuck if that were boatrace results cambridge would prob just have taken up kites or some shit by now

1992 John Major Nonentity

churchill, major

try to find a pattern there

Missing a few there

Gordon Edinburgh
Callaghan got into oxford, couldn't afford to go went into the civil service instead

that's election winners, not pms

ah

basically, the public love us.

Even under rampant PR you don't need power to vote to dissolve. Fixed terms are fine without it.

What I can't see is any justification *for* it, but that's because it hasn't been debated, just announced.

Chris Grayling owns four houses in London but is only worth £500,000?

Think Churchill's educational career of posh school followed by Sandhurst may be a little different from Major's, but by all accounts he did pretty terribly at school and I always like to point and laugh at Sandhurst, so

55% is totally becoming a thing. From the Guardian liveblog:

4.07pm: The 55% threshold required for an early dissolution is turning into an issue for the new coalition government with PA reporting a "backbench rebellion":

The newly formed Cameron-Clegg coalition government is facing its first threatened backbench rebellion, over a controversial plan to reduce the risk of it being voted out of office before the end of its planned five-year term.

As the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat cabinet met for the first time today, some senior Tory and Labour MPs voiced concern over a proposal in the coalition agreement that dissolution would need to be approved by 55% or more of MPs.

It would represent a radical shift away from the Commons tradition that a simple majority of one would be enough on a no confidence vote to force an unpopular government to resign.

The 55% threshold means that Mr Cameron could survive at the head of a minority Conservative government even if the Lib Dems pulled out of the coalition deal.

It would need a significant rebellion by disaffected Tories joining force with all the opposition MPs to force him to call another election ... Labour MPs are already alarmed by what they see as an attempt to change long-standing Commons rules in the new government's favour.

They have been joined by several senior Conservatives on the libertarian wing of the party who are lobbying behind-the-scenes for the 55% threshold to be removed before the legislation is introduced in the Commons.

The last time a government fell on a no confidence vote was in March 1979, when the minority Labour administration led by James Callaghan was defeated by 311 votes to 310."

David Blunkett, the former Labour home secretary, described it as "a profoundly anti-democratic move".

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

"This is nothing less than a stitch-up by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to overturn historic precedents for their own advantage. If Labour had attempted something like this in government, the Lib Dems in particular would have been incandescent," he said.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, defended the move on BBC Radio 4's The World at One:

"Once you agree that there should be a fixed-term parliament, it is only fixed-term if there is some provision to really give it credibility to make it hard to dissolve parliament, other than exceptional circumstances, part way through its five-year term.

"We thought about it carefully in the negotiations, and we do intend that to happen."

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

This is always true.

(I agree with his conclusion tho)

http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/9588118738
http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/11418243066
http://twitter.com/vincecable/status/11245928535

change that works for you

it's certainly working for him

55% is totally becoming a thing.

basically i think it's taking time for people to understand the implications. my own idiot LD MP doesn't get it. they're all saying hey it's only for dissolution motions, confidence motions. but it's customary to dissolve parliament after a vote of no confidence and what they are trying to argue is that now we would just reshuffle the deck. with only three parties, i don't see how that even works, let alone whether it's democratic.

There would be uproar if the LibDems just shuffled to the other side and the cobbled together a belated Rainbow Coalition with the same Parliament and D Miliband or whoever at the helm. Why not just have another election? It's ridiculous.

I can see why the LibDems are so keen on PR as it would virtually guarantee them being in power with one party or another forever.

Why not just have another election? It's ridiculous.

?

because a govt can be formed out of the last one.

not really, unless we go down the LOL LAB-CON AMIRITE?! route

act 1: lib dems and tories: we can't go on like this
act 2: vote of no confidence
act 3: but not dissolution! no, that'd be lame
act 4: another coalition is formed out of _________
act 5: profit

that happened in '24, so at least it's no worse. If you're going to have a fixed-term parliament, the German model seems way better imo

that happened in '24, so at least it's no worse.

How'd that Parliament work out for everyone again?

http://www.poecker.homepage.t-online.de/01/1ge12mo1.jpg

god imagine a parliament where they just actually voted on the individual issues, every time. nightmare scenario.

again with the krautwerk

Feel free to way in with some fussball

yeah sure rafa out lol carragher paul robinson is a health risk and lol terry k i'm done

He said: "The numbers mean that it would be impossible, even if every opposition MP united against this coalition, for the house to express its lack of confidence in it.

This is always true.

― caek, Thursday, 13 May 2010 16:29 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

What's also true is that the coalition could collapse and LibDem-Lab-DUP-SNP-Green-SDLP-PC-SfuckingF-whoever I've missed from the Big Rainbow still couldn't vote to dissolve parliament without a couple of dozen Tory defectors from a *minority* party.

Sure.

Common sense says that enough Tories would realise governing in minority was kinda fuckin pointless and would do the right thing in those circumstances - meaning that, like 5 year fixed terms, it's a solution to something that doesn't need fixed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/13/55-per-cent-coalition-rule

Guardian finally getting round to raising this 55% thing. I'm sure the rest of the media won't cover it though.

Report on C4 news speaks of 55% as perhaps 'the first casualty' in the coalition agreement.

We'll see..

From the comments on that Guardian story:

Parliament has no right, priviledge or power to dissolve itself. That prerogative rests with the Crown alone.

The Crown invites a Member, who commands the loyalty of the largest number of Members, to be Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in the time being appoints the Crown's Ministers. When a Prime Minister chooses to resign he so does, there is nothing that the House can do to frustrate his action. It may be that he resigns on health grounds, or because he is fed up with the job or because he has lost the confidence of the House. This latter means that the Members have given him notice that they will, in future, vote against all legislation that he proposes. This can be achieved by the House passing a vote of no-confidence in him and his government. In these circumstances he resigns, there being no point in carrying on in Office. It maybe that, when he resigns he can advise the Sovereign that another Member commands a majority of the House and could be invited to form a Government. It may be that he cannot so advise and must therefore request the dissolution of Parliament and the election of a new one.

It is difficult to see what value the Losers' Coalition Memorandum of Understanding brings. It merely expresses the intention to propose a Motion that the Parliament shall run for a full five years and that a Motion for Dissolution with less that 55% support cannot be allowed to succeed. But, hey, the House cannot dissolve Parliament, only the Queen can do that, and then only on the advice of her Prime Minister.

Face it, Cameron will remain free to ditch the Liberals when ever he chooses. What are they going to do about it when he does? Whine about it to the Voters? Sue the Tories until their eyes fall out? Take it to the European Court?

January 2009

But Robert Goodwill, shadow minister for Leeds, claimed that the cabinet meetings outside of London were "a bit of a gimmick".

He said: "The cost of hosting them given the increased security is something that should be borne by Labour rather than by the taxpayer.

Mr Cameron said he would continue the Labour tradition of holding cabinet meetings in different parts of the UK.

shadow minister for Leeds?

He was Shadow Minister for Roads. Was that first quote in the Guardian perchance?

I like the idea of every Cabinet including a Minister for Leeds.

The rehabilitation of Chris Langham continues.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4603645741_ab50bbc25c.jpg

they're leading w/ 55 on newsnight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs

Ned's photo reminds me a bit of:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/3/11/1236764626916/Brian-Clough-with-the-Lee-002.jpg

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

think i had 55 more or less right already, also david grosssman sez it was a ~conservative~ priority tho happily they got lib dem lord rentard to flail about in defence of it

amending the constitution just for this one sketchily cribbed together abortion govt.....these cunts have got nerve

The Shadow Minister for Roads AND the Shadow Minister for Leeds. Wonder what he spent more time on?

Nakh, it's not nerve, it's ENTITLEMENT. Cameron's in the door two seconds, under a shaky agreement, and is behaving as if he's got a giant mandate.

A giant what now?

A giant man date

Yeah, it's a gift of a title for the slash that's going around.

Actually I first read that as 'as if he's got a giant manatee' and I was like oh wow...

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

My first thought was it's some sort of tax dodge.

Oh yes, it would have to be win-win for them to consider it worth doing. A person on £20K is going to be a grand out and will have no way to claw stuff back.

In about three months David Cameron will look like a giant manatee. I call four chins by August bank holiday.

Anyone watching Question Time? Mehdi Hasan laying into the Liberal Democrats and getting some great dirty looks from Simon Hughes. Definitely no slash fiction in their future.

I love the Daily Mirror.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/May/Week2/15631599.jpg

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/May/Week2/15631599.jpg

The "revolting" lead is about the 55% according to BBC News so it's very much otm. "OFFICIAL" lol.

Nakh, it's not nerve, it's ENTITLEMENT. Cameron's in the door two seconds, under a shaky agreement, and is behaving as if he's got a giant mandate.

sure, there's usually something coldly impressive about this sort of arrogation, a glint in the eye or a diminished chutzpah but this could be as stupid as it is presumptuous

that it's tory-driven does show their confidence in being able to sideline the libdems in due course, they won't be able to try for a majority but the libdems are further hamstrung

cameron's wagering that they'll be too fucking pussy to call time on it and will probably be rife with insubordination, but he only needs a small number of libdems to carry legislation and the rest can get tae fuck

the lack of any lib dems in major cabinet positions is a coup, clegg gets deputy pm (a sinecure in this instance) so he won't want any other libdems upstaging him with important jobs and cameron obliges! vince cable will linger about to no purpose then resign with his credibility shattered

there is a sense though that conservative entitlement knows no ends and they'll simply push the lib dems too far, until the humiliation is too great and they'll depose clegg&chums

then 55% may come in to play

Could you take your coat off, love, you don't look ethnic enough
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5jQcnBQxp3Y9hTrk2KjyB48P7cjWg?size=l

Nice to see Labour doing their bit to avoid the lol posho stuff you were doing upthread by having a contest likely to be between Oxford graduate David Miliband, Oxford graduate Ed Miliband, Oxford graduate Ed Balls and Cambridge graduate Andy Burnham.

Going to Oxbridge doesn't you make you a posho. Being posh does, obv.

(i.e. yeah fuck those toffs but let's be clear why)