Politics

[NJS 3977]

Of course they can't.

 

The Chancellor, George Osborne, said the figures proved his plan to cut the public sector was right.

 

He said: "In the Budget, I set out a plan to restore confidence in our economy by dealing with the deficit, starting this year, and to rebalance growth from the public to private sector.

 

"Today's figures show the private sector contributing all but 0.1% of the growth in the second quarter, and put beyond doubt that it was right to begin acting on the deficit now."

 

Again discounting that the cuts will affect the private sector as well.

 

Fuckwit.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

While both sides will claim rights, I think you have to stand back and look at what was going on between April and June.

 

Labour splashing around the chequebook, pre-election feel good factor, post election feel good factor..... admittidely not on here

 

Its going to be tricky for a few good years yet.

[Guest alex]

Not saying it isn't correct (because I wouldn't know one way or the other to be perfectly honest) but the New Statesman isn't exacty impartial.

Edited July 23, 2010 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

Even the Torygraph is reporting it'll be a different picture once the Tory effect takes hold...

 

"UK second-quarter GDP is startlingly strong," said James Knightley of ING. "However, we are cautious that confidence has weakened and business surveys suggest softer growth in the third quarter.

 

"Moreover, the wave of fiscal austerity hitting the UK will also constrain economic activity."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...four-years.html

[Guest alex]

Even the Torygraph is reporting it'll be a different picture once the Tory effect takes hold...

 

"UK second-quarter GDP is startlingly strong," said James Knightley of ING. "However, we are cautious that confidence has weakened and business surveys suggest softer growth in the third quarter.

 

"Moreover, the wave of fiscal austerity hitting the UK will also constrain economic activity."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...four-years.html

Loony lefties them lot © Danny B

[AgentAxeman 82]

Even the Torygraph is reporting it'll be a different picture once the Tory effect takes hold...

 

"UK second-quarter GDP is startlingly strong," said James Knightley of ING. "However, we are cautious that confidence has weakened and business surveys suggest softer growth in the third quarter.

 

"Moreover, the wave of fiscal austerity hitting the UK will also constrain economic activity."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...four-years.html

 

 

just sounds like a bunch of bankers whinging that the interest rates arent as high as they would like (less profit for them)

 

anyway, i thought rapid economic growth and the subsequent fall (banking crisis/recession) were what got us into this mess in the 1st place. maybe its a good thing to have a slow rate of economic growth and stability for a while.

 

"gone are the days of boom and bust"

[Guest alex]

Even the Torygraph is reporting it'll be a different picture once the Tory effect takes hold...

 

"UK second-quarter GDP is startlingly strong," said James Knightley of ING. "However, we are cautious that confidence has weakened and business surveys suggest softer growth in the third quarter.

 

"Moreover, the wave of fiscal austerity hitting the UK will also constrain economic activity."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...four-years.html

 

 

just sounds like a bunch of bankers whinging that the interest rates arent as high as they would like (less profit for them)

 

anyway, i thought rapid economic growth and the subsequent fall (banking crisis/recession) were what got us into this mess in the 1st place. maybe its a good thing to have a slow rate of economic growth and stability for a while.

 

"gone are the days of boom and bust"

Alistair Campbell or indeed Muralitharan would be proud of spin like that

[ChezGiven 0]

I've been reflecting on this financial crisis / end of capitalism / greek crisis / deficit hawking / public spending slashing issue for a while.

 

I'm convinced that Parky is right about the world. In 2008 the prevailing social and economic narrative was that capitalism was fucked and that the markets had failed. Banks were (and still are) driving economic policy to support their own business needs rather than being a business that supports society's economic needs.

 

What happened to that narrative?

 

Early this year, a crisis of confidence in 'sovereign' debt (over 50% of which in the best cases was attributable to the banking crisis and the recession) was sparked by an organisation called 'Moodys' (how appropriately named) and a vague economic constituency called the 'bond market' (do they have a spokesperson? what did he say?).

 

Then the prevailing economic narrative became that us Europeans (and commie scum elsewhere across the globe) had had decades of being cosseted by our social welfare systems that were basically unaffordable and that we had to accept to work harder, rely less on the state and allow capitalism to sort the problem out.

 

Ever get the feeling you're being ripped off?

Edited July 23, 2010 by ChezGiven

[spongebob toonpants 3599]

I've been reflecting on this financial crisis / end of capitalism / greek crisis / deficit hawking / public spending slashing issue for a while.

 

I'm convinced that Parky is right about the world. In 2008 the prevailing social and economic narrative was that capitalism was fucked and that the markets had failed. Banks were (and still are) driving economic policy to support their own business needs rather than being a business that supports society's economic needs.

 

What happened to that narrative?

 

Early this year, a crisis of confidence in 'sovereign' debt (over 50% of which in the best cases was attributable to the banking crisis and the recession) was sparked by an organisation called 'Moodys' (how appropriately named) and a vague economic constituency called the 'bond market' (do they have a spokesperson? what did he say?).

 

Then the prevailing economic narrative became that us Europeans (and commie scum elsewhere across the globe) had had decades of being cosseted by our social welfare systems that were basically unaffordable and that we had to accept to work harder, rely less on the state and allow capitalism to sort the problem out.

 

Ever get the feeling you're being ripped off?

 

 

I think we are going to enter a market planned recession followed by an asset grab by the financial institutions that caused the problem in the first place. People are being suckered in by low interest rates, there is going to be carnage as the Europe wide age of austerity takes hold, savings are spent, pensions devalued and then interest rates start to rise.

 

Many years of horror for millions, followed by the institutions starting to mortgage everything back to the working/middle class again.

 

I'm fortunate, I should be debt and mortgage free by the end of the year - I fear for those who are struggling to make ends meet at the moment

[Happy Face 29]

I've been reflecting on this financial crisis / end of capitalism / greek crisis / deficit hawking / public spending slashing issue for a while.

 

I'm convinced that Parky is right about the world. In 2008 the prevailing social and economic narrative was that capitalism was fucked and that the markets had failed. Banks were (and still are) driving economic policy to support their own business needs rather than being a business that supports society's economic needs.

 

What happened to that narrative?

 

Early this year, a crisis of confidence in 'sovereign' debt (over 50% of which in the best cases was attributable to the banking crisis and the recession) was sparked by an organisation called 'Moodys' (how appropriately named) and a vague economic constituency called the 'bond market' (do they have a spokesperson? what did he say?).

 

Then the prevailing economic narrative became that us Europeans (and commie scum elsewhere across the globe) had had decades of being cosseted by our social welfare systems that were basically unaffordable and that we had to accept to work harder, rely less on the state and allow capitalism to sort the problem out.

 

Ever get the feeling you're being ripped off?

 

Remember how The Washington Post spent three days documenting on its front page that we basically live under a vast Secret Government -- composed of military and intelligence agencies and the largest corporations -- so sprawling and unaccountable that nobody even knows what it does? This public/private Secret Government spies, detains, interrogates, and even wages wars in the dark, while sucking up untold hundreds of billions of dollars every year for the private corporations which run it. Has any investigative series ever caused less of a ripple than this one? After a one-day spate of television appearances for Dana Priest and William Arkin -- most of which predictably focused on the bureaucratic waste they raised along with whether the Post had Endangered the Nation by writing about all of this -- the story faded blissfully into the ether, never to be heard from again, easily subsumed by the Andrew Breitbart and Journolist sagas.

 

Any doubt about whether there'd be any meaningful (or even cosmetic) changes as a result of the Post exposé (it was really more a compilation of already known facts) was quickly dispelled by the reaction of the political class: not just one of indifference, but outright contempt for the concerns raised by this story. On Tuesday -- 24 hours after the first installment appeared -- the Senate's Homeland Security Committee removed a provision from the Intelligence Authorization Act which would have provided some marginally greater oversight over the Government's secret intelligence programs, because Obama was threatening to veto any bill providing for such oversight. Then, Obama's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence, Ret. Lt. Gen. James Clapper, all but laughed at the Post's work, dismissing it during his Senate confirmation hearing as "sensationalism," praising the bureaucratic redundancies as "competitive analysis," and insisting that the National Security and Surveillance State are perfectly "under control." The Post's Jeff Stein today documents how Congressional Democrats can barely rouse themselves to the pretense that they intend to do anything to impose any restraints or accountability on Top Secret America. And it was revealed this week by McClatchy that our vaunted "withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq" will be accomplished only by assembling a privatized militia that will serve as the State Department's "army in Iraq" long after our actual army "withdraws."

 

Political elites don't even feel compelled to pretend to be able or willing to do anything about this. Just think about this: on Monday, the Post documents a vast Secret Government bequeathed with unimaginable secrecy and unaccountability, and the rest of the week is filled with stories of the administration's blocking greater oversight and plans to escalate the privitization of our National Security and Surveillance State. That's why there was so little government angst over the Post's "revelations": aside from the fact that it revealed little that wasn't already known (Priest and Arkin withheld substantial amounts of information at the Government's request), even the impact of having the Post trumpet these facts was not a threat to much of anything, since there's nobody in a position to do much about this even if they wanted to. And few people seem to want to.

 

It's not hard to understand why. Why would the political class possibly want to subvert or weaken their ability to exercise vast spying, detention, and military powers in the dark? They don't. Beyond that, as the Post series highlights, Top Secret America provides not only the ability to exercise vast power with no accountability, but also enables the transfer of massive amounts of public wealth to the private national security and surveillance corporations which own the Government. Very few people with political power have the incentive to do anything about that. It's probably best not to hold your breath waiting for Dianne Feinstein -- the Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who lives in lavish wealth as a result of her husband's investments in the National Security State (and whose Senate career has a way of oh-so-coincidentally bolstering their wealth) -- to meaningfully address any of the issues raised by the Post series. Despite Feinstein's rhetoric to the contrary, doing so is decidedly not in her interests for multiple reasons.

 

What ties together virtually every political issue is the one highlighted in this new article in The Nation by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Entitled "No to Oligarchy," it documents with an array of facts how America's wealth is rapidly becoming more concentrated in a tiny number of families while the middle class essentially disappears. As Sanders emphasizes, the outcome is not only the destruction of the "American dream," but serious threats to the very concept of a republican form of government:

 

Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

 

But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.

 

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.

 

Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. . . .

 

But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax—they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.

 

[Quick: look over there at Pakistan, exclaims The New York Times: "Pakistan's Elite Pay Few Taxes, Widening Gap"]. Sanders quotes Teddy Roosevelt in 1910 explaining why a graduated estate tax was not only economically just but -- more important -- crucial to maintaining basic democratic values:

 

The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.

 

What was once a word that only the most UnSerious of people would utter as applied to the U.S. -- "oligarchy" -- is today one that can't be avoided if one wants accurately to describe our political culture. Sanders warns of an "oligarchy in which a handful of wealthy and powerful families control the destiny of our nation." The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, extraordinarily confessed last year that it is Wall Street banks which "frankly own" the Congress. In virtually every area, the subservience of Government to large business interests is so complete that it's impossible to find the line where government ends and corporate power begins. It's a full-scale merger. That's the central fact of our political life. Most everything else is a distraction.

 

That's why it's simultaneously so astounding and so unsurprising to watch the obscene spectacle unfold that is inevitably leading to cuts in Social Security. In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman accurately observes that Republicans are attempting to rehabilitate Bush because they are the same GOP with the same platform as prevailed throughout the last decade, just decorated with some re-branding. That's all clearly true, but what isn't quite true is this paragraph:

 

In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They've even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.

 

It is absolutely beyond the Republicans' power to cut Social Security, even if they retake the House and Senate in November, since Obama will continue to wield veto power. The real impetus for Social Security cuts is from the "Deficit Commission" which Obama created in January by Executive Order, then stacked with people (including its bipartisan co-Chairs) who have long favored slashing the program, and whose recommendations now enjoy the right of an up-or-down vote in Congress after the November election, thanks to the recent maneuvering by Nancy Pelosi. The desire to cut Social Security is fully bipartisan (otherwise it couldn't happen) and pushed by the billionaire class that controls the Government.

 

The secret, omnipotent National Security State highlighted by The Washington Post will endure and expand as is because those who control the Government (or, as Dick Durbin put it, who "own" the Government) benefit endlessly from it. Major scandals or citizen-infuriating crises can sometimes lead to some modest and easily circumvented restraints being placed on this power (as just happened with the recently enacted Financial Regulation bill), largely to placate public rage, but it's simply impossible to conceive of the political class taking any meaningful steps to rein in a limitlessly powerful and unquantifiably profitable National Security and Surveillance State -- at least in the absence of serious citizen revolts against it. That Post series produced so little reaction because what it describes -- a Secret Government bestowed with the most extreme powers yet accountable to nobody -- is something to which the nation, as part of our State of Endless War, has apparently acquiesced as a permanent and tolerable condition.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

 

[Tooj 17]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/...415670223?f=rss

 

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have reportedly been compared to the gay cowboys in the Hollywood film Brokeback Mountain by a senior Tory MP.

 

Unguarded comments by David Davis were allegedly overheard by journalists sitting in the same restaurant as the former shadow home secretary.

 

Mr Davis is said to have approvingly repeated the description of the partnership between Prime Minister Mr Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg as "Brokeback Coalition".

 

He also allegedly mocked the PM's vision of the "Big Society" as "Blairite dressing" that was designed to hide his desire to shrink the state.

 

According to the Financial Times, Mr Davis made his remarks to businessmen, including former colleagues from Tate & Lyle.The comments were apparently made during a private lunch at the Boot and Flogger wine bar in Southwark, south London, on Thursday.

 

The MP reportedly said Lord Ashcroft, the ex-Conservative Party deputy chairman, had referred to the Government as "Brokeback Coalition".

 

That is a reference to the Oscar-winning film Brokeback Mountain, about a gay relationship between two cowboys.

 

Discussing the Big Society, Mr Davis reportedly made clear his belief that the concept was merely "a Blairite dressing".

 

"The corollary of the big society is the smaller state. If you talk about the small state, people think you're Attila the Hun," he is said to have told guests.

 

"If you talk about the big society, people think you're Mother Teresa."

 

Mr Davis joined the Tory frontbench after losing a leadership contest to Mr Cameron in 2005 before resigning to campaign against Labour's civil liberties policies.

 

He apparently also noted that there were not many jobs "unless you're female". This was, he said, because the Lib Dems had brought few women into office.

 

Mr Davis reportedly continued that he would be unfussed about the Lib Dems splitting internally.

 

He apparently insisted many right-leaning Lib Dems held "seats that should be Tory", and proposed that the party could agree not to run against "20 or 25" such Lib Dems as part of an electoral pact.

 

Given their party's weakness, this would be "an offer you can't refuse" for a "guaranteed seat for life", he reportedly said.

 

The FT said Mr Davis insisted he had been misheard when contacted over the remarks later.

[Tooj 17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10762043

 

The Health Protection Agency that handles public health emergencies such as swine flu is to be axed under reforms, the government has confirmed.

 

It, plus the fertility watchdog the HFEA, is among the eight or ten of the 18 "arms-length bodies" that will go or be merged with other organisations.

 

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said the aim was to save costs and cut bureaucracy in the NHS.

 

He stressed that essential work would be moved to other bodies.

 

Most of the changes, designed to save £180m over the next few years, apply to England only, although some arms-length bodies cover the whole of the UK.

 

The Arms-length bodies review report gives no current estimate of how many jobs will go.

 

Mr Lansley said: "Over the years the sector has grown to the point where overlap between organisations and duplication of effort have produced a needless bureaucratic web. By making sure that the right functions are being carried out at the appropriate level, we will free up significant savings to support front-line NHS services."

 

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will continue to function for the time being, but will transfer its functions by the end of the current Parliament between a new research regulator, the Care Quality Commission, and the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

 

The HPA, which has been responsible for responding to public health hazards such as bird flu and swine flu since 2003, will hand over its workload to the Secretary of State as part of the new Public Health Service.

 

The National Patient Safety Agency will also go. Patient safety will instead be overseen by the National Commissioning Board, while its research and ethics functions will move elsewhere.

 

Some applaud the changes, saying they will cut waste. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which is to go, has been heavily criticised for spending billions of pounds on schemes with little proof they work.

 

But opponents say closures could compromise patient and public safety.

 

Peter Walsh, chief executive of the charity Action against Medical Accidents said: "There is no denying that there is scope for bringing some of the quangos together, however we must avoid the danger that work on patient safety could be watered down in the new arrangements.

 

"We will want to be assured that the new arrangements will include safeguards to ensure that patient safety really does get the priority it needs and that the skills, knowledge and passion of those who currently champion patient safety are transferred to the new body."

 

Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, questioned the abolition of the HPA saying: "Public health messages are often more effective coming from this agency than the Government."

[Percy Street 0]

So much of what the Tories are doing is driven not by need but of their traditional dislike of the public sector and public sector unions. That the sons and daughters of Thatcher are being aided and abetted in their dirty deeds by so called bloody Liberals is one that party may want to ponder. And they may want to pnder it some more when , as I suspect, they get a kicking in the next local elections. Tory voters voted for this public sector hatchet job, I doubt Lib Dem voters did.

 

This is not the 80's when the ice queen had a huge majority - Labour needs to get its act together and soon for when this marriage of career convenience heads for the divorce courts. Clegg's grab for office is the most shameless abandonment of doing the right thing since Blair crawled up George Bush's arse but I digress.

[Meenzer 14031]

The only defence the Lib Dems can call upon is "what the hell else could we have done?". I think that should hold some sway come the next locals, in light of how they would have been slaughtered by the Tory media if they'd refused the coalition, but it won't. And maybe that's fair enough.

[NJS 3977]

The only defence the Lib Dems can call upon is "what the hell else could we have done?".

 

I've been harsh on them but at the same time I completely accept that view - I don't even think despite it being called a "coalition" that they have that much say in overall direction.

[ewerk 26284]

Four in 10 Lib Dem voters reject coalition - poll

 

 

Four in 10 people who say they voted Lib Dem would not have done had they known the party would enter a coalition with the Tories, a poll suggests.

 

But 86% of Conservative voters would have voted the same way had they known their party would join forces with the Lib Dems, the ComRes survey found.

 

The poll of 1,009 adults for Newsnight also showed 37% of Lib Dem voters felt their party was dishonest about cuts.

 

Lord Ashdown said the coalition was the only option for a stable government.

 

The survey, conducted last week, appears to show support for the coalition is much stronger among Tory voters than those who backed the Lib Dems.

 

Overall, almost three quarters of those who voted Conservative or Lib Dem said they would have still voted the same way if they had known a coalition would be formed.

 

'High price'

 

But while 86% of Conservative supporters would still have voted for their party, the percentage drops to 58% among Lib Dems.

 

Asked whether the Lib Dems had strengthened or weakened the party's identity since entering the coalition, 60% of all those polled agreed the party had weakened its identity and that they no longer knew what it stood for, while 34% believed it had strengthened it.

 

Among Lib Dem voters, 53% believed their party's identity had been weakened, while 45% believed it had been strengthened.

 

But former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown told Newsnight that he believed the Tory/Lib Dem coalition was the only combination that had offered "a stable government with a clear majority in the House of Commons at a time of crisis".

 

"Coalitions are usually about establishing the lowest common denominator between the two parties. This coalition's not - it's a genuinely reform-minded, a genuinely radical programme of reform. So this far, it's going far better than I imagined it could," he said.

 

But Lord Ashdown also suggested he would like to see the government "make haste a bit more slowly" and that it was sometimes wiser to test new policies out in pilot schemes before making decisions.

 

The survey also asked voters about their attitudes to public spending cuts - and whether they felt they had been sufficiently warned by the parties of their plans.

Conservative supporters were more likely to say their party was honest about cuts (82%), compared to 58% of both Lib Dem and Labour voters.

Cuts essential?

 

On the scale of the planned cuts, more than half of all people (57%) agreed that the coalition's proposed departmental cuts of at least 25% were too severe.

Some 57% of Lib Dem voters agreed with this statement, compared to 46% of Conservative voters.

 

Two thirds of people (64%) agreed these cuts were essential for the government to balance its books.

 

Again, Conservative voters were more likely to back the proposed level of cuts - with 89% agreeing they were essential. This compared with 69% of Lib Dem voters.

 

But despite the apparent Tory support for the coalition, former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit warned that his party should beware it was not paying "too high a price for co-operation in solving short-term difficulties", such as the economic crisis.

 

"We have to be careful that we do not slide into making constitutional reforms to please our Lib Dem colleagues, which are of infinitely greater long-term importance than some of the short-term economic decisions in which we need their help," he told Newsnight.

 

He added: "The Conservative Party has always taken the long view. That's why we've lasted so long as a party."

 

The Newsnight poll also found that more than a half of all those asked (56%) agreed that the scale of cuts was likely to threaten economic recovery. This compared with 38% who disagreed.

 

A total of 61% of all people asked believed the cuts would affect them directly.

 

ComRes interviewed 1,009 British adults by telephone between 23 and 25 July 2010.

[Happy Face 29]

Five Days that Changed Britain

 

Did everyone watch?

 

Labour - Did all they could but had to stick to their principles. Unable to work with outlandish requests from lib dems (who wanted to cut spending immediately even if they joined up with labour)

 

Tories - Reasonable pragmatists, willing to make compromises to bring the Lib Dems in but graciously accept losing out if it happens.

 

Lib Dems - Like a teenage tart at the school disco running after the sexy boy and the funny one at the same time. Somehow contriving to disregard both principle and pragmatism all at once.

 

Won't have done Clegg's poll numbers any good.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Five Days that Changed Britain

 

Did everyone watch?

 

Labour - Did all they could but had to stick to their principles. Unable to work with outlandish requests from lib dems (who wanted to cut spending immediately even if they joined up with labour)

 

Tories - Reasonable pragmatists, willing to make compromises to bring the Lib Dems in but graciously accept losing out if it happens.

 

Lib Dems - Like a teenage tart at the school disco running after the sexy boy and the funny one at the same time. Somehow contriving to disregard both principle and pragmatism all at once.

 

Won't have done Clegg's poll numbers any good.

 

 

A good watch and a fairly good summary, however there were two labour partys at play. One, including Brown who wanted to keep going and the younger generation who had no interest in a deal and preferred the time in opposition to stake their own claims for power. ( a wise move).

 

Cameron came out of the program very well.......and yes I would say that.....but he did

[Happy Face 29]

Five Days that Changed Britain

 

Did everyone watch?

 

Labour - Did all they could but had to stick to their principles. Unable to work with outlandish requests from lib dems (who wanted to cut spending immediately even if they joined up with labour)

 

Tories - Reasonable pragmatists, willing to make compromises to bring the Lib Dems in but graciously accept losing out if it happens.

 

Lib Dems - Like a teenage tart at the school disco running after the sexy boy and the funny one at the same time. Somehow contriving to disregard both principle and pragmatism all at once.

 

Won't have done Clegg's poll numbers any good.

 

 

A good watch and a fairly good summary, however there were two labour partys at play. One, including Brown who wanted to keep going and the younger generation who had no interest in a deal and preferred the time in opposition to stake their own claims for power. ( a wise move).

 

Cameron came out of the program very well.......and yes I would say that.....but he did

 

Don't think he came out particularly well for lying to his own party that Labour would give the Lib Dems voting reforms.

[Craig 6302]

Five Days that Changed Britain

 

Did everyone watch?

 

Labour - Did all they could but had to stick to their principles. Unable to work with outlandish requests from lib dems (who wanted to cut spending immediately even if they joined up with labour)

 

Tories - Reasonable pragmatists, willing to make compromises to bring the Lib Dems in but graciously accept losing out if it happens.

 

Lib Dems - Like a teenage tart at the school disco running after the sexy boy and the funny one at the same time. Somehow contriving to disregard both principle and pragmatism all at once.

 

Won't have done Clegg's poll numbers any good.

 

Reasonable assessment. It does seem more and more than the party who'd accepted the need for a coalition first was the Tories - I would have thought they'd have been the last to accept it.

 

Agree about the Lib Dems - the point that shocked me more than any was when Nick Robinson put it to Clegg that on spending cuts he'd reversed the policy set out in his manifesto completely following the election result and for him to actually admit he'd changed his mind beforehand. Incredible.

 

Labour's main failings into why they could not form a coalition was because Brown targeted the wrong people (Ashdown, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable) and totally dis-regarded Clegg - probably on account that he knew Clegg couldn't stand him but either way that was the fatal blow.

 

Robinson summed it up towards the end perfectly when he said that the die was cast that the Labour needed Brown to take them through this tough period but that Clegg couldn't work with Brown. The rest kinda fell into place after that.

 

Interesting to see how tight it became on the Tuesday evening though and that Brown threatened to walk before he was able to do so. Cameron not even knowning what type of government he would be forming even as he entered the palace.

 

Bregrudgingly have to agree with CT and say that Cameron comes out of it looking good. I think Mandleson did too but it's egg on the face for Clegg.

[Craig 6302]

Cameron came out of the program very well.......and yes I would say that.....but he did

 

Don't think he came out particularly well for lying to his own party that Labour would give the Lib Dems voting reforms.

 

It's questionable that he did lie. He said that he believed that was going to be the case at the time (yes, I know he would say that but then these meetings were all so secretive that it's not surprising there was Chinese whispers).

[Craig 6302]

A leap in the dark

Nick Robinson

 

The thing about working in news is that you almost never have the time or, frankly, the inclination to review what you said and judge whether it has stood the test of time.

 

For the past few weeks, however, I've done just that - re-living the five days that led to the creation of Britain's first coalition government in 65 years.

 

Happily I have not come across any gross inaccuracies but am struck by my failure - shared by many - to join the dots. In particular, I wish I'd listened more to two Liberal Democrats who told me during the election that they could see David Cameron doing a post-election deal.

 

Neil Sherlock, an adviser to this and many previous Lib Dem leaders, rang to remind me of what the Tory leader had said in a Radio 4 documentary I had made about Disraeli. Cameron had praised Dizzy for outmanoeuvring Gladstone on the issue of political reform and quoted a historian who said that the former Tory PM had "taken a leap in the dark and then leapt again". Neil's view was that anyone who could appreciate Disraeli's bold risk-taking was capable of replicating it.

 

Chris Huhne told me and his party that Cameron was the only Napoleonic leader left in Europe. In other words, whatever the Tory leader said became Tory policy.

 

Both were proved right.

 

There were a lot of reasons why Cameron was in the driving seat after polling day - his party had the most votes and seats; the Lib Dems had promised to respect this "mandate" in negotiations (they didn't have to, since in other parts of the world it's not uncommon for the second and third parties to form a government); Labour had had 13 years in office and three terms; and, of course, Gordon Brown was unpopular.

 

However, the personalities of the two leaders were vital to what happened in those five days. David Cameron told me for a programme on the making of the coalition, which is broadcast tonight, that he woke up on Friday morning after a few hours of sleep and decided that a coalition was right for Britain. The truth is, I believe, a little more complex. Cameron sensed that he was unlikely to secure a majority, feared the consequences for him and his modernising project of failing and had talked with his closest allies about a coalition well before polling day.

 

In stark contrast, Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer for the Lib Dems, nor got the backing of his Cabinet, nor developed a relationship with Nick Clegg. This, despite the fact that he must have known that a Lib/Lab deal was likely to be his best hope of political survival. As so often with Brown this was not a failure to see ahead. He had, after all, proposed radical political reform, but he'd done it so late in his time in Downing Street that it wasn't taken seriously.

 

Instead of building a relationship with the man with whom he might have to share power, Gordon Brown relied instead on his contacts with former Lib Dem leaders - Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown and Menzies Campbell - and Vince Cable. Cable, who has known and liked Brown for three decades, was a regular pre-election visitor to Number 10. There were even hints of a ministerial job for him. Brown ignored the advice of Cable and all his Lib Dem friends to find a way to get on with Clegg. When I put it to Peter Mandelson that Clegg found Brown impossible, the Prince of Darkness replied with a wry grin that "No... he'd found him Gordon-ish".

 

There was another factor beyond the personal - the economic context on that post-election weekend. The crisis talks over how to prevent the Greek debt crisis spreading contagion throughout the eurozone were little reported in Britain, but officials in the Treasury and the Bank of England were focused on little else. Their fear was what one official describes as a "perfect storm" if the EU failed to agree a bail-out plan and Britain failed to produce a stable government by the time the markets opened on the Monday morning after the election.

 

When negotiators from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came to the Cabinet Office for their first meeting, the Cabinet Secretary left them in no doubt what was expected of them. "My advice to them," Sir Gus O'Donnell tells the programme, "[was] that pace was important but that also the more comprehensive the agreement the better." If things had gone wrong, he says, "the markets would really have made us pay a price on the Monday morning by selling our debt and that would have been a real problem for the country."

 

Labour figures insist that all the arguments used by the Lib Dems - the Parliamentary arithmetic, the market warnings, the prime minister being "Gordon-ish" - are mere alibis to cover the fact that they made a choice to get into bed with the Conservative rather than Labour.

 

What is striking reviewing those five days is how each of those reasons or alibis - take your pick - could be seen in advance. It was always likely that the Tories would be the largest party after the election. It was always evident that the Lib Dems were more hawkish on the deficit than Labour: Nick Clegg was the first to talk of "savage cuts"; Vince Cable was the first to spell out how they might be made; Chris Huhne used to work for a credit rating agency; David Laws is a former merchant banker. And it always evident that Nick Clegg found Gordon Brown impossible to deal with.

 

If only I'd listened to more to those two Lib Dems, I would also have predicted David Cameron's boldness - Labour's Andrew Adonis calls it his "strategic brilliance" - and the Tory leader's capacity to get pretty much anything past his party.

 

Note to self: Must try harder...

 

Update, 10:54, 29 July: Those who think I've been too hard on Gordon Brown will be interested in Anthony Seldon's account in today's Independent of how he played those five days in May.

 

He reports what Brown would have said if he'd agreed to be interviewed for tonight's documentary - namely that he was always willing to stand aside to enable a coalition with the Lib Dems after a referendum on full scale political reform - PR and an elected Lords - had been held; that he signalled a willingness to talk about his future in his first phone call with Clegg and that he was explicit about it in their first meeting.

 

I've no doubt that Brown was sincere in his efforts to build a coalition and that he was not helped by colleagues who thought Labour should accept defeat - ranging from Alistair Darling to Tony Blair.

 

The problem was that it was too late. The Lib Dems were deeply suspicious of Brown - blaming him for resisting a deal between Blair and Ashdown in the 90s, for trying to recruit Paddy Ashdown to the Cabinet in 2007 without offering the Lib Dems anything in return and for only backing AV in the dying weeks of 13 years of New Labour rule. His relationship with Clegg was poor. The Labour Party had moved on.

 

Once again Brown saw what needed to be done but simply could not do it.

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

[Craig 6302]

How Brown and Clegg let it slip

Anthony Seldon

 

Brown's decision to offer his own head stunned Clegg and made him realise, for the first time, that Brown was serious about trying to make a Lib-Lab pactwork

 

Much has been written about the dramatic negotiations that took place between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and Labour in the immediate aftermath of the indecisive election of May. Yet Gordon Brown's role in these momentous days is in danger of being badly misrepresented. His role needs to be reappraised if the history of this period is to be accurately recorded.

 

It is said about Brown that, firstly, he was reluctant to resign, and secondly, according to Peter Mandelson, that it was Nick Clegg who finished Brown's political career by insisting that he go as part of any coalition deal between the two parties. Neither claim is right. Brown was, of course, desperate to keep Labour in power, and David Cameron out of office. But he knew – and had known for a long time – that he would have to make the ultimate sacrifice. It was Brown who told Clegg that he was willing to fall on his sword to bring about a historic realignment of British politics, and not the other way around. Once he had secured the passage of an electoral reform bill, and thus his own place in history, Brown told Clegg he would depart the stage.

 

Brown and Clegg had their first telephone call on the Friday evening. In it Brown made clear to Clegg that he was committed to seizing the historic opportunity to build a progressive alliance. Do not, Brown said, "doubt our political will". Citing their "common cause on Europe", Brown said that "ideologically, there are no big differences between us" and where policy differences did exist, on ID cards for example, Brown reassured Clegg that these could easily be dealt with. Brown also reiterated his commitment to electoral reform. Clegg gratefully told Brown: "I think our two parties working together are much more likely to achieve real change than anything we can do with the Conservatives."

 

Policy differences were never going to be the issue. During this call Brown then said: "There is something I need to speak to you about but I can only do it face to face." Clegg was in no doubt what he meant: Brown accepted he was a stumbling block to any deal and he would have to go. The two leaders did not meet until late on Sunday morning after Brown had returned from Scotland. At this stage the Liberal Democrats and Conservative negotiating teams had made significant progress in their talks, and Cameron was sensing victory. To avoid the media glare they arranged to meet in the office of Sir Peter Ricketts, then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. It was at this private meeting between the two leaders that Brown told Clegg he would resign in the autumn once he had steered a bill on electoral reform through the Commons.

 

Brown's decision to offer his own head on a plate stunned Clegg and made him realise, for the first time, that Brown was serious about trying to make a Lib-Lab pact work. Until then the Liberal Democrats, partly because of electoral arithmetic – Labour plus Liberal MPs did not muster a parliamentary majority – and also because of real concerns that they would be damaged if seen to be propping up a losing Brown premiership, had not taken the option of working with Labour seriously.

 

Brown's offer to resign transformed the dynamics of the negotiations. Paddy Ashdown began to believe that his life-long goal of healing the fracture between the two parties might be possible. Then, on Sunday evening, Brown and Clegg met again but this time they were joined by their lieutenants, Peter Mandelson and Danny Alexander. When Brown's own position was discussed at this meeting he prevaricated. He refused to be as explicit as he had been with Clegg in private earlier in the day. Why? Not because he had changed his mind, but because he worried that the others in the room would leak the news. This apparent shift in position worried Clegg, who wondered whether Brown meant what he said. On the Monday at 5pm Brown decided to make public his promise to Clegg, and resigned as Labour leader. His critics claimed it represented the last throw of the dice from a Machiavellian politician. In truth he had always planned to go. The effect was electric. As the Lib Dems announced they were opening formal talks with Labour the Conservatives slammed one of their big cards on the table: the offer of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system.

 

For Brown, Andrew Adonis was the key figure in Labour's negotiating team. He spoke to him constantly. To show how serious they were about political reform, Adonis, at the behest of Brown, let it be known that Labour was open to the idea of holding a multi-question referendum containing not only an option for AV (which Labour would support) but also the Holy Grail for the Lib Dems: proportional representation. Despite such a sweetener it became clear on the Monday and Tuesday that the Lib Dems were cooling on the idea of a deal with Labour.

 

The Brown team was taken aback when the Lib Dems revealed that they had shifted their position on the deficit from that in their manifesto and were now calling for a more rapid fiscal consolidation. What explains this volte face? Incredibly the Labour camp received intelligence from Vince Cable, the Lib Dems' Treasury spokesman, that his party had been personally lobbied by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, to adopt a much tougher position on spending cuts to placate the financial markets. When Brown challenged King on this directly later that evening, however, the Governor wouldn't be drawn.

 

By lunchtime on the Tuesday Brown had concluded that the talks were going nowhere. He began to prepare to go to the Palace. He stalled because Clegg called him and pleaded with him not to go. Clegg insisted that "I still think we can do a deal". Brown said Clegg must break off talks with the Tories to prove he was serious but Clegg evaded and kept demanding more time. In their third call at just before 7pm Brown said, "your time is up". At 7.20pm Brown walked out on to Downing Street with his wife, Sarah, and his two sons. It was the boys' idea to accompany their father: they had got used to watching history made outside No 10 and they now wanted to be a part of it themselves.

 

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ip-2037835.html

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Cameron came out of the program very well.......and yes I would say that.....but he did

 

Don't think he came out particularly well for lying to his own party that Labour would give the Lib Dems voting reforms.

 

It's questionable that he did lie. He said that he believed that was going to be the case at the time (yes, I know he would say that but then these meetings were all so secretive that it's not surprising there was Chinese whispers).

 

You only had to look at ashdown and Simon weird bloke ? To realise they were making all sorts of claims during the negotiations to get a better deal.

 

Clegg even smirked when asked about it.

[Happy Face 29]

Cameron came out of the program very well.......and yes I would say that.....but he did

 

Don't think he came out particularly well for lying to his own party that Labour would give the Lib Dems voting reforms.

 

It's questionable that he did lie. He said that he believed that was going to be the case at the time (yes, I know he would say that but then these meetings were all so secretive that it's not surprising there was Chinese whispers).

 

Agreed.

 

But he either got bounced or lied. The papers today are saying he got bounced and his back benchers are stirring against the coalition.

 

He's sent out a letter to placate disgruntled right wing elements...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ju...s-conservatives

 

Honeymoon could be over.