ID Cards set to be scrapped & Other Coalition stuff

[l444ry]

As far as I'm aware, the Tories are not going to be running a yes campaign for AV, so they are putting a proposition to the country and will be bound by it even if the result is one they don't like. The Lib Dems don't support AV either, but recognise it is better than first past the post. They'll be campaigning for it but will probably see it as a step from which to build a stronger case for proportional representation.

So, I still don't see how this is not democracy in action, with us the public getting a choice of whether to switch the voting system from first past the post to the AV system.

Incidentally, Labour took the same line as the Tories so I don't really see how you can play the party political card.

Can't you see that Ramsay McClegg has accepted something he or his party does not believe in simply because he's been seduced by the whiff of power?

Can you seriously imagine this cobbled up coalition drafting and passing referendum legislation when neither party and hardly anyone in the rest of the House of Commons supports it?

And then there's the House of Lords........

C'mon Breadandcheese. It'll never happen.

[Jon the Hat]

Can't you see that Ramsay McClegg has accepted something he or his party does not believe in simply because he's been seduced by the whiff of power?

Can you seriously imagine this cobbled up coalition drafting and passing referendum legislation when neither party and hardly anyone in the rest of the House of Commons supports it?

And then there's the House of Lords........

C'mon Breadandcheese. It'll never happen.

There is little point in being in politics if you pass up the opportunity to actually implement some if not all of your manifesto when the chance arises.

[l444ry]

There is little point in being in politics if you pass up the opportunity to actually implement some if not all of your manifesto when the chance arises.

I suppose that's why these charlatans are attempting to change the vote of confidence to 55%, so that they can't be thrown out of power however unpopular they become. That's why it's 55%. The Tories have 47% now so this is just another example of the opportunistic nature of these crooks. A decent media would have exposed this by now but they can't run forever.

The only running Cameron is doing, is around the country seeking PR opportunities whilst saying nothing, but he can't hide forever and this doomed marriage will split both the Tories and LibDems unless they start consulting their respective parties.

[Jon the Hat]

I suppose that's why these charlatans are attempting to change the vote of confidence to 55%, so that they can't be thrown out of power however unpopular they become. That's why it's 55%. The Tories have 47% now so this is just another example of the opportunistic nature of these crooks. A decent media would have exposed this by now but they can't run forever.

The only running Cameron is doing, is around the country seeking PR opportunities whilst saying nothing, but he can't hide forever and this doomed marriage will split both the Tories and LibDems unless they start consulting their respective parties.

I think it was probably thought up with good intentions re not allowing Cameron to break the coalition deal unilaterally, but I agree it is not going to fly as the implications are wider.

[breadandcheese]

I suppose that's why these charlatans are attempting to change the vote of confidence to 55%, so that they can't be thrown out of power however unpopular they become. That's why it's 55%. The Tories have 47% now so this is just another example of the opportunistic nature of these crooks. A decent media would have exposed this by now but they can't run forever.

The only running Cameron is doing, is around the country seeking PR opportunities whilst saying nothing, but he can't hide forever and this doomed marriage will split both the Tories and LibDems unless they start consulting their respective parties.

There is much opposition to the 55% vote of no-confidence from within the Tory party, so don't try and present this as some evil Tory plot. In fact, because of this, i'll be surprised to see this proposal be put through parliament.

I take issue at your highly emotive language (calling them crooks). It adds nothing to any discussion and merely clouds it. I believe it's a George Galloway tactic.

I also take issue at this apparent right-wing media conspiracy against the Labour party. Exactly what axe to grind did the rabidly right-wing Guardian newspaper have to grind when it ditched Labour for the Lib Dems.

[FoxyPV]

There is much opposition to the 55% vote of no-confidence from within the Tory party, so don't try and present this as some evil Tory plot. In fact, because of this, i'll be surprised to see this proposal be put through parliament.

I take issue at your highly emotive language (calling them crooks). It adds nothing to any discussion and merely clouds it. I believe it's a George Galloway tactic.

I also take issue at this apparent right-wing media conspiracy against the Labour party. Exactly what axe to grind did the rabidly right-wing Guardian newspaper have to grind when it ditched Labour for the Lib Dems.

The words "rats" and "sinking ship" come to mind

[l444ry]

There is much opposition to the 55% vote of no-confidence from within the Tory party, so don't try and present this as some evil Tory plot. In fact, because of this, i'll be surprised to see this proposal be put through parliament.

I take issue at your highly emotive language (calling them crooks). It adds nothing to any discussion and merely clouds it. I believe it's a George Galloway tactic.

I also take issue at this apparent right-wing media conspiracy against the Labour party. Exactly what axe to grind did the rabidly right-wing Guardian newspaper have to grind when it ditched Labour for the Lib Dems.

It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk–out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn’t actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably — when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite.

So, with respect, it is a Tory plot.

Also, it may be a new government but it's still riddled with the same expenses fraudsters as before. Or crooks, as I prefer to call them.

[breadandcheese]

It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk–out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn’t actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably — when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite.

So, with respect, it is a Tory plot.

Also, it may be a new government but it's still riddled with the same expenses fraudsters as before. Or crooks, as I prefer to call them.

If this "plot" (again another emotive word) does not pass because of opposition from Tory MPs within the party, will you give them their dues?

With regards the crooks comment, the expenses problem hit all parties, so in your earlier post when you said "these crooks" were you referring to all MPs, or just Tory MPs?

[l444ry]

If this "plot" (again another emotive word) does not pass because of opposition from Tory MPs within the party, will you give them their dues?

With regards the crooks comment, the expenses problem hit all parties, so in your earlier post when you said "these crooks" were you referring to all MPs, or just Tory MPs?

Plot

If the word "plot" touches your sensibilities, please feel free to use an alternative-:

A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot.

Crooks

From the Daily Mail-:

Top table paid back £50,000 in expenses Members of the new Cabinet were made to repay more than £50,000 in expenses in the wake of last year’s scandal. The new Government yesterday cut ministerial salaries by 5 per cent and froze them for another five years as a mark of penitence for last year’s scandal.

Most of the MPs responsible for the most notorious expenses claims were either booted out or stood down at the election. Yet the new coalition Cabinet gave back £53,717 of taxpayers’ money that they should not have claimed - an average of more than £2,500 each.

David Cameron repaid £965, including £680 for the cost of clearing wisteria from the chimney of his Oxfordshire home – a claim he later said he regretted. His Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, paid back £989, including £910 for ‘excessive’ gardening bills at his constituency home.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox had to repay one of the largest amounts of any MP - losing an appeal against a demand to hand back £22,476 for renovations and furniture at his second home.

Education Secretary Michael Gove returned £7,000 of public money after he claimed large amounts for furniture at his second home and another £13,000 in moving costs.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, another Tory, was forced to repay £2,635, much of it for mobile phone bills. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Home Secretary Theresa May, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Treasury Chief Secretary David Laws all avoided censure.

[Jon the Hat]

Can someone please explain to me why Liberal Democrat members seem to be quitting the party? It seems to me that if you support a PR voting system, then you should be prepared to compromise and form a coalition when the need arises. To then whine about a "watered down version of the party" when that coalition is formed seems complete hypocrisy. Perhaps the old story about people joining the Lib Dems becuase they like to hear themselves talk but don't actually want to have to make anything happen is true.

[FoxyPV]

Can someone please explain to me why Liberal Democrat members seem to be quitting the party? It seems to me that if you support a PR voting system, then you should be prepared to compromise and form a coalition when the need arises. To then whine about a "watered down version of the party" when that coalition is formed seems complete hypocrisy. Perhaps the old story about people joining the Lib Dems becuase they like to hear themselves talk but don't actually want to have to make anything happen is true.

[Webbo]

Crooks

From the Daily Mail-:

Top table paid back £50,000 in expenses Members of the new Cabinet were made to repay more than £50,000 in expenses in the wake of last year’s scandal. The new Government yesterday cut ministerial salaries by 5 per cent and froze them for another five years as a mark of penitence for last year’s scandal.

Most of the MPs responsible for the most notorious expenses claims were either booted out or stood down at the election. Yet the new coalition Cabinet gave back £53,717 of taxpayers’ money that they should not have claimed - an average of more than £2,500 each.

David Cameron repaid £965, including £680 for the cost of clearing wisteria from the chimney of his Oxfordshire home – a claim he later said he regretted. His Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, paid back £989, including £910 for ‘excessive’ gardening bills at his constituency home.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox had to repay one of the largest amounts of any MP - losing an appeal against a demand to hand back £22,476 for renovations and furniture at his second home.

Education Secretary Michael Gove returned £7,000 of public money after he claimed large amounts for furniture at his second home and another £13,000 in moving costs.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, another Tory, was forced to repay £2,635, much of it for mobile phone bills. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Home Secretary Theresa May, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Treasury Chief Secretary David Laws all avoided censure.

You can't believe anything you read in that left wing rag.

[l444ry]

You can't believe anything you read in that left wing rag.

The fact that I used a Tory rag to reinforce a point with a Tory supporter has obviously gone over your head, Webbo!!

[breadandcheese]

The fact that I used a Tory rag to reinforce a point with a Tory supporter has obviously gone over your head, Webbo!!

Yeah. Now those doing the lords work on behalf of the Labour party, who are actually facing fraud charges and now claiming legal aid. They are not crooks, they are champions.

I just can't understand why when we're having a discussion you refer solely to the Tories with emotive words like fraudsters, crooks, etc. It's chucking mud whilst adding nothing to the discussion. Not wanting to get back onto expenses but my posting history shows that I took no party line on this and wanted open primaries in every constituency so that MPs would face deselection, not by a panel, but by the people.

Now I know you're upset at Gordon being ousted and the coalition government, but really, a bit of perspective. I'm not blind to tow a party line. I never have been. You on the other hand.

[FoxyPV]

The fact that I used a Tory rag to reinforce a point with a Tory supporter has obviously gone over your head, Webbo!!

- I think something has gone over your head

[Guest Bilo]

Plot

If the word "plot" touches your sensibilities, please feel free to use an alternative-:

A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot.

Crooks

From the Daily Mail-:

Top table paid back £50,000 in expenses Members of the new Cabinet were made to repay more than £50,000 in expenses in the wake of last year’s scandal. The new Government yesterday cut ministerial salaries by 5 per cent and froze them for another five years as a mark of penitence for last year’s scandal.

Most of the MPs responsible for the most notorious expenses claims were either booted out or stood down at the election. Yet the new coalition Cabinet gave back £53,717 of taxpayers’ money that they should not have claimed - an average of more than £2,500 each.

David Cameron repaid £965, including £680 for the cost of clearing wisteria from the chimney of his Oxfordshire home – a claim he later said he regretted. His Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, paid back £989, including £910 for ‘excessive’ gardening bills at his constituency home.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox had to repay one of the largest amounts of any MP - losing an appeal against a demand to hand back £22,476 for renovations and furniture at his second home.

Education Secretary Michael Gove returned £7,000 of public money after he claimed large amounts for furniture at his second home and another £13,000 in moving costs.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, another Tory, was forced to repay £2,635, much of it for mobile phone bills. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Home Secretary Theresa May, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Treasury Chief Secretary David Laws all avoided censure.

Former Labour minister Frank Field is flatly refusing to pay back more than £7,000 expenses despite being ordered to by sleazebuster Sir Thomas Legg.

The former welfare minister has been told to repay £5,000 in housekeeping costs on his second home and more than £2,000 in other household bills.

But the MP for Birkenhead has told Sir Thomas, who led the audit of MPs' expenses, that the backdated repayments are unfair - and he is refusing to stump up the cash. His stance will send shudders through Downing Street amid fears dozens of once-loyal Labour MPs will join the growing rebellion and comes despite Gordon Brown's order to "pay up and shut up".

Over the next two weeks dozens of MPs from all parties will object to "retrospective" bills on expenses claimed under the old rules, threatening to throw Westminster into chaos.

Their appeals - which could eventually end up in court - mean the expenses row will rumble on beyond Christmas and up to the next general election, expected in May.

Mr Field complained that Sir Thomas had moved the allowances goalposts, adding: "He is simply wrong.

"Imagine that you have been driving perfectly legally through a 30mph zone.

"Imagine your reaction when, five years later, you receive multiple fines as a decision has been taken to change, retrospectively, the limit to 20mph."

Last week Sir Thomas told Mr Field to pay back £1,000 for each of the past five years for housekeeping costs for his mid-terrace property on the outskirts of Birkenhead, which he classes as his second home.

There was a further demand for £1,800 repayments for other household bills plus £230 which Mr Field should have claimed from other allowances.

In his reply Mr Field complains that the payback has been demanded because he breached a £3,000 annual housekeeping limit, which did not apply when he claimed the allowances.

He pointed out he only claimed between £7,303 and £12,006 a year for mortgage interest on his second home over five years - less than a third of the £24,000-a-year maximum which he could have claimed. Mr Field discovered that over the same period he claimed twice for three household bills amounting to £117, but has repaid the money.

Mr Field accused Sir Thomas of getting too many facts wrong in his audit or misreading the rules.

He also pointed out that he was one of the first MPs to declare all expenses on his constituency website.

"I was placed among the saints, now I feel that I have been branded a rogue. It's wrong and I won't pay."

At least one MP is expected to be prosecuted over the expenses scandal. Former Labour minister Elliot Morley, who claimed £16,000 interest payments for a "phantom mortgage" is the most likely to be charged. Tax inspectors are also investigating 27 MPs.

Even if objections do not go to court, challenges to the Legg inquiry will run into November, just as Sir Christopher Kelly's committee recommends an end to mortgage interest allowances on second homes and a ban on MPs employing relatives.

His committee is also expected to say MPs should lose their £400-amonth food allowance and the right to furnish second homes.

A minister who regularly briefs the PM said: "The agony will continue. We have to face the fact it will go on beyond Christmas - a nightmare." Ministers have told Brown to expect more resignations and a low turn-out at the next election, which would benefit the Tories.

A rabidly right-wing Tory fanzine

Three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud claim they are protected by parliamentary privilege.

Ex-minister Elliot Morley and David Chaytor are being probed for allegedly claiming taxpayers' cash on mortgages that had already been paid off.

Three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud claim they are protected by parliamentary privilege.

Ex-minister Elliot Morley and David Chaytor are being probed for allegedly claiming taxpayers' cash on mortgages that had already been paid off.

And another one.

Seriously, I don't see your point and think you're being as biased as at any point during the election by pretending only Tory MPs cheated the system. Every parliamentary party came out covered in mud from the scandal, Labour arguably worst of all considering they ended up with three MPs in court on fraud charges. Are they fraudsters or crooks or does the red rosette deflect such criticism in your eyes?

[l444ry]

A rabidly right-wing Tory fanzine

And another one.

Seriously, I don't see your point and think you're being as biased as at any point during the election by pretending only Tory MPs cheated the system. Every parliamentary party came out covered in mud from the scandal, Labour arguably worst of all considering they ended up with three MPs in court on fraud charges. Are they fraudsters or crooks or does the red rosette deflect such criticism in your eyes?

Oh dear!!!

Never once have I differentiated between Tory or Labour expense crooks. Party politico I may be but black is black and white is white.

Breadandcheese took exception to the words "crooks" and "plot" as emotive, rather than deal with the main point of Tory gerrymandering the 55%. I still stand by the replies given. We're not talking about the Labour party here.

Interesting that coalition party politico's are attempting to sidetrack the main arguments with this rubbish.

[Guest Bilo]

Oh dear!!!

Never once have I differentiated between Tory or Labour expense crooks. Party politico I may be but black is black and white is white.

Breadandcheese took exception to the words "crooks" and "plot" as emotive, rather than deal with the main point of Tory gerrymandering the 55%. I still stand by the replies given. We're not talking about the Labour party here.

Interesting that coalition party politico's are attempting to sidetrack the main arguments with this rubbish.

Actually what I'm saying is that you're very selective with the news reports you pick. I don't think I've seen you criticise a single Labour Party politician or policy since the beginning of the election party, but have merely used this and the preceding election thread as a platform to attack the Lib Dems and the Tories with the kind of venom that would make (thankfully ex MP) George Galloway blush. You seem totally blind to the failings of your party and to the merits of Lib Dem or Tory policy. I'm in favour of the coalition government because I feel it was the best possible outcome from the election, it ejected a tired and control-freakish Labour Party from power, stopped a Tory majority that would have led to overly savage cuts on public services and has given the Lib Dems a decent amount of influence on the way this country is run.

I do disagree with the 55% rule in principle as I think it's undemocratic because it clearly benefits the Tories who currently have 47% of the house, meaning any plan to dissolve Parliament by the Lib Dems and Labour would have to include some back-bench Tory MPs. But is that really impossible? A lot of right-wing Tories are unhappy with the ConLib arrangement as it means some of their cuts and benefits for the rich have gone out of the window, not to mention the hunting ban repeal. They may well be desperate enough to end the situation that prevails now to join up with the Lib Dems and Labour to trigger a new election, an election the Tories might have a chance of winning with an outright majority if Labour choose a leader the public dislikes again. So the principle is wrong, on that I do agree, but the situation is far from insurmountable if the will is there.

[l444ry]

Actually what I'm saying is that you're very selective with the news reports you pick. I don't think I've seen you criticise a single Labour Party politician or policy since the beginning of the election party, but have merely used this and the preceding election thread as a platform to attack the Lib Dems and the Tories with the kind of venom that would make (thankfully ex MP) George Galloway blush. You seem totally blind to the failings of your party and to the merits of Lib Dem or Tory policy. I'm in favour of the coalition government because I feel it was the best possible outcome from the election, it ejected a tired and control-freakish Labour Party from power, stopped a Tory majority that would have led to overly savage cuts on public services and has given the Lib Dems a decent amount of influence on the way this country is run.

I do disagree with the 55% rule in principle as I think it's undemocratic because it clearly benefits the Tories who currently have 47% of the house, meaning any plan to dissolve Parliament by the Lib Dems and Labour would have to include some back-bench Tory MPs. But is that really impossible? A lot of right-wing Tories are unhappy with the ConLib arrangement as it means some of their cuts and benefits for the rich have gone out of the window, not to mention the hunting ban repeal. They may well be desperate enough to end the situation that prevails now to join up with the Lib Dems and Labour to trigger a new election, an election the Tories might have a chance of winning with an outright majority if Labour choose a leader the public dislikes again. So the principle is wrong, on that I do agree, but the situation is far from insurmountable if the will is there.

You must be joking, Bilo. There is much I dislike about "New" Labour. But, given the alternatives, I make no apology for defending their corner.

I can't help it if you or others consider my posts on these issues "venemous". I don't think they are so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Let's call it a score draw with me winning on penalties and your post above being the equivalent of Kermorgant's penalty.

[Jon the Hat]

Hmm. You do realise this 55% thing is a Lib Dem request, and in fact it would mean the Lib Dems could walk away from the coalition, and form a Government with Labour etc without the Tories being able to force an election. This would give them time to force through full Pr. Shit.

[Guest Bilo]

Hmm. You do realise this 55% thing is a Lib Dem request, and in fact it would mean the Lib Dems could walk away from the coalition, and form a Government with Labour etc without the Tories being able to force an election. This would give them time to force through full Pr. Shit.

Even with every non Tory MP pulling for a vote of no confidence, they'd still only have 53% of the house which wouldn't be enough for a dissolution of Parliament. They would have to get some Tory backbenchers on board to force it, which I believe is the crux of the argument. As for forming a government, a so-called Rainbow Coalition would be very difficult to achieve as it would need to include all the realistic allies of Labour such as the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Greens and the Alliance MP . Seven parties all with very different agendas and motives, especially the nationalists who as I've stated on another thread would want to see public spending levels in their respective countries maintained, which would go down marvellously with English voters seeing heavy cuts this side of Hadrian's Wall/Chester. Barring a major rebellion from Tory MPs, I can't help thinking this coalition is here to stay for the time being.

[l444ry]

Hmm. You do realise this 55% thing is a Lib Dem request, and in fact it would mean the Lib Dems could walk away from the coalition, and form a Government with Labour etc without the Tories being able to force an election. This would give them time to force through full Pr. Shit.

This is what happens if an experienced Eurocrat negotiator sits down with a bunch of power-hungry poshboys who wrongly believe they have the upper hand.

[Peter File]

I've been impressed with what the coalition has set out so far. There are a few policies that I'm not entirely happy with (NHS spending ringfenced & defence policy) but on the whole, I see a lot of positive things in the coalition (Political reform, Green issues and civil liberties). Economic policy is obviously the key and I think thats spot on. I think what we've seen so far is a glowing endorsement for consensus politics.

Obviously we'll see what the future holds, when the coalition loses its first commons vote or if (when?) a lib dem minister make a gaffe worthy of being sacked, then we'll see how everyone works together. I also think reshuffles will be quite an intriguing too.

Not too happy about Theresa May being Home Secretary. She is useless. My money is on her to be the first minister to be caught up in a political scandal.

A word on the Labour leadership battle. A shame that Alan Johnson ruled himself out because I think he is the most credible party leader. I expect David Milliband to get it as he has the ideas, the support and the experience.

Not sure why Ed Milliband is running. I don't think he has any charisma, only has a junior cabinet position under his belt and that was only due to him hanging onto Gordon Brown's coattails. He would be a disaster. Labour need a big hitter, not a pussycat.

[Jon the Hat]

I've been impressed with what the coalition has set out so far. There are a few policies that I'm not entirely happy with (NHS spending ringfenced & defence policy) but on the whole, I see a lot of positive things in the coalition (Political reform, Green issues and civil liberties). Economic policy is obviously the key and I think thats spot on. I think what we've seen so far is a glowing endorsement for consensus politics.

Obviously we'll see what the future holds, when the coalition loses its first commons vote or if (when?) a lib dem minister make a gaffe worthy of being sacked, then we'll see how everyone works together. I also think reshuffles will be quite an intriguing too.

Not too happy about Theresa May being Home Secretary. She is useless. My money is on her to be the first minister to be caught up in a political scandal.

A word on the Labour leadership battle. A shame that Alan Johnson ruled himself out because I think he is the most credible party leader. I expect David Milliband to get it as he has the ideas, the support and the experience.

Not sure why Ed Milliband is running. I don't think he has any charisma, only has a junior cabinet position under his belt and that was only due to him hanging onto Gordon Brown's coattails. He would be a disaster. Labour need a big hitter, not a pussycat.

Ed is running because he will take votes from Ed Balls, leaving David to win.

[Webbo]

I know I'm biased so I don't suppose any Labour supporter will take any notice but with Alan Johnson not standing I don't think any of the Labour party leadership contenders have any charisma. David Milliband seems a bit nerdy, Ed Balls looks like a fat bully. Ed Milliband is a bit lightweight but he looks the pick of the bunch so far.