Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

whatever next ?

More ranting.

[leviramsey]

FiveThirtyEight takes a look at the election

As part of our coverage of the UK general election we examined the surge in momentum and jump in national polling numbers for the Liberal Democrats that began with their leader, Nick Clegg, scoring big in the first ever leaders' debate of 15 April.

Several questions were outstanding. First, we wondered how would the UK's electoral system respond to the emergence of a legitimate third party competitor? It turned out that even with a significant bump in national numbers, only a handfull of target seats would come into play, due to the electoral structure of the country.

In addition, the Liberal Democrats -- among other third parties -- often win seats over the course of several elections, becoming a "plausible" option in a constituency in one election, then pulling a plurality in the next election. This extra step -- having first to achieve a threshold level of support before victory is likely -- meant that the Lib Dems were not likely to win any seats beyond the 15 to 20 or so where they had a foothold already.

Lastly, the source of the newfound Lib Dem strength was relatively unclear, except that some demographic crosstabs and anecdotal evidence indicated that young voters were moving strongly to the Liberal Democrats. With regard to specific seats, it was not clear whether the national polling numbers were being drawn from an increased competitiveness in marginal seats where the Lib Dems had a chance to prevail, or from greater support in seats where the Lib Dems were either already power or did not have a serious chance to win.

The second question was one of selection bias. Both telephone polls and internet polls have particular biases and house effects associated with them, with telephone polls tending to exclude younger and poorer voters and internet polls leaving out older and less educated voters. Though the polling firms always try to adjust for these biases by weighing results based on age or newspaper readership, there is no way to account for voter sub-groups that are fully excluded.

The third and final question -- one that we did not explicitly discuss ahead of time at FiveThirtyEight -- is whether there was a "loud but flakey Lid Dem" effect at play, similar to the "shy Tory" problem of the 1990s. As put by Nate earlier this week, this "may not be the pollsters' fault if voters changed or made up their mind while casting their ballots, as sometimes happens for third parties whose viability is questionable" (emphasis his).

We now have at least partial answers to these questions, which conspired to precipitate an election result where instead of seeing a long-awaited Lib Dem breakthrough we saw a rather demoralizing Lid Dem meltdown.

To begin with, the Liberal Democrats pulled 23.6 percent of the national vote, a mere 1.5 point increase over their 22.1 percent share from 2005. As we have learned from our projections, however, if those 450 thousand voters (1.5 percent of the total 2010 electorate) were gained in the right seats, they could flip perhaps 5 to 10 seats to the Liberals.

Unfortunately for Nick Clegg, there were too few new votes and they came in all the wrong places.

In these 10 key marginals, the Lib Dems lost in all but one -- including the loss of one of their own seats to Labour (Rochdale, which had notionally moved to Labour during boundary review).

They succeeded in picking up Eastbourne from the Tories, seeing a good 4 point swing. Beyond this, however, success was hard to find. In Oxford East, Islington South and Hampstead and Kilburn -- representative of seats across the country -- the Lib Dems lost ground to Labour. While this might have been expected in some Scottish seats, or places where the Lib Dems are weak, to see a loss of vote share in key target seats is indeed quite bad.

In Watford it was a bit different -- while the Liberal Democrats pulled a 4 percent swing against Labour, the Tories simply outstripped them, pulling out a 2 point victory.

Directly against the Conservatives, the Lib Dems again had a very rough time. Eastbourne was the only pickup from the Tories for the Lib Dems, while Cameron and co won grabbed 5 seats from the Lib Dems.

All told, the answers to our key questions seem to be as follows:

1. The electoral system did indeed hamper the Lib Dems, but not as much as their poor overall increase in votes. That said, the 2010 of 57 seats for 23.6 percent of the national vote is one of their worst in quite some time -- compared to 62 seats for 22.5 in 2005 for example.

2.Internet pollsters overstated the Liberal Democrat share by about 5 points, whereas telephone pollsters produced figures that put the Lib Dems about 3 points too high. This suggests that selection bias from internet polling related to younger voters may be worth around 2 percent. Similarly, internet pollsters (excluding the dubious OnePoll) put Conservatives about 2 points low, consistent with the selection bias concerns we had.

3. Lastly, given that younger voters are the most volatile of all age groups, it is likely that there was some group of younger, less committed voters who responded strongly to polling but did not show up to vote. Similarly, it is possible that there was some sort of a response bias near the end of the campaign, where Lib Dem voters (empowered and excited for the first time in a while) were more likely to respond to pollsters than on average.

[bickster]

So basically, the Tory vote is dying out? How many more dead Tories by the next election ? ;-)

[leviramsey]

Charlie Brooker"]

So: the weirdest election in history has produced the weirdest government imaginable. Well, almost. If Cameron had formed a coalition with the cast of Bergerac, that would be weirder – but only by about seven per cent.

The worst part is working out who to hate, and why. I was eight when Thatcher got in, and didn't really understand what was happening. Nonetheless, before long the Tories had replaced the Cybermen as my number one bogeymen. At first there was a simple, visceral reason for this: they seemed alarmingly gung-ho about nuclear war. They believed nuclear missiles were an effective deterrent, and furthermore, that a nuclear war might be winnable anyway.

I was opposed to all kinds of nuclear war – even little ones between neighbouring Welsh counties were simply not on, in my book. It was my understanding that these things tended to spiral out of control, and burning to death in a massive exploding fireball didn't rank very high on my list of hopes and dreams for the future.

(My paranoia wasn't that far off, as it happens. According to the book Rendez-Vous: The Psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand, at the height of the Falklands war, Thatcher threatened to nuke Argentina unless President Mitterrand handed over disabling codes for the French-built Exocet missiles which were pounding British ships. If that was true, and had actually happened, you wouldn't be reading the Guardian right now – you'd be fighting a giant scorpion to impress the village elders.)

As if plotting to destroy the world wasn't bad enough, the Conservatives went on to preside over the most wilfully obnoxious and polarising decade imaginable: braying yuppies at one extreme, penniless strikers at the other. The Tories weren't just nasty – they seemed to actively enjoy being nasty. And there was no getting rid of them, even when Thatcher got the boot. Consequently, an entire generation grew up regarding the Tory government as something like rain, or wasps, or stomach flu: an unavoidable, undying source of dismay.

Until 1997, when they were eradicated overnight. It was as if scientists had suddenly discovered a cure for the common cold. A permanent millstone – gone! The initial glow of jubilation never completely faded. For years afterwards, simply knowing the Conservatives weren't in power left me mildly delighted on a daily basis. Even when Blair and co turned out to be so disappointing, I could console myself with the thought that the Conservatives would have been even worse. OK, so Labour started an illegal war. The Tories would've started six – four of them nuclear. So what if the rich/poor divide grew bigger under Labour? The Tories would've reopened the mines just so they could enjoy closing them again, right? Then they'd fill them full of tramp corpses and raze the surrounding communities to the ground, yeah? Yeah.

As this year's election crept closer, and a Conservative government appeared ever more likely, the Tories became meaningful bogeymen once again. The fact that Cameron generally looks and sounds even less sincere than Blair ever managed to, meant that the more he professed to be caring, the more sinister he became. Around a year ago, it seemed clear that Cameron would be PM and that, after six weeks in power, the mask would slip and he'd legalise the hunting of single mums. The BBC website would be deleted and replaced with a 24-hour Sky news propaganda feed. Thatcher would be commemorated on banknotes. Drunk with power, Cameron would issue breathtakingly heartless decrees from his onyx throne, while Andy Coulson squatted at his feet, cackling like Gollum and drinking from a skull.

But instead we've got this . . . coalition thing. This disorientating mash-up. Cameron and Clegg engaging in public foreplay. A sour Tory cookie with chunks of Lib Dem chocolate. Even the prospect of George Osborne as chancellor seems less chilling in the knowledge that Vince Cable can pop his head round the door from time to time, if only to pull disapproving faces. If the Tories had won more seats, or slogged on as a minority government, at least we'd have a clear set of hate figures we could start despising immediately. Instead, we've got the Nazis forming an alliance with the Smurfs.

We couldn't even hate the Tories for looking smug on the steps of Downing Street – partly because Downing Street doesn't have steps, but mainly because the result forced a helping of humble pie down their necks, which they swallowed with infuriating good grace. Cameron appears to be making a sincere attempt to permanently drag his party toward more moderate ground, which is a crushing blow for those of us who were expecting outright malevolence from day one.

Then there's the scrapping of ID cards and limits on the spread of CCTV, which is genuinely refreshing. What next? Harsh new punishments for anyone caught snooping on private voicemails? Chances are, Coulson's typing up a cheery press release on that very subject right now.

As long-dreaded bogeymen, these 21st-century Tories are proving a damp squib, like the brightly coloured Daleks. No doubt they'll do something horrific fairly soon, but so far they haven't quite obliged, thereby depriving us all of a good cathartic hate-in. I always knew the Tories were selfish at heart, but this really takes the biscuit. Why can't they just be massively and obviously unreasonable from the outset, like they're supposed to? If all this pragmatism and inclusion they're apparently demonstrating doesn't turn out to be a cynical ruse, I'll be sorely disappointed.

In the meantime, we'll just have to wait for them to do something unequivocally shitty before we can say "I told you so" – unless the whole "55% majority" thing turns out to be their equivalent of Hitler's enabling act, which strikes me as unlikely at the time of writing, since even constitutional experts can't agree whether it's a disgraceful abuse of democracy or nothing to worry about.

But by all means remind me of my nonchalance on this subject in four years' time, when we're being issued uniforms and ushered down the bunkers. Unless it's illegal for citizens to converse by then, in which case simply arch your eyebrows and shrug a bit, and I'll know what you mean.

Hadley Freeman"]

In the true spirit of football-team-colours-politics, should we expect to see Cameron and Clegg in matching green ties?

Emelia

We should hope for it, Emelia, but we shouldn't expect it. There is much that one can hope for from this alliance: a new way of politics, non-primary coloured ties. But so far, those ties remain decidedly primary-coloured and the compromises just seem to put everyone in a bad mood. Do blue and yellow even go together well? Personally, I've always found them "a bit naval" and the only trend that is more annoying than "naval" is "safari".

But look, we all have to be open-minded and optimistic. So Clegg and Cameron turned up to their first and smoochiest of press conferences maintaining a decidedly non-united front in the form of firmly blue and stoutly yellow ties. So what? Maybe it was just to help people tell these 43-year-olds who went to Oxbridge apart. You see? They're just thinking about what's good for the country as opposed to doing whatever the hell they have to in order to seize power – to hell with what comes after – and then surfing that ego trip by walking around their Downing Street offices naked, save for a blue or yellow tie (apologies for any unfortunate visuals but you know I'm right). So let's not have any scepticism. Dream green. See blue and yellow.

Cameron to push for increase in capital gains tax

David Cameron is set to anger Tory traditionalists by approving a big rise in capital gains tax (CGT) to close a bigger-than-expected "black hole" in the public finances.

A "top-to-bottom" audit of public spending will be launched by the coalition government today by a new independent Office of Budgetary Responsibility, headed by Sir Alan Budd, a former Treasury chief economic adviser. It will shape the emergency Budget expected next month.

Mr Cameron appears ready to bow to pressure from his Liberal Democrat partners for CGT on the sale of shares and second homes to be raised from 18 to 40 per cent. Although there would be generous exemptions for entrepreneurs, the move will worry some Tory MPs, who fear it will alienate the party's natural supporters.

The Prime Minister told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show yesterday: "When you have a capital gains tax rate of 18 per cent and a top rate of income tax at 50 per cent, you'll find people finding all sorts of ways to treat income as capital gains. Now what we've said is there is a very big difference between the capital gains that someone pays on, say, a second home – which is not, you know, necessarily a splendid investment for the whole economy – there's a difference between that and actual investment in business assets."

He said the proposal was part of a "fairness agenda" that would help the Government's goal of lifting tax allowances to take more people out of tax – a flagship Liberal Democratic manifesto pledge. " I think people will understand," he added.

The Liberal Democrats hope the CGT shake-up will be included in the first Budget. But George Osborne, the Chancellor, thinks more work is needed and has asked for more options to be drawn up.

The Treasury said: "There are a range of possible options on CGT to fulfil this aim and no decision has yet been taken on one option. It will be important to take the time to get this right."

Yesterday, Mr Cameron said the Government had "no plans" to raise VAT, despite growing speculation among economic experts that it will go up from 17.5 to 20 per cent. But a final decision could depend on the report of the nation's books by Sir Alan's team.

There are growing signs that ministers in the coalition want to "bite the bullet" by implementing big cuts as soon as possible in the hope that they can be blamed on their inheritance from Labour. Yesterday, several Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers complained that outgoing Labour ministers had deliberately left behind "poison pills" and "stink bombs" by rushing through big spending commitments just before this month's election.

The new administration will halt some of Labour's decisions, but others may prove too expensive to unravel. Yesterday, David Cameron announced a curb on generous bonus payments for 4,200 senior civil servants and 1,100 senior NHS managers. They will be restricted to the top 25 per cent of performers, so 1,700 Whitehall officials and 450 NHS managers will no longer receive bonuses, saving about £15m.

The average bonus for a top civil servant was £12,700 last year. Some 2,933 officials and 850 health managers received extra payments totalling £35m.

In another clampdown, the left-of-centre economics commentator Will Hutton will advise ministers how to implement plans to ensure that no one at the top of a public-sector body earns more than 20 times its lowest-paid person. This is a sign that Mr Cameron will recruit so-called "goats" from outside Tory circles to create a "government of all the talents".

Ministers claimed they had already found "black holes" in the budgets left them by Labour. The projects said to be causing alarm include a £13bn tanker aircraft programme for the Ministry of Defence, a £1.2bn immigration service IT project, and school building contracts worth £420m.

Lib Dems back coalition (not that they really had much choice)

The Liberal Democrats swallowed their doubts about about joining a coalition with the Conservatives last night as David Cameron hinted that their "progressive alliance" could last beyond the next general election.

A special conference of about 2,000 Liberal Democrat activists in Birmingham overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to enter the "Liberal Conservative" coalition. Liberal Democrat sources claimed that no more than a dozen delegates opposed the deal in a show of hands.

Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, told the meeting: "Changes the Liberal Democrats have spent months, years, campaigning for, are happening. Promises we were making to people on their doorsteps just a few weeks ago are becoming realities."

He acknowledged that "the stakes are high, for me personally, as well as the party". But he added: "I came into politics to change things, and that means taking risks. Real, big change never comes easy. So it would simply be wrong for us to let this chance of real change pass us by."

After the private meeting, Mr Clegg admitted: "A lot of people had questions. A lot of people had concerns about the future.That's, of course, in the nature of this. This is a very new thing we are doing. We are breaking the rules of the old politics. We are doing something new ... But I am immensely comforted by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Liberal Democrat members here agreed that it was the right thing to do, and above all that it was the right thing to do for this country."

Doubts surfaced before the conference when Charles Kennedy, the former Liberal Democrat leader who favoured a deal with Labour, admitted he had abstained rather than voted in favour of the Lib-Con coalition at a meeting of the party's MPs last week. Outside the Birmingham conference, Eddie Hartley the former chairman of Worcester Liberal Democrats, tore up his membership card. He has joined the Greens in protest at Liberal Democrat concessions to the Tories on Trident, proportional representation and nuclear power. "I think the party is going to tear itself into two factions," he said.

Yesterday Mr Cameron promised that Mr Clegg would be part of his "inner core" in a government he described as a "progressive alliance", a phrase used by Gordon Brown when he appealed for the votes of Liberal Democrat supporters during the election campaign. Branding himself as a " Liberal Conservative", Mr Cameron said he hoped "political cabinet" sessions without civil servants would include both Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers meeting together rather than separately. He said Mr Clegg would chair some cabinet committees.

Asked on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show whether the agreement with the Liberal Democrats could last beyond the next election, he replied: "Well let's, let's get through the first five years first. I actually believe this can last for five years. It can be a strong and stable government. And it's very much in line with some of the things I've been saying over a five-year period where I've said we need to have progressive ends and we use Conservative and yes Liberal Democrat means to achieve those progressive ends, and I think we're already setting out how that can be done."

The tensions rumbling inside the Conservative Party surfaced when Eurosceptic MPs revived their calls for a referendum on the EU's Treaty of Lisbon, a move opposed by the Liberal Democrats. Tory Europhobes hope to use a glitch over ratifying the Treaty to force a Commons vote on a referendum. The Foreign Office confirmed that legislation will be needed to ratify a technical amendment to the Treaty rebalancing the numbers of MEPs from each member-state in line with last year's EU agreement.

Ministers will resist calls for a referendum, a policy dropped by Mr Cameron after the Treaty was approved by all 27 EU member states. The FO said: "This is a technical change, relating to numbers of MEPs and would not transfer any power to the EU."

[drat01]

More and more this merger of the ConDem's is looking iffy

the times report that they are now creating more and more Lords to ensure that their legislation gets through. I can just imagine the indignation from certain people if others had done this just a few days into office, especially after the constitution carve up they are planning. A sign of things to come

Coalition creates 100 peers with Lords deal

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will create more than 100 peers to ensure that controversial legislation gets through Parliament.

The coalition government has agreed to reshape the House of Lords, which is currently dominated by Labour, to be “reflective of the vote” at the general election. That saw the Tories and the Liberal Democrats together get 59 per cent.

None of Labour’s 211 existing peers can be removed, so the coalition must appoint dozens of its own to rebalance the upper chamber. Lib Dem estimates suggest that the number of Tory peers would need to rise from 186 to 263 and Lib Dem peers from 72 to 167.

The first wave is expected soon, to enable additional ministerial appointments to take place, with further announcements within the parliament.

Potential Conservative peers include the former leader Michael Howard, Michael Spencer, the party Treasurer, and Andrew Feldman, appointed party co-chairman last week. Angela Knight, the former Tory MP and head of the British Bankers’ Association, is under consideration. Simon Wolfson, the Next chief executive, and Sir Anthony Bamford, the chairman of JCB, are also thought likely to be elevated. Sir James Sassoon is expected to be made a peer and get a ministerial position.

The Lib Dems would be likely to reach into local government for some appointments. Party donors could be rewarded, although the Lib Dems have ruled out putting any with non-dom tax status in the second chamber. Ian Wright, the Diageo communications director, and Neil Sherlock, a partner at KPMG, two advisers to the party, are possible candidates.

Senior Lib Dems said that the coalition must fulfil its promise to appoint Lib Dem peers. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Lib Dem peer, said: “The coalition agreement entitles us to at least 50 more new Lib Dem peers to reflect our share of the vote on May 6. This is a key part of the coalition package for Liberal Democrats and a real test of our new Government’s good faith.”

During the election campaign, details of Gordon Brown’s resignation honours list surfaced, but the appointments were delayed until after polling day. Reports over the weekend suggest that Mr Brown is still keen to use his final executive powers on leaving office.

Labour peers in the resignation honours list could include John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Sue Nye, the aide Mr Brown blamed for his “bigot” gaffe, Ruth Kelly, the former Education Secretary, and Des Browne, the former Defence Secretary.

The appointment of extra peers is an interim step while plans are examined to determine how to make the House of Lords wholly or mainly elected using a proportional representation system.

The exact number of new peers depends on how long these deliberations take, with the committee asked to report with draft motions by December.

They are likely to advocate single, long terms in office. Existing peers will be allowed to stay in the Lords after the reforms under a system known as “grandfathering”.

The coalition document says: “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.” There are currently 186 crossbenchers, who will continue to be appointed under the existing process. Over 80 peers were appointed in the course of the last Parliament.

Chris Bryant, a leading Labour MP and former deputy leader of the Commons, accused the Liberal Democrats of hypocrisy.

“This is a massively illiberal step to take,” he said. “The single largest simultaneous act of political patronage probably since Charles II came to the throne in 1660, while the melding of the whips offices will mean they have a majority in both houses.” A spokesman for Conservative peers said that no agreement had been reached on how to implement this section of the coalition deal.

Lord Oakeshott said that the Liberal Democrats had been promised a large number of peers under Tony Blair’s Government. “Labour made the same promise in the Cook-Maclennan agreement but then ratted on us. Our leaders must not let that happen again,” he said.

The key bits are in bold!

H.O.L. ?? - what a farce

[Awol]

More and more this merger of the ConDem's is looking iffy

Merger? Joint Party? When are you going to stop using words that are factually wrong to describe a coalition government? More to the point, who are you trying to convince with this charade?

See below:

When there was a Lib/Lab coalition 30 years ago did they become the same party? When there was a cross party coalition during WW2 did the seperate parties cease to exist?

Can you see now why talking about a new "joint party" [or merger] is factually incorrect?

As I understand it the word coalition in this context would mean a temporary alliance of people, factions or parties. A coalition is generally entered into to achieve a shared goal, which in this case is trying to un-f*ck the mess Labour have made of the country.

^Read, digest and repeat until sick.

the times report that they are now creating more and more Lords to ensure that their legislation gets through. I can just imagine the indignation from certain people if others had done this just a few days into office, especially after the constitution carve up they are planning. A sign of things to come

Coalition creates 100 peers with Lords deal

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will create more than 100 peers to ensure that controversial legislation gets through Parliament.

The coalition government has agreed to reshape the House of Lords, which is currently dominated by Labour, to be “reflective of the vote” at the general election. That saw the Tories and the Liberal Democrats together get 59 per cent.

None of Labour’s 211 existing peers can be removed, so the coalition must appoint dozens of its own to rebalance the upper chamber. Lib Dem estimates suggest that the number of Tory peers would need to rise from 186 to 263 and Lib Dem peers from 72 to 167.

The first wave is expected soon, to enable additional ministerial appointments to take place, with further announcements within the parliament.

Potential Conservative peers include the former leader Michael Howard, Michael Spencer, the party Treasurer, and Andrew Feldman, appointed party co-chairman last week. Angela Knight, the former Tory MP and head of the British Bankers’ Association, is under consideration. Simon Wolfson, the Next chief executive, and Sir Anthony Bamford, the chairman of JCB, are also thought likely to be elevated. Sir James Sassoon is expected to be made a peer and get a ministerial position.

The Lib Dems would be likely to reach into local government for some appointments. Party donors could be rewarded, although the Lib Dems have ruled out putting any with non-dom tax status in the second chamber. Ian Wright, the Diageo communications director, and Neil Sherlock, a partner at KPMG, two advisers to the party, are possible candidates.

Senior Lib Dems said that the coalition must fulfil its promise to appoint Lib Dem peers. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Lib Dem peer, said: “The coalition agreement entitles us to at least 50 more new Lib Dem peers to reflect our share of the vote on May 6. This is a key part of the coalition package for Liberal Democrats and a real test of our new Government’s good faith.”

During the election campaign, details of Gordon Brown’s resignation honours list surfaced, but the appointments were delayed until after polling day. Reports over the weekend suggest that Mr Brown is still keen to use his final executive powers on leaving office.

Labour peers in the resignation honours list could include John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Sue Nye, the aide Mr Brown blamed for his “bigot” gaffe, Ruth Kelly, the former Education Secretary, and Des Browne, the former Defence Secretary.

The appointment of extra peers is an interim step while plans are examined to determine how to make the House of Lords wholly or mainly elected using a proportional representation system.

The exact number of new peers depends on how long these deliberations take, with the committee asked to report with draft motions by December.

They are likely to advocate single, long terms in office. Existing peers will be allowed to stay in the Lords after the reforms under a system known as “grandfathering”.

The coalition document says: “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.” There are currently 186 crossbenchers, who will continue to be appointed under the existing process. Over 80 peers were appointed in the course of the last Parliament.

Chris Bryant, a leading Labour MP and former deputy leader of the Commons, accused the Liberal Democrats of hypocrisy.

“This is a massively illiberal step to take,” he said. “The single largest simultaneous act of political patronage probably since Charles II came to the throne in 1660, while the melding of the whips offices will mean they have a majority in both houses.” A spokesman for Conservative peers said that no agreement had been reached on how to implement this section of the coalition deal.

Lord Oakeshott said that the Liberal Democrats had been promised a large number of peers under Tony Blair’s Government. “Labour made the same promise in the Cook-Maclennan agreement but then ratted on us. Our leaders must not let that happen again,” he said.

My large bold: So Labour creating Peers even after they have left is ok, the LibCon coalition creating peers when in office - as Labour have done for 13 years and every Government before them - is wrong.

My italics: Apparantly this is an interim step on the way to achieving the PR you crave and that hardly anyone voted for in the first place.

What exactly are you moaning about here?

[Jon]

What exactly are you moaning about here?

The fact it's not Labour doing it, i guess. :winkold:

I read that article in the Times today, and agreed with what they are doing. I think it's legit, and as you say only temporary.

We want a respesentative H of L, and this initial move is a step in the right direction ...

[tonyh29]

Labour’s 211 existing peers

Tory peers would need to rise from 186

Lib Dem peers from 72

quoted the obvious bits for you , not sure I recall any labour outrage when Blair was filling the place with his cronies and donors ..I'm sure "Lord" Alan's 400k donation had nothing to do with his title

Indeed didn't a committee suggest that Blair be stripped of his power to appoint his friends and Labour cronies to influential public posts and the Lords

And is the word of the week (slash next 5 years no doubt) is hypocrisy .. I notice that the jag driving I have no time for 'flunkery and titles' and 'I don’t want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it.'

is now likely to take a seat in the Lords .. Probably expect a bill on making street brawling legal to go through anytime soon

[Gringo]

the times report that they are now creating more and more Lords to ensure that their legislation gets through.

The funny thing is they don't need to.....a combination of conservatives and liberals would give them a majority in the upper house.

[drat01]

Laughable and expected comments from the right wing elements I see.

The fact that the merged party of ConDem's as it states in teh first bit are in the process of attacking the HOL so that they can add many many more of their own Peers to allow their policies to go through unchallenged. Now as the rules have obviously changed in what people can comment on in VT, as before the HOL was the checks and balance etc, so again hypocrisy.

Why the bold and quote on Labour? A futile spin exercise? - The HOL is a farce, it should have been got ridden of years back and boo hiss to the political setup in the UK that allows it to continue.

But while it does continue interesting the hypocrisy (again) that they talk about PR. Now correct me if I am wrong but I have seen many a word saying PR is sooo bad, so is this again another case of picking and choosing what is good and what is bad based on party allegiances?

Funny how the Tory party supporters on here are mimicking Osborne in how they debate particular points?

[drat01]

the times report that they are now creating more and more Lords to ensure that their legislation gets through.

The funny thing is they don't need to.....a combination of conservatives and liberals would give them a majority in the upper house.

Even more interesting then, so why add more, is it just a case of "flooding the market"?

Surely with that majority, if they were actually serious about going to a fully elected second chamber with PR they would not need to do that, or is this more a case of ensuring that no objections can be raised?

[drat01]

drat01 wrote:

More and more this merger of the ConDem's is looking iffy

Merger? Joint Party? When are you going to stop using words that are factually wrong to describe a coalition government? More to the point, who are you trying to convince with this charade?

See below:

awol wrote:

When there was a Lib/Lab coalition 30 years ago did they become the same party? When there was a cross party coalition during WW2 did the seperate parties cease to exist?

Can you see now why talking about a new "joint party" [or merger] is factually incorrect?

As I understand it the word coalition in this context would mean a temporary alliance of people, factions or parties. A coalition is generally entered into to achieve a shared goal, which in this case is trying to un-f*ck the mess Labour have made of the country.

^Read, digest and repeat until sick.

coalition - A combination into one body; a union.

merger - The combining of two or more entities into one.

You keep saying temporary - but how long is that? Have they declared how long this arrangement will exist for?

"When there was a Lib/Lab coalition 30 years ago did they become the same party?" - Hmm let me think - SDP / Libs, hang on we may have a theory here ........

and :-) at your Labour obsession

[tonyh29]

Laughable and expected comments from the right wing elements I see.

welcome to the right Jon :-)

[Jon]

Laughable and expected comments from the right wing elements I see.

welcome to the right Jon :-)

I thought I was just being ignored, but maybe i have become a right winger by default for not criticising this H of L move from the ConDem Coalition .... :winkold:

[drat01]

We want a respesentative H of L, and this initial move is a step in the right direction ...

See that is just now going back on what they said before

Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, says he will not sign up to “piecemeal” reform of the Lords and claims the remaining hereditaries — almost all of whom are Tories — play an “important role” in the upper house

That is from January this year - Link

So again why should anyone actually believe that this is nothing more than a way of stopping the "checks and balance" that the Tory supporters were shouting at every moment when the HOL reform was talked about before. The mixed messages and possible lies are there for all to see. Instead of this obvious action to steamroller their views in, why not say something along the lines of "Ignore all of our pre election statements and this is what we will do with the HOL" - maybe the ideas of the two parts of the ConDem's have differing views?

[tonyh29]

Ignore all of our pre election statements

have the Tories started promising referendums and then welching on them as well then :confused:

As a Toy supporter I can honestly say I've never even commented on HOL reform so maybe for accuracy you need to include the word "some" in your rants ?

[Richard]

Labour and it's supporters would just love to paint the coming economic correction as a one of point in time with no relevance whatsoever to the bottomless pit of shit they have left us in ie. you cant blame us to the mess. Unfortunately the scorched earth they have left behind needs fixing, and fast

[drat01]

Ignore all of our pre election statements

have the Tories started promising referendums and then welching on them as well then :confused:

As a Toy supporter I can honestly say I've never even commented on HOL reform so maybe for accuracy you need to include the word "some" in your rants ?

Tony as a "toy" supporter ? - careful Typo's

Rants? - So differing views are not allowed? - Hmm maybe the new ConDem party is having an effect.

I can't wait for the next use of the words scorched earth - maybe the HOL can be burned down?

[tonyh29]

I can't wait for the next use of the words scorched earth

I'm running a sweep on which word gets used the most hypocrisy or scorched earth

Rants? - So differing views are not allowed?

it's a tad obsessive so surely rant is the word to use ? ... just chill a bit , I'm sure if things go wrong the country will turn on the coalition very quickly but you are already condemning before they've even started, just for not being liebour

[Richard]

I can't wait for the next use of the words scorched earth

I'm running a sweep on which word gets used the most hypocrisy or scorched earth

Well I think it will be lie and personally cant wait for that either