Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

" VT Outraged " Buzzword update Dec 2010

What's in

Arrogance

Whats Out

Hypocrisy

Personally I'd say arrogance was taking advice from experts on issues like selling Gold , then ignoring it because you feel you know better

or saying you'd fixed boom and bust and not apologising to the country when it became clear you hadn't

or calling a woman a bigot because you didn't like her question

and so on

BUZZ!! Interuption: deflection.

[Richard]

Deflection is a VT standard to be fair. It has been around forever and will never go out of fashion.

[blandy]

...

The LibDem's were not voted to support these ideas, the manifesto was vastly different and the ideas of the past few years vastly different to that which they are now seemingly happy to support. The Tory party are using the LibDem's in a way which is amazingly accepted by Clegg and Cable. look at any "bad news" policy and its typically the LibDem part of the Gvmt who is wheeled out to either front the story or they ensure that they are at their side. It's not even clever marketing really. Big companies do it often with smaller business partners.... The Tory party need the LibDem's to ensure that policies that were not acceptable to the UK public are forced through, hence the way they are screwing them at the moment...

All true. I think perhaps what I have been doing is looking at the situation as it is - trying mostly not to put my opinion about the policies, just to comment on the realities of the coalition and the choices they have made.

I voted LibDem (as a tactical anti tory vote) Perhaps because it was tactical, not because I'm a supporter as such, and perhaps because it made absolutely no difference here (raving blue majority area) I'm utterly unbothered on a personal level that the LDs are as duplicitious as Labour and Tories - they haven't let me down, betrayed my vote or 'owt like that.

I could have easily voted Labour or Green, really, and the same thing would apply.

As there's cock all I can do about what's going on I just look at it and comment on it from time to time. I'm trying I suppose to look for good being done, and certainly want good to be done, and there are scraps in there. the 3 things I mentioned earlier are not all bad by a long stretch in my personal view. other areas the actions of the Gov't have been extremely bad.

Come the next election, assuming I still live here, I'll vote tactically again to not get a tory. And it'll again, be a wasted vote...unless there's some kind of PR./AV.

Again, personally, the tories are harming my workplace, my job prospects, are making bad choices on the economy for ideological reasons, and on both those I'd be better off with a labour gov't or labour & Lib coalition gov't. On things that have less of a direct affect on me personally, things that I hold as beliefs and principles, there's no one party has a monopoly, but Labour/Lib/green all have an overlap and all have areas where they propose things I'm against. The tories are mostly in a different set of views to mine, with some few centre tory things OK. (like the prisons thing of Ken Clark).

I think that's a long winded way of saying the system is faulty, the parties are all faulty and party politics is guff we'd be better off without. aka BIAD

[tonyh29]

" VT Outraged " Buzzword update Dec 2010

What's in

Arrogance

Whats Out

Hypocrisy

Personally I'd say arrogance was taking advice from experts on issues like selling Gold , then ignoring it because you feel you know better

or saying you'd fixed boom and bust and not apologising to the country when it became clear you hadn't

or calling a woman a bigot because you didn't like her question

and so on

BUZZ!! Interuption: deflection.

10 points to the man from Oman

[tonyh29]

I voted LibDem (as a tactical anti tory vote)

that will learn you ....

[blandy]

Oh cripes....all this is my fault isn't it. where's the pistol and the brandy? I'm off to the library.

[drat01]

Ignoring the post on posters from the Tory version of the Chuckle Brothers for a moment, its interesting to see that there is no comment re the appointment of Hunt (a self proclaimed supporter of Murdoch) from the Tory supporters. Gus O'Donnell has been asked to stop Hunt from having any sort of say in the decision based on his declared support for Murdoch and his media empire.

No doubt the usual reply will come back about "Oh Labour were happy with Murdoch" which is in fact nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand here.

Also in reply to Pete previously a good little viewpoint on the makeup of the Gvmt

The 2010 result meant there is a big pot of blue paint and a much smaller pot of yellow paint. The coalition is a work of art and the Lib Dems have to decide how best to use their small pot of paint to put a LD mark on the finished work.

The Clegg strategy was always "Turquiose". Mix the paints entirely, effect the whole paint albeit by not very much. A single visual fusion. Undeniable influence but only if you are the sort of person that notices the difference between blue and turquiose. I'd argue most voters don't, won't and never will.

The alternative is the Picasso strategy and keep the little pot of yellow paint separate and sacred and chuck the thing over the blue canvas or a single yellow streak. Lots of pure blue, very little actual yellow but by God you'll notice the yellow and its not watered down.

This is the antithesis of Clegg's strategy. I'd argue that it all goes down to (a) Clegg's Dutch understanding of coalitions and liberalism ( the implict strategy re AV.

link

[tonyh29]

Ignoring the post on posters from the Tory version of the Chuckle Brothers for a moment,

meh , you just don't appreciate comedy genius

and why did you think it was about you :winkold:

[blandy]

That link Ian, maybe he's right, maybe wrong, it's too early to tell, but either way I'd prefer to pure blue.

And there's the areas where the 2 are pretty similar which will get done. The difference between all 3 parties on some issues is very minimal. If the LDs can keep the right wing loons from having more sway, and it looks like they are, then that in itself is a good thing, even if they do now't else.

[snowychap]

If they are in this farcical marriage after May, I really fear for their future as a viable party ....

The only way I can see them not being part of the coalition is if the government were to fall.

You don't think it's feasible that many of them/most of them may want out after the vote goes against them in May? Could they not simply withdraw form the coalition?

They'd have to do it on a person by person basis, I'd have thought.

If they were to put it to their party (they had to put the coalition agreement to the party as a whole rather than just the parliamentary party, didn't they?) and Clegg and others were still backing it then it would tear them apart, don't you think?

[snowychap]

BUZZ!! Interuption: deflection.

Hey, you've nicked my (already appropriated) technique.

[snowychap]

Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt held private talks with James Murdoch shortly after News Corp announced BSkyB offer

Rupert Murdoch's close links to the Conservative party were thrown into the spotlight today after it emerged that the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, held a private meeting with the tycoon's son, James, at which no civil servants were present.

The meeting took place on 28 June, shortly after News Corp said it had made an offer to buy the 61% of BSkyB it does not already own.

James Murdoch is chairman of BSkyB and chief executive of News Corp in Europe and Asia.

Hunt's relations with the Murdochs are now under fresh scrutiny since he was handed official responsibility for ruling on News Corp's bid to take full control of BSkyB.

The business secretary, Vince Cable, was forced to relinquish control of the decision after he was recorded boasting that he was "at war" with Rupert Murdoch.

A spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "I can confirm that this was an informal first meeting between Jeremy Hunt as secretary of state and James Murdoch, and there was no written agenda or briefing. Officials did not sit in on the meeting."

Hunt has previously said publicly that he does not object to the takeover.

...more on link

[tonyh29]

Does anyone seriously think any political party in the UK would block the BSkyB deal ?

move along chaps no political points to be scored here

[snowychap]

[avfc89]

Does anyone seriously think any political party in the UK would block the BSkyB deal ?

move along chaps no political points to be scored here

I'm loving your new found attitude towards the government.

[peterms]

Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt held private talks with James Murdoch shortly after News Corp announced BSkyB offer

Interesting.

I thought that meetings between Ministers and lobbyists were meant to be attended by civil servants, recorded, and the notes made public? Wasn't this one of the things which was done in an attempt to deal with what became known as "sleaze"? I'm going partly on memory, it's true, but partly on things like this story:

Tony Blair has laid down tough new controls on the activities of lobbyists, drawn up after the Hinduja passport affair.

Records must be kept of all formal meetings between ministers and lobbyists, according to the new Ministerial Code...

Has the rule been changed? Does the CE of NewsCorp (a name straight out of Orwell) not count as a lobbyist?

In the new spirit of transparency announced by Mr Cameron, I would expect to see more disclosure, not less. Oh, but hang on! What's this? It seems that last year, the previous government started to backslide on the commitment to publish details of meetings. Will Mr C put this right?

New UK rules deliver less government transparency

New transparency rules allow departments to refuse Freedom of Information requests for ministerial meetings. Before October 2009 you could get information on UK ministerial meetings by making a Freedom of Information request to a government department. The department would be required by law to respond within 20 working days.

Under new rules, departments are now required to publish, at least quarterly, ministerial meetings and other transparency reports. However some departments, including the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office, haven’t published a single ministerial meeting or hospitality report in the last year...

Meanwhile, that weasel word "self-regulation" (translation: the complete absence of regulation, accountability, responsibility and transparency) in the context of political lobbying makes an appearance on a website intriguingly named "Conservative Home":

Ben Pickering: Lobbyists urgently need to persuade lawmakers they are capable of self-regulation

By Ben Pickering, a senior board member of Conservative Way Forward and a public affairs head-hunter and recruiter for Hanson Search...

Shall we open a book on how long it will be before the "sleaze" word again becomes common currency in the newspapers? I'd say about three months, myself.

[Gringo]

Does anyone seriously think any political party in the UK should allow the BSkyB deal ?

serious political issues at stake here.

[snowychap]

Do you, Peter, suggest (shock, horror) that the 'new politics' at the heart of the coalition is a bit of a sham?

And that Cameron's a bit of a lying bastard and that Clegg (the man supposedly in charge of improving all things politicial) is an utterly deceitful swine?

Well, I never. :winkold:

[peterms]

Do you, Peter, suggest (shock, horror) that the 'new politics' at the heart of the coalition is a bit of a sham?

And that Cameron's a bit of a lying bastard and that Clegg (the man supposedly in charge of improving all things politicial) is an utterly deceitful swine?

Well, I never. :winkold:

I expect when they said it, they might have meant it in a sort of vague, that-would-be-nice kind of way.

Looking at their actions rather than letting the warm froth lap over me like bubbles in a bath, I remain to be convinced that they have done anything, anything at all, to demonstrate that they have adopted a new way of working which reflects their expressed sentiments rather than the daily practicalities of getting by with a small majority cobbled together from incompatible people.

Cameron knows what he's doing, and so bears a greater share of responsibility. Clegg looks like an oversized schoolboy who really doesn't know what to do next.

[peterms]

Here we go. Fresh from experiencing the outstanding success of selling Heathrow to a Spanish conglomorate and seeing how wisely it then made investment decisions for the benefit of the general public, the government is now planning to sell the nation's entire forests to someone or other. This calls for a phrase from Richard Littlejohn. Will it be "to hell in a handcart", or "you couldn't make it up"?

For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them – the whole lot

Tories have never been treehuggers, but their plans to sell off all state-owned forests are unwarranted, unwanted and unworkable

We now know, thanks to the junior environment minister Jim Paice's frank evidence to a recent House of Lords select committee, that the government is considering the sale of not just "some", or even "substantial", amounts of woodland as the public was originally led to believe, but of all state-owned English trees across the commission's 635,000-acre Forestry Commission estate. This includes many royal forests, state-owned ancient woodlands, sites of special scientific interest, heathland, campsites, farms and sporting estates.

Here is Paice is in front of the House of Lords select committee:

Part of our policy is clearly established: we wish to proceed with very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it…

Paice also accepts that foreign companies might want to buy up the trees, and that foreign-owned energy companies might want to cut the whole lot down for renewable energy. This is clearly not going to be received well in the Tory shires, where the trees mostly are.

I have worries about two or three potential aspects of disposal, which we are looking at very carefully. Foreign purchases are one, although I do not think that they are automatically necessarily bad. Indeed, we could not prevent them under EU law. I am much more concerned about the possibility of established forest being bought by energy companies who would proceed to chip it all for energy recovery.

So if not the energy companies, who does that leave to buy the trees? Major charities like the Woodland Trust and the National Trust, who may be tapped up to buy chunks of the estate on the cheap as "preferred bidder", are not exactly beating on the commission's door; very few communities have the means to buy even 30 acres of woodland, let alone maintain it, and the idea that the "big society" can raise £2bn – the rough cost of buying the commission's 635,000 acres – is bizarre.

The answer clearly is that the government expects developers to step in to exploit the land for whatever profit they can.

But the opposition is mounting. By last night more than 98,500 people had registered their opposition to the sale with the group 38 degrees and more are joining the many local forest protection movements springing up as word spreads and people realise what is at stake. Many people want to protect access to "their" public woodland which is now at risk and they pose a real political threat to local Tory and LibDem MPs who never mentioned any of this in their separate or joint manifesto.

Opposition is particularly intense around the Forest of Dean, where the Tory MP and junior minister for consitutional reform Mark Harper presides over a small – 2,500 – majority, and who must must be sweating already. Former sustainable development commission chair Jonathon Porritt this week warned Harper of the folly of supporting privatisation of the local – or indeed of any – forest:

"When [Harper's predecessor] Paul Marland supported an earlier attempt by a Conservative government to sell off the forest estate in the 1980s, he was quickly persuaded as to the error of his ways. I'm sure Marland's words will be resonating with Harper today:

'I regard the possible sale of the Royal Forest of Dean and other Crown Forests to faceless investors as a national disaster. The Royal Forest of Dean is steeped in ancient history and tradition. Today's Forester is of the same independent mind and rugged character as were his forefathers. It is our duty to preserve his ancient rights and traditions.'"

Porritt also makes the good point that it is not the trees that the government wants to sell. The Forest of Dean has coal, and other resources. Other Forestry Commission land could be used for windfarms, holiday villages, the routes for new roads and so on.

And if the private sector can run the forests profitably, could it not also oversee the rivers and even the national parks?

The sale is clearly ideologically-driven, a statement that the private sector – traditionally the large landowner, but now the corporation – should maintain the environment.

As such, we should see the sale as further evidence of the dismemberment of conservation in England, the approach that has marked environmental stewardship in Britain and most European countries for the last 60 years.