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

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.