[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Damien

No AV in that list. Not sure what that is about.

List of coalition policies here (from 12:16 onwards):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...2010-live-blog

"Lib Dems priorities that have been secured

• Referendum to bring in some form of alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force the legislation for a referendum through, but they will be free to campaign against the reforms before referendum. "


I think that is a pretty good list of policies, with some surprising (but necessary) concessions from both sides.

And I am very pleased to see mention of a FREEDOM BILL and other civil liberty measures!

RIP ID Cards & other nonsense & goodbye New Labour Authoritarianism

Nice that both parties in coalition support civil liberties, & want to undo some of Labour's crap.

The fixed term parliament deal is going to apply to *this* parliament too. 5 year terms, only broken by an "enhanced majority". So, although there can still be an early election in some circumstances (presumably no confidence comes under that, as the other side would have an enhanced majority), no longer will the PM be able to go "quick, the polls are good - call an election now!".

That, plus what has been said by people on both sides, suggests strongly that each party is in this for the long term, they want this to work.

Originally Posted by Product 13

I've just heard that there'll be 20 posts handed out by the Con's to the lib's.

Yup, from what I saw on the BBC, Sky & elsewhere it was something like:

5 Cabinet positions: Deputy PM (Clegg), Scottish Secretary (Danny Alexander), Education Secretary (Laws), Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Cable), Home Secretary (Huhne).

Along with various other Ministerial positions, totalling 20 (not sure if that includes the more senior ones above).


Confirmation on the various positions (other than Deputy PM, which we already know is definite), along with policies, is expected on Wednesday.

Originally Posted by danielf

A statement from Nick Clegg is expected in a few minutes.

Near unanimous support apparently.

---------- Post added at 00:36 ---------- Previous post was at 00:33 ----------

Deal!

Yep!

Unanimous support from the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party.

Near-unanimous support (one "No" vote) from the Lib Dem Federal Executive.


Clegg's statement: http://www.libdemvoice.org/statement...-mp-19452.html

---------- Post added at 03:32 ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 ----------

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Not the result I voted for but then again three terms is enough for any government to hold sole power, I must say I think the LD's entering into a full coalition with the Tories could well prove to be a good thing for progressives in this country, this way both sides have to compromise meaning that any ideological fantasies some Tories might have had will have to be binned.
Personally I'm of the opinion that no party should end up with a big majority, it just seems to encourage ministers of the day to pay lip-service to parliament and to try and run things from a small clique of people in number 10.
One point I would like to raise is the near hysteria some posters seem to be experiencing about a so called "rudderless ship", this fallacy is ridiculous the civil service have not suddenly disappeared from their jobs, and anything important enough to require the attention of a minister, like Darling attending a meeting with Europe's finance ministers the other day was being taken care off.
Methinks its more to do with misdirected anger towards the LD's because they dared to speak with Labour, either way its immaterial now as we now have a solution that thanks to the fact it wasn't rushed through in a couple of hours to appease our biased press, has a very real chance of lasting.
Five days to do a deal that'll last or a few hours to appease Murdochs toilet paper?? thankfully Cameron had a bit more savvy.

Yup, I'm glad they took their time over it. Hell, compared to Europe though it was rushed - apparently deals can take a month to negotiate in some countries!

Re. anger toward the Lib Dems:

I don't think the talks with Labour were particularly serious. From what I have read, the Lib Dems were utterly unimpressed with what Labour offered (which was, I believe... the Labour manifesto) & felt that no real concessions were made by them. And of course various senior Labour MPs publicly trashed the idea of a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Sky Guardian

There was nothing illegitimate about them talking with Labour, anyway. I think convention would actually have dictated that they talked to them *first*, as the incumbents. Clegg kept his word that he'd talk to the party with the mandate first & had proper, serious, talks with the Tories. They later talked to Labour, & later still had more formal talks, but I think they knew nothing would come of it.

------------

Re. anger toward the Lib Dems from those on the Left, including people who may have voted Lib Dem this time to "keep the Tories out":

They (the voters) should get over it.

People voting Lib Dem didn't produce a Tory win, people voting Tory did. They got the highest no. of votes & the highest no. of seats. The main swing was from Labour votes to Tory votes (5% swing IIRC), not Labour votes to Lib Dem votes. The main seat change was Labour to Tory, not Labour to Lib Dem. 90-odd seats changed from Labour to the Tories, that's why they "won". The Lib Dems actually lost seats, they didn't cost Labour the election. Labour cost themselves the election.

---------- Post added at 03:54 ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 ----------

Oh, something I meant to reply to in the previous thread, but forgot before it was locked:

Regarding "Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham"...

A previous post saying that the Dark Lord could use the Peerage Act 1963 to resign his peerage and enable him to seek election to the House of Commons is incorrect.

Mandelson is a life peer, not a hereditary peer. Only hereditary peers may disclaim their peerages under the Peerage Act 1963.

Labour did plan on introducing legislation enabling life peers to resign, as part of the recent Constitutional Reform Bill. IIRC some people did allege at the time that perhaps it was aimed at enabling Mandelson to resign his peerage and get back in the Commons...

However, the Bill was dropped in the run up to the dissolution of Parliament.

So Mandelson is stuck with his life peerage and barred from entering the House of Commons...