Exchange of vows

Nick

Its all very encouraging but they really will have to stop making the appearances together all the time or Nick Clegg will look like he is insecure that Cameron will go off with someone else.

Their families might not but Labour probably will, what an opportunity to regroup, be the only opposition worth the name in England and await the outcome. Hard to think of any coalitions that haven't ended in tears.

However, it's nice to see hope for a change even if that seems a tad corny in the current cynical climate.

Well I hope so. For the first time in a generation there appears to life and verve in the leadership of this country. If the more mature members of the families providing the checks and balances then I think we have a more than workable solution.

2015 looks a long way off and i for one hope they are still together then.

We could also have had Elvis singing "The Wonder of You" if Gordon hadn't used it first...

Is Gordon Brown the ex boyfriend?

"Exchange of vows" more like the emperor's new clothes from what I saw. Or as you quoted Thatcher the other day, Fudge, Mudge and Muddle.

Nick
Did I hear right ? The two liberal lovers are proposing to amend the rules so that a vote of no confidence requires a 55% vote of the House of Commons ? Thus effectively reducing the electoral 'winning post' to 293 MPs ? Which in turn means that Nick Clegg is potentially redundant ? Cameron could be in, under the other new rule, for 5 years ?

And if that's all true - are they going to rename the place the Reichstag ?

Ian Graham

I don't understand why you're so astonished by this. They need each other to survive, and are surrounded by enemies (who will soon include the media, i.e, you). They are obviously going to demonstrate solidarity.

I don't understand why you're so astonished by this. They need each other to survive, and are surrounded by enemies (these will very soon include the media - e.g, you). So they are very obviously going to go to some lengths to demonstrate solidarity.

No-one, from whatever point of view, can be ecstatic about this arrangement. Good!

However, It's as good an arrangement as anyone can get under the circumstances. There weren't the numbers for a reliable centre-left alliance. Inclusion of the SNP and Plaid would have been divisive and alienating. Alex Salmond may regard himself as progressive, but he was the one lauding the bankers before the crash. He is the one whose government is overriding normal planning procedures and local opposition to help multimillionaires can build golf courses on prime land.

The "New Labour" project has failed, and many of its proponents are loathed both in the Labour Party and in the country. Harman, Mandelson, Campbell - UGH!!

Some members of the new government may come to be loathed equally in time, but that depends upon their future behaviour.

"By their fruits shall ye know them!"

Has Nick Clegg been stitched up?
The proposed immediate political reform of a five year fixed term that will need a 55% majority to remove the incumbent means once that is enacted, as David Cameron has more than 45% of the seats/votes, he no longer needs Nick Clegg or his party to continue in office for the remainder of the term.

Lets hope they don't consummate the union in front of the cameras, this is getting very sickly Nick, how much more mileage can you get out of the union between these two men?

Nick,

This is a remarkable piece of nonsense, and quite unworthy of you, especially after your excellent election coverage.

Perhaps, it's time for you and your fellow media colleagues to go home and finally get some much needed sleep.

Myself I don’t think they didn’t knew each other behind close doors. They are politicians and that word in our time it means liars and deceivers. Could anyone remember the vocabularies of Hillary Clinton to Obama when they were racing and later see them sleep on the same bed? This style of talking one thing and do something else can be seen always everywhere.

Remind me. How exactly did that Bush-Blair thing turn out?

I watched it, it was on the TV at work - gave me a slight sick feeling in the pit of my stomach...

Don't get me wrong i hope it works well - for our sakes though not the parties involved - but i didn't vote for it and certainly don't respect or agree with it...

"The question that kept coming up in my mind though......"

I guess that really says it all. After 13 years of failed Labour government and in the midst of the worst economic crisis this country has faced for generations, your first thought is how quickly can we bring this coalition down.

You people are just becoming so irrelevant, it's not true.

Although double acts often work very well, it's mainly in the field of comedy. Any number of famous clowns come to mind; Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise, and of course the greatest of the lot ... Cannon and Ball. But in UK politics? - not sure. Or rather I wasn't sure until I watched this press conference in the garden at number ten. But now I am. I found myself squirming as I watched it; really did feel uncomfortable and had to force myself not to switch over to watch a rerun of The Professionals on UK Gold. I understand completely the rationale for this Coalition, that Clegg came up short electorally and couldn't govern alone - thus had to reach out to David Cameron and his Conservatives - and I can see both that it was a big and bold thing for him to do, and the many reasons why it ought to work. All the more upsetting, therefore, for me to be hit with a blinding flash of insight that it won't. Not nice, either, for me to have to report this disappointment to you guys here on the blog, since I know there were some high hopes. Over now, I'm afraid. Please don't shoot the messenger.

These two are not the duplicitous Mandleson,evil Campbell or self-seeking Brown - Cameron and Clegg are straighforward guys who are aiming for the best for us all. Give them the chance they deserve and let them fulfil the hopes of us all. Their optimism and energy is an inspiration - good om 'em !

~~~You know I don't care what the doubters say~~~

Every single one of you out there, based on that actual election result, you give me a viable solid alternative the country needs?

I love my country and am willing, for now, to be optimistic that this new team can work in our best interest.

Everyone of us should give them time to make it work out, even if its to get the economy sorted. Because, frankly a RAINBOW coalition would have been a disaster and would we really have got a hugely different result with another election in October with 2 total skint party's and one running very low on funds.

Me thinks not....

Good luck Dave and Nick, Good luck to Britain with it.

They both share a common bond ... fixing Britain.
Don't look backwards to what has gone before ... celebrate, be positive and look forward to a new type of democracy.

Shot gun marriages often work out quite well.

I am delighted to see David Cameron and Nick Clegg in a coalition government.I hope that it lasts out the five years.

I was very worried about a hung parliament, but it seems to have sorted itself out.

Perhaps a five year parliament is a bit long.

Suggest reflect happiness; there's so little about; abandon reservations for a day; even an hour; enjoy the moment; short courtship & long marriage worked for me; never a dull moment

As an intuitive and philosophical conservative who joined the Party just before this Parliamentary Election, I am over the moon with the ultimate coalition and today's Government. On reflection it is better than a Conservative majority, because a landslide would be corrupting, and a small majority would not lend itself to a strong government. This coalition can hearten all voters who love their country, who take responsibility for their role in a healthy society, who work hard for their family. May NuLabour of the last ten year and their spin doctors forever stay in opposition!

Give it a chance though, eh Nick? Yes it's different, yes it's odd but we need to get behind them as I'm sure they're going to give it their best shot...

It is the other relationships that both have that will be tricky...the bed will be crowded and handouts expected...Nick should at least demand separate bathrooms for the bankers.

"Whatever hyperbole you've got, I'll use it, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson tells the News channel." You always do, Nick.

You've been quite the cheerleader for this coalition from the start and the fawning is getting a trifle embarrassing. Perhaps it's time to rein it in.

What's really struck me about the BBC coverage is how it's virtually all been in the context of the Westminster bubble. Scant regard for the millions of Lib Dem voters whose motivation was anti-Tory and had been told by their candidates that a vote for them was the best way to keep the Tories out.

And, incidentally, never a question of whether a party that lost seats at the general election has the credibility to share government.

Are Dave & Nick impersonating Ant & Dec or the other way round. I'm very confused.

I've been a Liberal for 30+ years. I remember Mrs "T" and dis-liked her a lot. As an old school Liberal I am libertarian, believing in individual freedoms. This is the traditional small government local action thread of Liberalism.

My Mrs "T" list has grown since she left power to include T Blair - illegal War, most of the past bunch of Labour home Secretarys - pre charge detention, ID cards, house arrest without trial, secret evidence withheld from the accused, non-jury trials, secret inquests the list goes on. Erosion of the freedom of speech - grow up sometimes people are going to say things you don't like and short of out and out incitement to commit a crime that is a cost of free speech.

The assumption that we would all rather be fractionally safer (the 1:1 million chance of being in a terrorist attack) than hold onto rights that our parents and grandparents were prepared to fight for. If we wanted to be that safe we would all drive a couple of miles an hour slower. Government's job is not to try and keep me safe at all cost it is to protect my freedoms and sometimes call upon me to defend them, to erode them with more state power is not an option.

The Labour party (as well as the old SDP) are big central control parties by instinct. Conservative and Liberals have in the past both been small state local action parties. One nation Conservatives and Traditional Liberals have a lot in common.

The current Labour part is full of people my age that cheered in public when the IRA attempted to kill Mrs Thatcher, this same bunch will now give you a 2 year jail sentence for messing around in a Blackburn park pretending to be the Taliban.

Some of the immediate family are a bit dodgy...


On of the biggest positives is Jack Straw out of harm's way.

Let's hope the happy couple can put the democracy back into social democracy.

Is it correct that the Conservatives could lose a vote of confidence in the HoC yet the government would not fall unless the vote was lost by more than 55%? Tory MPs on their own represent 47% of all MPs, so as long as they all remain loyal the other 53% of MPs cannot remove the Tories from power. Is this piece of self-serving constitutional gerrymandering anything we should be bothered about Nick?

A new blog, and no moderation for an hour-and-a-half. This is pointless.

Watching the press conference this afternoon I wasn't sure if it was a new game show hosted by "Ant & Dec" or a re-run of the comedy "Keeping Up Appearances". Until the blossom started falling from the trees like confetti and the bird song struck up I realised we were actually witnessing a civil partnership!.....Still can't quite believe it.
Clare in West Sussex

"Not since Tony Blair's first summit with president George Bush have I attended a prime-ministerial news conference like this one".

And we all know how well that special relationship netted out. Is this a portent of things to come ?

Well it seems as though the two leaders have good personal chemistry and, although it is not necessarily the government I would have chosen, I for one hope they can make it work for the good of the country.

Also, as I understand it, Nick Clegg has not made him or his party redundant by the proposal to require 55% of votes in a no-confidence motion.

In our current parliament, the Conservatives may be able to survive a confidence vote on their own, but they wouldn't be able to pass any bills either (they would still require a majority for that), so would be effectively unable to govern.

Peternpan

I'm not an expert nor privy to any special knowledge, but on the 55pc point I think you are confusing dissolving parliament with a no confidence vote - not necessary same thing.

Agreement says: Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

I imagine this is to put a brake on the phenomenom of Govts , esp single party ones, deliberately losing no confidence votes to force an early election before the parliamentary term is up.

That was an issue in Germany 3 times in recent times - in 1972, 1982 and 2005 Chancellors deliberately engineered losing no confidence votes so they could have early elections.

This doesnt seem to me do anything other than mean that 2 major parties under our present share out of seats would have to vote for dissolution to make it happen - presumably, far from being a conspiracy to stitch up Clegg, to stop him being stitched up by Tories getting smaller parties to force election.

Presumably HoC could still pass vote of no conf in PM who would resign and HMQ would ask next best placed leader to try and form Govt. If he/she failed, the last resort wd be a multi party vote for dissolution and new elections.

18

What drivel

You are just 'in pain' because Labour are in the wilderness

Your bitterness doesn't fool me

Just cant see it working out between these folk.

Take one example from the blogosphere

https://libservatives.blogspot.com/

Which is not to say it wont work out - but...

Love in? Stitch up more like.

A fact that is being reported by very little of the media is that today, these two people, neither of whom have a mandate to be PM decided without a referendum that the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain would change and that a vote of no confidance would require 55% of MPs not 50%+1.

THIS IS A DISGRACE!

How a party with the word "Democrat" in the title can sign up to this is beyond me.

If this is the "new politics" I want nothing to do with it. Stitch ups and back door deals, there's nothing new about that. In fact as a history student it reminds me of Victorian and earlier politics. People swapping principles just to get a job isn't compramise, its veniality!

They changed the constitution without a vote, without even any consultation.

What else are they going to change without consulting us?

And both of these people over the last few years had the cheek to call Brown a dictator! PATHETIC!

Hi, With the new Government in place how does it work when it comes to Party Conference Season, does Nick Clegg and David Cameron as well as attending their own Party Conference do they attend the other one as well.
PS Have really enjoyed the BBC's news coverage of this Election and the results and it has made excellent viewing - in fact it has become more interesting than watching the boring soaps.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You can put lipstick on a pig .....but it's still a pig!

#9
These two are not the duplicitous Mandleson,evil Campbell or self-seeking Brown - Cameron and Clegg are straighforward guys who are aiming for the best for us all. Give them the chance they deserve and let them fulfil the hopes of us all. Their optimism and energy is an inspiration - good om 'em !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep with the inspiration and shining your light. You may have to wear shades, the future may be too bright and bunnyful for you. We are so lucky to have found the only two altruistic politicians on the planet...

Best of luck with the treatment.

Nick has mentioned previously that Nick Clegg and colleagues will be the first Liberal Cabinet ministers since Churchill's War Cabinet of May 1940. This is not correct. Churchill appointed three Liberals to ministerial posts in his wartime coalition government, but none of them had a seat in Cabinet. (Sir Archibald Sinclair was appointed Secretary for Air - though the more powerful Tory Lord Beaverbrook as Minister for Aircraft Production sat in the Cabinet. Harcourt Johnstone - like Simon, another Etonian - became Secretary for Overseas Trade; and Dingle Foot was made a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Economic Warfare - whatever that was). Perusing the Cabinet lists in the appendices of AJP Taylor's "English History, 1914-1945", I note that Archibald Sinclair sat in MacDonald's second National Cabinet (formed November 1931) as Secretary of State for Scotland until December 1933. And that was the last time a Liberal sat in the Cabinet - 87 years ago.

Susan

re previous 105

You'll be pleased to know that I've been to spec savers and they conirmed what I believed all along, in as far that I've got extreamly long vision - so long that I can see well into the future and it's not so bad.

I do have a slight problem that everything I look at is tainted orange and blue but I guess this is better than just seeing black and white or in same cases just blue.

Anyway, it is clear that you and I are never reach a coalition, me being(according to spec savers) optomistic and you remaining clearly in a state of despair.

But hey ho, in the spirit of this blog and on this fine evening lets not quarrel and I'll see if I can find something we can both agree on. Isn't it nice to see all the appointments announced involve elected MP's rather than unelected members of the HoL's. And all the GOATS have been put out to grass!

Without being or sounding sarcastic in anyway, I hope you had good day.

I voted labour not so much as an endorsement of them because I have been so disappointed with their ways of changing Britain back to Great Britain from the Greed Britain, whats in it for me, me...me...me society created under the last Tories but I am glad in a way that the current impasse has come to this.

No party has a mandate, Labour eventually recognising that and with new leadership, they may regenerate, certainly if this coalition does not produce, they are only opposition but I hope if that is the case, at the next election, they go into it with a positive spin i.e this is what we will do and not embark on the policy that ultimately saw Cameron have to "get into bed" with the Lib Dems, namely, waging a negative campaign, vote for us because the opposition are bad is hardly offering a positive endorsement to those who wanted change. Lets be frank, the Conservatives blew the election big time, they should have a comfortable majority.

Anyway, so long as we can get government "in the national interest" maybe we can move forward. One positive though for me is that Vince Cable has some involvement, although I would have preferred him as chancellor, I dont trust Osborne. Although a lifelong labour supporter, now somewhat disillusioned, I have admired Cable for the last 2 years, and I know a lot of people in my Northern constituency who echo those thoughts.

So please gentlemen, remember this, none of you were trusted to run the country outright, the people want you to interact, the people want you to change things for the better of all and not the chosen few.

If you do that, even Labour supporters should applaud, we may not be able to call ourselves Great Britain, maybe we can at least stop being Greed Britain

7. At 4:19pm on 12 May 2010, Ian Graham wrote:

Nick
Did I hear right ? The two liberal lovers are proposing to amend the rules so that a vote of no confidence requires a 55% vote of the House of Commons ? Thus effectively reducing the electoral 'winning post' to 293 MPs ? Which in turn means that Nick Clegg is potentially redundant ? Cameron could be in, under the other new rule, for 5 years ?
--------
Conversely, Cameron cannot ditch Clegg before the 5 years by going to the country earlier - when the polls might suggest that he has an advantage. And in the interim, he cannot enact legislation without keeping the Lib Dems on side - so this has got merit. Presumably there is detail to be defined but I would hope that this means that the Government needs 55% to dissolve parliament at a time of its choosing. If its an opposition motion of no confidence, then it should be 50% +1

OK, let's knock this 55% nonsense on the head: it's not about votes of no-confidence, it's about premature dissolution:
"A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour."

In other words a Parliament will have to run its full five-year term unless 55% of MPs vote for a proposed early dissolution. It's not about allowing governments to survive with 46% of the Commons, it's about preventing a PM from holding an early election when more than 45% of MPs may want the chance to put together an alternative government. It's designed not to secure Tory minority rule but on the contrary to reassure the LibDems that the Tories won't dump them in favour of a snap election should they see the tide running in their favour.

I'm not convinced by fixed terms and this measure could favour a future Tory government that's probably more likely to have the majority needed for an early poll (perhaps limiting an “unscheduled” Parliament to what’s left of its predecessor’s term might deter such abuse of the provision), but that's not its purpose.

18. At 4:50pm on 12 May 2010, sagamix wrote:
"All the more upsetting, therefore, for me to be hit with a blinding flash of insight..."
Oh, you can do better than this!
A flash of insight, devoid of rationale - so unlike the great thinker! Oh, I get it .... tongue in cheek!

Phantom really ought to produce some evidence to back up wild statements like:

Hard to think of any coalitions that haven't ended in tears.

Er, the one from 1940/45 that won WW2 was the last - yes, it ended in tears, in the sense of tears of joy and victory!

Hard to pin your claim on the Lloyd George coalition that also won a war, or even really on the National Govt in the 30s. (Hardly responsible single-handedly for the rise of fascism!)

And Germany doesn't sustain your theory, nor recent (PR) Govts in New Zealand. Nor Switzerland or Finland, which basically don't have majority Governments. Would you like me to carry on? Evidence please.

We get a hung parliamment that leads to a coalition governement, which will be the case under any PR system. Expect for many it not the Rainbow
one they expected. many though it would be the "progressive parties" of the left.

I wonder if those laobur MPs that started to speak out about PR over there dead bodies etc and those that said they should except defeat now the true status and facts about what CUT are going to be required, BUT they did not hae the spericals to Tell you there left supporters or the voting public, leftfore they want to blame the LD-TORY coalition for what about to happen , much like thatcher got the blame for 79 afterwards.

The future is blue - with a gilt edge. Personally I hope this is a good omen for Portsmouth in the FA Cup.

27. At 5:34pm on 12 May 2010, Peter Deville wrote:

And, incidentally, never a question of whether a party that lost seats at the general election has the credibility to share government.

...I think the answer is fairly obviously 'yes'. And if Labour and the LDs had got into bed together then the answer would have been yes too. They would have managed 52 percent of the votes cast between them; the Tories and LDs get up to nearly 60 percent. Yes, yes: no one actually voted for a coalition (just like no one voted for or against Gordon Brown, apart from the good people of Cowdenbeath). But a government with some sort of the backing from nearly 60 percent of voters certainly deserves a chance to prove that it can govern consensually.

Signs from the love-in are good. Most likely early tensions are Osborne and Cable on banks and the timetable and content of the AV Bill. Europe - one of the most incendiary issues of the lot - has effectively been kicked into the long grass for 5 years. Clever politics so far.

39. At 6:25pm on 12 May 2010, laughingdevil wrote:
Love in? Stitch up more like.

A fact that is being reported by very little of the media is that today, these two people, neither of whom have a mandate to be PM decided without a referendum that the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain would change and that a vote of no confidance would require 55% of MPs not 50%+1.

THIS IS A DISGRACE!

===

Wrong.


The Queen invited David Cameron to form a government....

he accepted the invitation......

therefore he has a mandate.



Are your sour grapes sticking in your craw?

Beware the smile on the face of the tiger - he may appear benign, even friendly. Nevertheless, you have to ask yourself "What is the nature of the beast?" Mr Clegg should not be surprised, if in due course when invited to dinner, he is himself the main course.

To re-cast an article by John Pilger on Barack Obama into the more prosaic world of British politics - "In his “reaching out” ... he spun "after his inception as PM", this clever young politician is playing the part for which he was drafted and promoted. This is to present a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to "Conservative" power, which can then proceed towards its strategic goal of dominance, regardless of the wishes of the rest of "the electorate" and the rights and lives of our "families"."

To directly quote Aneurin Bevan "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."

Hello Nick,

This is the first time that I have posted on your blog - goodness me, don't you attract a lot of frustrated cynics!

No matter.

I thought today's press conference was a breath of fresh air. After 13 forgettable years, we were confronted by two men who displayed courtesy, courage and conviction. Even nature seemed to sense the moment, what with the sunshine and birdsong.

Yes, I realize that this is the honeymoon period and that tougher, more testing times are coming. It certainly won't be easy, but together we'll handle it.

Fortunately, I'm a born optimist - unlike many of the beaten bloggers on this site!

More emphasis on cutting expenditure rather than tax rises to deal with the debt.
Good
'There is no such thing as a good tax ' Churchill
I could not agree more - lets stop paying people to breed, for a start.
50% to go to uni? When only 50% can get 5 'good' (ha ha) grade C GCSEs? Give me strength, fgs! Try 20 - 25% at uni and another 20% going to a local 'trade college' to learn a modern apprenticeship and how to run a business.
Britain needs private sector jobs to cope with the 4 million (no typo) jobs which are not needed either in the State or working for the State within private enterprise, collecting meaningless stats or supervising ridiculous H&S rules (etc)

55

I think you would find that Aneurin Bevan would find it difficult to recognise the Labour Party from 1997 to 2010

Say the coalition breaks apart, the Official Opposition tables a motion of no confidence in the government, and the motion is carried by a simple majority in the HoC, but with fewer than 55% of MPs. Does the government fall? If someone out there who knows about these things can answer "Yes, that would still be the position" I would be grateful.

As a Labour voter, the only reason I dont feel depressed by a Conservative Govt, is purely the presence of the LibDems. In fact I actually feel fairly optimistic. 13 years is too long for any party to be in power, let alone the 18 years previous to that.

I suspect Labour will regroup pretty quickly, they are buoyed by not getting electorally (in terms of seats) castrated.

58

In fact, he would be ashamed of it

re #29
"I've been a Liberal for 30+ years. I remember Mrs "T" and dis-liked her a lot. As an old school Liberal I am libertarian, believing in individual freedoms. This is the traditional small government local action thread of Liberalism."

Good grief! Why did you join the Liberals then? They have a record of non-Liberalism that's pretty impressive. Just ask Ming! Or David Laws when he tries to talk to Shirls about Grammar Schools. Or a 4x4 driver. Or the GP MP (sorry, name forgotten) who said she could 'understand why people became suicide bombers'.

And do you realise you share a lot in common with The Iron Lady?

48 - enlightening but does it also prevent the govt getting voted down without 55%?

18 - nice try :o)

I never thought I would say it but it must be time we listened to Ashcroft and moved off-shore.

17 - er...he is impartial....

you buffoon-like BBC Bias Bore

re #56 Tony
Hi! Welcome. I'm not a frustrated cynic. I'm a cheerful one! I'm optimistic about any new Government. Want success for them on behalf of the whole UK.

Unfortunately, I AM a mislead, disappointed realist.

What I would really like to not have to post in six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four months time is the word AGAIN after the previous sentence.

58 I believe the Labour Govts of 1997-2010 was more similar to the Conservative Govts from 1951-1964.

But either way, Tories are selfish.

61 - much like Mrs Thatcher (if she were still there in mind at least) would be ashamed of the direction Cameron is leading the Conservatives. UKIP's numbers swelling after this deal?

So Dave 'n Nick will ensure their coalition lasts the course by introducing fixed 5-year parliaments that can only be curtailed by 55% of the votes, NOT a simple majority as has always been the case previously. Dave currently has 47% of the MPs and so is gerrymandering his way towards a guaranteed five year stint with or without Nick (and with Nick's help too!). Imagine what we would be saying if labour had pulled a stunt like that. This isn't a brave new dawn in the national interest, its a squalid grab for power and an attempt to hold on to it for as long as possible.

68

I do not agree

DO you think keaving a £163bn deficit and £1.4tn debt behing is unselfish?

Working behind the till today, serving the public l was amazed by the happy smilling faces, as one chap said, it is like a huge weight being lifted from our shoulders now Labour have gone.
Ben Bradshaw may rabbit on that Lib Dem support is going over to Labour, well here in Exeter it is not, no matter what he thinks

The proposal for 55% of MPs being required to defeat the Clegg-Cameron double act in the House of Commons seems rather undemocratic.
It is the equivalent of the Lib-Dem/Cons giving themselves approximately 30 more seats in the HoC - just like that!
It suggests Clegg and Cameron do not have actually have the courage of their own convictions when it will come to subjecting their proposals to scrutiny of the House.
And these two are presenting themselves as the faces (or faces) of new improved politics,yet this has all the hallmarks of the old,discreditted politics of this country.
Let's hope the House of Lords throw out this totally undemocratic proposal when the time comes,and the 'dynamic duo' are suitably discreditted!This is NOT in the national interest.
Already,the sweet perfume of the Downing Street rose garden is smelling less fragrant.

At 4:53pm on 12 May 2010, riosso wrote:
"These two are not the duplicitous Mandleson,evil Campbell or self-seeking Brown - Cameron and Clegg are straighforward guys who are aiming for the best for us all. Give them the chance they deserve and let them fulfil the hopes of us all. Their optimism and energy is an inspiration - good om 'em !"

We don`t doubt the intentions of Cameron and Clegg,they are similar in style and backgrond and I predicted an affinity between the two Bullingdon lads.Cleggy served his apprenticeship doing community service for burning his professor`s cacti,the other lot paid blood money for trashing restaurants.Nothing wrong with that,you only have a broken society when the culprits end up in court instead of the House of Commons.

What is being ignored as the Tory tarts on this blog throw metaphorical nosegays at the charming couple is Clegg`s surrender of a vital area of economic policy.

Before this marriage of convenience, Clegg and Cable were pledged to maintain spending until the recovery is secure,now they agree to cuts now,a policy endorsed by Mervyn King narrowly concerned with fiscal probility.

Today unemployment rose by thousands,as did youth unemployment and the economically inactive.European economies face strong deflationary pressures because of sovereign debt.Britain needs growth to pay down the deficit,not cuts which produce a spiral of unemployment,falling revenue and debt.

This is where Clegg has betrayed his supporters,it is the point of fracture in the new coalition as cuts destablize the economy.

re #56 & 67
My post on Steph's blog:

SF: The Liberal Democrats aren't going to get their "mansion tax".

That, I think, is a shame. It would have really helped to even the tax take up in a way that would not need constant closing of loopholes. It would also be paid by rich non-doms and, if well-implemented, would have put some badly needed downward pressure on house prices.

If on the other hand, George Osborne will soon go off on a trip around the G8, then the rest of the G20, to get agreement on double taxation agreements, then put pressure on all tax havens to join in a stricter regime, then return and close all UK tax loopholes before puuting tax up on high earners in the UK, then fine. We probably don't need it.

OK, yeah, that's cynical.

just saw the Channel 4 news with the two chummy posh boys and the other ambitious toff in the Labour party. they're damned pleased with their new club for white middle aged chaps.
heard some chap from the Lib Dems who was most relieved that they'd removed the 'albatross' of the immigrant amnesty. well that's Johnny Foreigner back in his place.
looks like the womenfolk are back in theirs too- feet under the sink making their man's dinner.
this new politics will put Britain back on top.
we've never had it so good.

70 John

So Dave 'n Nick will ensure their coalition lasts the course by introducing fixed 5-year parliaments that can only be curtailed by 55% of the votes, NOT a simple majority as has always been the case previously

========

Absolutely 100% right John.

This is appaling and beyond belief.

For a government to be formed tey must command the support of a majority in the HofC BUT not in Dave and Nick's New Order, they can lose a vote of confidence like the Queens speech but stay on apparently.

Yes Tory boys and girls, tell us what you feel, lets here the justification and put in writing that you would agree to this if it was a Labour policy.

And also 5 years fixed is wrong, it should be 4. History tells us the only time a government goes for 5 years is when (like Labour just) they know they will be on their way out, tired and finished.

A terrible day for democracy if this goes through.

Anyone heard of the "honeymoon period"?

rosco@60

I agree. Also makes a difference to me that the far right of the Tory party doesn't currently hold much sway. (Too busy posting bilge on this blog probably.) I think Cameron's socially liberal views are for real, not a tactic. And for heaven's sake, Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary - what's not to love about that?

Saga @ 18 wrote:
Although double acts often work very well, it's mainly in the field of comedy. Any number of famous clowns come to mind; Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise, and of course the greatest of the lot ... Cannon and Ball. But in UK politics? - not sure.

>>

Would a theme song help, do you think? Bring Me Sunshine, Underneath the Arches … that kind of thing?

But what?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

77

Your point on the Queen's speech is irrelevant

The 55% is wrong, although the motivation is to allow the Lib Dems to vote and campaign against Nuclear Power, and to protect the government in that instance

Still wrong in my view

There were far more bad days for democracy in the last 13 years however

The death of David Kelly and the 45 minute warning, the sexing up lies just a small example

I understand the reasons for the 55% (good reasons) I understand the objections (tribal) yet it IS still wrong

I do not like fixed parliaments, I prefer fixed spending reviews

However, in THIS parliament there are exceptional circumstances and I support it 100%

77

May I ask you if you think £163bn deficit and £1.4tn of debt is an indication of Gordon Brown's economic incompetence

In 1997 he inherited a £6bn deficit (which he labelled irresponsible) and debt of £348bn

78

There is a joke in there somewhere........

80. At 9:29pm on 12 May 2010, pdavies65 wrote:

Would a theme song help, do you think? Bring Me Sunshine, Underneath the Arches … that kind of thing?

But what?


"Me and my shadow" of course.

82 Kevin
"I understand the reasons for the 55% (good reasons)"
=====

Lets hear them then and while your at it confirm you would have been happy if Labour had introduced this.

Please explain the democratic integrity behinnd the "good reasons"

I can't wait.

87

I have said it was wrong, can I be any clearer?

If you can't be bothered to read my reply carefully, when I have taken the time and trouble to answer your question honestly, then there is no point in further replies from me

This is the modern world

Ah, sagamix is back. Thanks for sharing your insight, utterly amazing as it is. If I'm interpreting it correctly you searing, nay dazzling insight is this:

"I don't think it will work"

Well, with such stunning political analysis as this I think Nick R must be phoning the dole office as we type.

84

Yes Kevin of course the deficit is absolutely nothing to do with the Banks and the fact that every similar country's deficit has increased at exactly the same time as they bail out their Banks is just one of those quirky co-incidences.

Yes the current global banking crisis is completely Brown's fault as is Global warming and the Icelandic Volcano

Dear Nick,

I am one of the many who have doubts, but there really does seem to be a genuine effort on both sides to make this arrangement work.

I doubt if the likes of William Hague and Vince Cable would have signed up to something about which they had serious reservations.

Let's "Give peace a chance"!

9090. At 9:54pm on 12 May 2010, Eatonrifle wrote:
84

Yes Kevin of course the deficit is absolutely nothing to do with the Banks and the fact that every similar country's deficit has increased at exactly the same time as they bail out their Banks is just one of those quirky co-incidences.

Yes the current global banking crisis is completely Brown's fault as is Global warming and the Icelandic Volcano


Unfortunately you are just a red eyed tribalist

Not worth the bother

In answer to your previous question, which I did answer, let me see if capital letters help you

I said twice it was WRONG

As a labour supporter of the tribal variety, you probably do not remember what this word means

IF you chose to ask questions, thinking that Conservative voters will not answer them, then you should have the manners to read the responses

When they actually agree with you that the 55% is wrong, perhaps you can actually bear that in mind before writing yet more tribalistic stuff on autopilot

I doubt you understand the difference between the deficit and the debt in any case from your silly comment

89

Does sagamix work in the dole office then?

88 Kevin

if you mean;

"the motivation is to allow the Lib Dems to vote and campaign against Nuclear Power, and to protect the government in that instance"

This would not be a vote of confidence, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

91

Keep being optimistic

This is an incredible possibility as a reaction to both New Labour and also the expenses scandal

A good start with a strong cabinet

Cynically Preserved

You missed my earlier post on the previous topic. About half a dozen of us all made essentially the same observation about the poster with the name of Con-Dem. The poster claimed to work in the public sector. We all pointed out the best the poster could hope for would be to be getting paid or being employed by the public sector. Actually working - none of us could quite believe that, given the timing of the post... We were all hard at it of course...

Nick

I am concerned that you never seem to sleep and don't even look tired!! My wife thinks you should have a holiday!!

Keep up the good work!

94

My earlier replies deal with your lack of manners and to suggest I don't know what I am talking about is just a personal swipe

May I suggest you don't bother asking open questions in future, if you haven't the manners to engage politely with fellow posters

85. At 9:42pm on 12 May 2010, Kevinb wrote:
78

There is a joke in there somewhere........
===================================================

And Jo Brand would have made it in about 1994!

Give 'em the benefit of the doubt eh? I'd feel happier about that idea if it didn't feel like the lampost giving the dog the benefit of the doubt.