lefties 7:compare the tory.com

[HerHonesty]

sorry couldnt think of anything else. gideon in charge of the economy..

Just got 'A very British Coup' which someone mentioned on here.

Public Sector- The problem is that cuts go across the board and the frontline stuff stuffers everytime. Schools, SW and nurses/doctors are essential and cuts should recognise that. I see so many jobs/initiatives that aren't needed the same.

Bucharest - perhaps in a couple of months it will be just you and me on these threads going 'I agree with Bucharest' and 'I agree with Getorf' in a circular way

I did apologise to sophable, but I agree with Bucharest (see the madness begins) that if I can't come on this thread and be a bit tribal I can't bloody say it anywhere. DP and DD are sick to death of me ranting on .

I do not understand how anyone can say that they are the true meaning of leftism when they are fully supportive of a coalition with the party that is traditionally very right wing.

And, my visceral dislike of the LibDems is based on living for 28 years in a place which was dominated by the libdems, MP and council, and seeing the way that their principals actually work out in reality. Weak, ineffectual and corrosive imo. In rural Devon, libdems are seen as just vaguely to the left than the conservatives, and the ideal alternative. Nobody goes on about civil liberties there.

Agree with all of that Eleison. The safety valve thing is significant.

Interesting POV (anti-55%) here, which makes the point that the 55% rule will actually allow the coalition to dissolve parliament at will. Presumably this is why most thresholds are set much higher.

Yes BeenBeta is ABetaDad (and if not I have got it spectacularly wrong for weeks).

Nymphadora - I want to ge ta Very British Coup. Have you read View from teh Foothills (crhis Mullin's diaries)? It is a brilliant book, I really recommend it. Just re-reading it now.

Oh, yes, v good point policywonk.

Whole point of fixed term is to diminish the shameful concentration of power in the executive. Perhaps there should be a requirement that a dissolution vote be completely unwhipped, so that it is the voice of parliament not executive.

What is this I hear about disbanding?

What has happened? Someone pray tell. These threads like a MN institution already?

Hello, everyone, tried to wean myself off thread last night, had a sneaky look today and everyone's talking about leaving. Please, please don't! There's very few people I can discuss politics with in RL and I've learned so much on here. Thanks to this thread, I've joined the Labour party and am thinking of doing a Politics A level if I ever get time. You have changed my life!

Switched on Question Time 5 minutes in last night and was bowled over by Hasan. Thought he must be a new Labour MP and was all ready to campaign for him as leader. Will now have to go out and buy the New Statesman instead.

Was Toriesaretoast but have gone back to Cinnamon - so much more comforting than having the T word in my name.

(If you all go off somewhere else, will you make sure you're easy to find so I can tag along? Apologies if I sound needy [clingy emoticon])

Sophable felt that I and some others had been unfair towards LibDem voters LadyBlahBlah - thread is here. I think/hope it's all fine now.
Cinnamon and anyone else interested, look for a thread called wonkers - it's the Wankers as was, with lots of loveliness, chat, and general smartarserie - and I expect now politics.

Thanks Pol. Bloody hell Fixed Terms are incredibly complicated - suspect there's no point distressing my tiny brain with them until they decided on the safety valve issue.

I'm not leaving (not even moving from my chair ) so don't leave me alone!

Oh. What are the rules in RL? Never talk about politics or religion.........that's why MN is so brilliant - we constantly talk about both.

And there will be a few spats.......inevitably. Whatever. Onwards we continue. Anyone can post. Even the Tories.

Yes, but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, there is a difference between dissolution of the coalition and dissolution of Parliament via a no confidence motion.

onebat I share your feelings and have nothing left to say and will go back to the hole I crawled out of...

Thanks, OBM, will have a little look at Wonkers and continue to lurk/post here. Phew.

GetOrf - I think some people are sympathetic to the Lib Dems on civil liberties (myself included) because they have a few times recently been prepared to stand up & help people fight their corner when the state has being particularly heavy handed.
I agree, a group of sympathetic MPs does not a party principle make, and the LDs really are an extremely wide church - I imagine rather different in rural Devon as opposed to Lewes, just for example . . .

BTW am sort-of-sorry (though perhaps not given that it appears to have been something of a bloodbath) that I have missed the boat rather on all the discussion about civil liberties, but I only 'work' indoors some days of the week.

It is odd, isn't it, that profound alterations to the constitution can be made by simple majority in parl. In US alterations would require - what? - two-thirds maj?

I do hope there will be effective scrutiny of constitutional reforms, but in what shape? Judicial? But how? It shouldn't just be a coalition sweetie jar.

Actually, I have no idea re US position on const reform, except that it is highly regulated in legislature and judiciary, I think?

V good point about Lewes Takver. Norman Baker is a bloody marvellous MP. The late lamented Harris was also quite a long way to the left of most Labour MPs, while also having a very strong focus on issues like pro-choice.

I should know that Eleison - is extremely difficult to amend the Bill of Rights, certainly. Will google...

here you go - 2/3 maj in Senate and HoR, then on to ratification by the states.

Takver we never really had an in depth discussion on civil liberties so you haven't missed anything (unless I wasn't paying attention).

Right I'm now thoroughly confused about this fixed term thing. I thought the point of it (and one I agree with) is that the government cannot call an election at a time that suits them. I also see there is perhaps an argument that this coalition needs to be stable but I'm at the idea of a fixed term to achieve that. Surely with this 55% thing the coalition can call an election when they want which is exactly contrary to the point of a fixed term?

Perhaps the difference is partly where Lib Dems are effectively competing against the Conservatives (eg rural Devon), and where rather more of their vote comes from the left - thinking also of David Howarth in Cambridge.

Ahhh what a relief!

Posted alone in the wasteland, went off on school run, to run errands and then straight onto music group for DD, where I had a very long and informative chat with local Tory district councillor. < withdrawal symptoms >

Interestingly (for me ), I have been pondering whether I am discussing politics with her because of the election or because of my new found confidence on matters due to the enormous political brains on these lovely threads. Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge and opinions.

Snort at Hague's description of the 55% as "constitutional innovation"

Maybe Beachcomber sometime when I've got more than a half-hour at the computer, I'll start a civil liberties thread, & hope you're all around, as I'd be interested to hear what people think. I kind of lose the plot a bit on all these long threads as I'm in & out rather, & don't want to start re-hashing old ground.

Proving myself a total lightweight here, but has any one seen Celebritywatch today? Just love Caitlin Moran (and the idea of Adam Boulton as Perez Hilton).

Yes you're right Beach, the very low threshold does effectively torpedo the anti-executive thrust of fixed terms. (Tho the answer would be to make the threshold higher, which I think is the opposite of what most anti-55%ers are arguing out there in t'blogosphere.)

Constraining exec power involves both a ready means for parl to oust govt and preventing govt from opportunistic control of dissolution of parliament

And those joint aims would be best served by high-threshold Dissolution (of Parl) vote, and a 50%-VONC. The former high threshold wd prevent govt instigation of dissolution of parliament, and the 50% VONC wd permit parliamentary dissolution of government.

The initial unclarity is because under the existing system, VONC is effectively a dissolution of government and of parliament? Under new system VONC would effectively dissolve govt only, and pave way for Dissolution of Parl vote.