As ABC news reports, David Cameron as PM, Nick Clegg as deputy PM.
Guardian live blog with the latest.
It’s the middle of the night, London time, so we’ll probably have to wait for their morning for a lot more detail.
It’ll be interesting to see how this works, to say the least. It seems to me (from this long distance away) that underneath Cameron’s thin veneer the Conservatives retain a very strong core of Europhobic, economically Thatcherite, climate-skeptic hard-right members.
But then, the ALP theoretically contains a core of socially liberal environmentalists, and look at what Rudd’s delivered us so far…
Elsewhere [dk.au]: Will Davies provides some incisive sociological analysis of the result
It’ll be interesting to see how this works
You’re assuming that it will, I take it
I have about as much faith in this coalition as I would a coalition of the Nationals and the Greens here. Hopefully Nick Clegg enjoys this taste of power, cos I suspect it may be the last taste the LibDems will get…
It’ll be interesting to see how this works
You’re assuming that it will, I take it
I have about as much faith in this coalition as I would a coalition of the Nationals and the Greens here. Hopefully Nick Clegg enjoys this taste of power, cos I suspect it may be the last taste the LibDems will get…
As an aside, I really hate the Guardian’s “blog” style of news production. I saw the headline this morning and went to read the article, only to find a huge page of minuute-ly updates like “8:13, Gordon Brown is doing a poo and will address a news conference in 3 minutes,” “8:15, Gordon Brown is nearly finished and will be here shortly.” You just can’t get information from that style of news. It’s really self-indulgent journalistic crap.
As an aside, I really hate the Guardian’s “blog” style of news production. I saw the headline this morning and went to read the article, only to find a huge page of minuute-ly updates like “8:13, Gordon Brown is doing a poo and will address a news conference in 3 minutes,” “8:15, Gordon Brown is nearly finished and will be here shortly.” You just can’t get information from that style of news. It’s really self-indulgent journalistic crap.
I have seen coverage to the effect that this was actually a good election to lose given the state of Britain’s public finances and the unpopular sort of policy measures which the financial markets will demand from whichever party/parties finished up in government (and which none of the three major parties would be likely to summon the will to refuse). This might explain the reported reluctance of Labour to deal seriously with the LibDems on formation of a coalition government.
I have seen coverage to the effect that this was actually a good election to lose given the state of Britain’s public finances and the unpopular sort of policy measures which the financial markets will demand from whichever party/parties finished up in government (and which none of the three major parties would be likely to summon the will to refuse). This might explain the reported reluctance of Labour to deal seriously with the LibDems on formation of a coalition government.
I guess this is where this election diverges from the Tasmanian one. Anyone care to guess which government will last longer, Labor-Green or Tory-LibDem?
I guess this is where this election diverges from the Tasmanian one. Anyone care to guess which government will last longer, Labor-Green or Tory-LibDem?
Are the UK Lib-Dems going to go the same way as the Australian Democrats now that they have to make decisions rather than just watch on the sidelines?
Are the UK Lib-Dems going to go the same way as the Australian Democrats now that they have to make decisions rather than just watch on the sidelines?
This will be a golden age for the Tories. I reckon they will be in now for the next 15 years.
Good result given that the media had already decided that the majority of Britain had voted Tory.
This will be a golden age for the Tories. I reckon they will be in now for the next 15 years.
Good result given that the media had already decided that the majority of Britain had voted Tory.
@Guido
Yes. Nick Clegg has just volunteered to be the Meg Lees of British politics.
@Guido
Yes. Nick Clegg has just volunteered to be the Meg Lees of British politics.
“This might explain the reported reluctance of Labour to deal seriously with the LibDems on formation of a coalition government.”
Maybe. They might have just gone for a kind of meltdown multi-coalition government just focused on bringing about immediate electoral reform for an another election just as soon the new system was set up.
That way Labor would likely have had a large enough majority to even stare down the financial market. Guess they just did not have Balls and wanted a rest.
“This might explain the reported reluctance of Labour to deal seriously with the LibDems on formation of a coalition government.”
Maybe. They might have just gone for a kind of meltdown multi-coalition government just focused on bringing about immediate electoral reform for an another election just as soon the new system was set up.
That way Labor would likely have had a large enough majority to even stare down the financial market. Guess they just did not have Balls and wanted a rest.
They will be punished at the next election. Tories happy with the result will of course vote Tory next time. Labor and Lib-Dem voters dissillusioned with their party will either vote Tory next time or more likely not waste their time and just not vote next time.
They will be punished at the next election. Tories happy with the result will of course vote Tory next time. Labor and Lib-Dem voters dissillusioned with their party will either vote Tory next time or more likely not waste their time and just not vote next time.
Most likely outcome is (in the months to come) for LD to be portrayed as obstructionist (what Cameron will want) and fresh elections held.
Labour still very much on the nose (GB replaced by DM will do nothing for them)and a romp in the park for Cons to get absolute majority in Commons.
Set and Match.
Most likely outcome is (in the months to come) for LD to be portrayed as obstructionist (what Cameron will want) and fresh elections held.
Labour still very much on the nose (GB replaced by DM will do nothing for them)and a romp in the park for Cons to get absolute majority in Commons.
Set and Match.
Now that the Conservatives have promised a referendum on reform of the British electoral system, I wonder how it will pan out when obviously they have no desire to change it. Maybe it will be like Howard and the Republic referendum. Somehow split those who want reform (ie direct proportional, preferential system with quotas etc.) and see the proposal go down?
Now that the Conservatives have promised a referendum on reform of the British electoral system, I wonder how it will pan out when obviously they have no desire to change it. Maybe it will be like Howard and the Republic referendum. Somehow split those who want reform (ie direct proportional, preferential system with quotas etc.) and see the proposal go down?
The Howard-Republic parallel is compelling.
Cameron now has the whip hand. Clegg gave it to him.
The Howard-Republic parallel is compelling.
Cameron now has the whip hand. Clegg gave it to him.
This is an utter betrayal of everyone who voted Lib-Dem, especially those who lived in seats that were effectively Con-Lib battles.
And why accept a referendum on preferential voting when Labour was offering one on proportional representation? The combination of preferential voting and a backlash against the Lib-Dems for making this deal will just lead to further entrenchment of the two-party system.
I also think that if they introduce preferential voting, it’s unlikely that PR will ever see the light of day in the UK, which is a pity.
This is an utter betrayal of everyone who voted Lib-Dem, especially those who lived in seats that were effectively Con-Lib battles.
And why accept a referendum on preferential voting when Labour was offering one on proportional representation? The combination of preferential voting and a backlash against the Lib-Dems for making this deal will just lead to further entrenchment of the two-party system.
I also think that if they introduce preferential voting, it’s unlikely that PR will ever see the light of day in the UK, which is a pity.
Perhaps the referendum should be one straight boolean –
Do you agree that the electoral system should produce a match of not less than 95% between the national support of any contending party and their numbers in the commons?
Followed by a scaled choice for all those who answered yes:
Rank the following electoral structures in order of your preference
[List options]
Perhaps the referendum should be one straight boolean –
Do you agree that the electoral system should produce a match of not less than 95% between the national support of any contending party and their numbers in the commons?
Followed by a scaled choice for all those who answered yes:
Rank the following electoral structures in order of your preference
[List options]
The Lib Dems had to go with the Conservatives, because they got the most votes. IMO, the backlash from the Lib Dems siding with Labour would have been greater than what they’ll get from siding with the Tories.
They could never please everybody, and they did the right thing – hold out for at least a good chance of electoral reform from Cameron. It’s what matters most for the Lib Dems’ future, not the temporary anger of their supporters for choosing right-wing bedfellows. Getting a better fit of seats to votes was all-important.
At one point I thought Brown’s superior offer in that area might even sway the Lib Dems to abandon democratic principles, and no doubt some (both within and without the party) will use that hypothetical against Clegg and the executive in years to come. However, we’ll never know if it would have been better or worse. All we know is that Great Britain will probably finally get more a representative parliament, which is an unalloyed good.
Of course, then the challenge will be getting a better correlation between parliament and social makeup re gender and ethnicity and economic status.
The Lib Dems had to go with the Conservatives, because they got the most votes. IMO, the backlash from the Lib Dems siding with Labour would have been greater than what they’ll get from siding with the Tories.
They could never please everybody, and they did the right thing – hold out for at least a good chance of electoral reform from Cameron. It’s what matters most for the Lib Dems’ future, not the temporary anger of their supporters for choosing right-wing bedfellows. Getting a better fit of seats to votes was all-important.
At one point I thought Brown’s superior offer in that area might even sway the Lib Dems to abandon democratic principles, and no doubt some (both within and without the party) will use that hypothetical against Clegg and the executive in years to come. However, we’ll never know if it would have been better or worse. All we know is that Great Britain will probably finally get more a representative parliament, which is an unalloyed good.
Of course, then the challenge will be getting a better correlation between parliament and social makeup re gender and ethnicity and economic status.
Jarrah@15: The centre-left parties received more than half of all votes cast, the centre-right parties less than half. It is not democratic principles that put in place a Conservative government today.
Jarrah@15: The centre-left parties received more than half of all votes cast, the centre-right parties less than half. It is not democratic principles that put in place a Conservative government today.
Popular votes are peripheral to this issue.
The point is that despite the popularity of the leftish side of British politics in comparison with the rightish side of British politics, the leftish side did not win sufficient seats to construct a workable parliamentary majority.
A Tory/LibDem arrangement turned out (narrowly) to be the only workable means of achieving a dependable majority in the Commons.
Nevertheless, Clegg delivered his support too cheaply.
Popular votes are peripheral to this issue.
The point is that despite the popularity of the leftish side of British politics in comparison with the rightish side of British politics, the leftish side did not win sufficient seats to construct a workable parliamentary majority.
A Tory/LibDem arrangement turned out (narrowly) to be the only workable means of achieving a dependable majority in the Commons.
Nevertheless, Clegg delivered his support too cheaply.
It was theoretically possible to construct a ‘rainbow coalition’ of Labour, Lib Dem, their NI allies and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, but it would have relied on tight discipline. With a large group of Labour MPs being steadfastly opposed to electoral reform there’s no way the referendum could have passed the Commons. Many Labour MPs was actively advocating going into opposition rather than allying with the Lib Dems.
It was theoretically possible to construct a ‘rainbow coalition’ of Labour, Lib Dem, their NI allies and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, but it would have relied on tight discipline. With a large group of Labour MPs being steadfastly opposed to electoral reform there’s no way the referendum could have passed the Commons. Many Labour MPs was actively advocating going into opposition rather than allying with the Lib Dems.
Nick Clegg has put his own interests above his party and may find it is they who will be first to exact revenge.
Nick Clegg has put his own interests above his party and may find it is they who will be first to exact revenge.
Not surprising – the Rainbow Coalition was just too fragile for the sort of wrangling that was going to be needed to pass electoral reform, deal with the deficit etc. As well, Brown’s resignation without a designated successor left the LDs uncertain who they’d be partnered with in September or whenever – Clegg could probably get along with David Milliband, but if his brother Ed or Ed Balls got in…
Coalition was vital for them as the other two routes (Tory minority and Rainbow Coalition) would have left them vulnerable to a snap election where the other two parties would again squeeze them hard and the media would heap shit on them for denying Britain the ‘strong government’ it needs to
jerk off the bond marketdeliver economic reform.The reason they got this much I suspect is down to Cameron’s weakness within the party – there was a lot of angst building up amongst the old party bluebloods over his leaderhip style, cliqueyness and soft and fuzzy policies (‘Big Society’ anyone?) and that was amplified when they limped to under 326 from a 15 pt lead just a few months ago. Bringing in the Lib Dems shores up the soft-n-fuzzy Tory position against the diehard Thatcherites and the Grandees.
Not surprising – the Rainbow Coalition was just too fragile for the sort of wrangling that was going to be needed to pass electoral reform, deal with the deficit etc. As well, Brown’s resignation without a designated successor left the LDs uncertain who they’d be partnered with in September or whenever – Clegg could probably get along with David Milliband, but if his brother Ed or Ed Balls got in…
Coalition was vital for them as the other two routes (Tory minority and Rainbow Coalition) would have left them vulnerable to a snap election where the other two parties would again squeeze them hard and the media would heap shit on them for denying Britain the ‘strong government’ it needs to
jerk off the bond marketdeliver economic reform.The reason they got this much I suspect is down to Cameron’s weakness within the party – there was a lot of angst building up amongst the old party bluebloods over his leaderhip style, cliqueyness and soft and fuzzy policies (‘Big Society’ anyone?) and that was amplified when they limped to under 326 from a 15 pt lead just a few months ago. Bringing in the Lib Dems shores up the soft-n-fuzzy Tory position against the diehard Thatcherites and the Grandees.
Many of the LibDem tax policies are to the right of the Tories, and they are the ones that have been adopted by the Tories (like raising the tax free threshold massively). Lots of people don’t realise that it was libertarians like Milton Friedman who first suggested that poor people shouldn’t pay any income tax.
I’m now conspiring with Tory friends over here to recruit Antony Green for the BBC coverage of the next general election, almost certain to be based on the ‘alternative vote’. That way British schoolchildren will get used to the phrases ‘two party preferred’, ‘preferential voting’ and the immortal ‘let’s see the chamber graphic again’.
Many of the LibDem tax policies are to the right of the Tories, and they are the ones that have been adopted by the Tories (like raising the tax free threshold massively). Lots of people don’t realise that it was libertarians like Milton Friedman who first suggested that poor people shouldn’t pay any income tax.
I’m now conspiring with Tory friends over here to recruit Antony Green for the BBC coverage of the next general election, almost certain to be based on the ‘alternative vote’. That way British schoolchildren will get used to the phrases ‘two party preferred’, ‘preferential voting’ and the immortal ‘let’s see the chamber graphic again’.
Has anyone read Polly Toynbee’s pathetic piece in the Guardian today? Not only does it have the most strangled metaphor in the history of writing (and a phallic one to boot – the “rocket” of a “progressive coalition”) but it contains this gem of wishful thinking:
I think I’ve heard rumours that she has a house in france but I think she’d have to be living permanently on the destination of her lib-labour rocket in order to believe that twaddle.
One enjoyable thing about the New Labour implosion has been watching all the self-satisfied middle class left who welcomed Blair trying to come to terms with how completely he has ruined his party and his country, while simultaneously managing to avoid ever admitting that he has. Every sentence is a juicy package of denial and cognitive dissonance which would be a horror for any leftist to read if the people writing it weren’t such obvious brown-nosing hacks like Polly and her mates. Keep it up Polly, you have to aim high to beat the Iraqi information minister but your efforts are always a pleasure.
Skepticlawyer, I can’t even be bothered checking but I’m pretty confident that the idea that poor people shouldn’t pay any income tax is a lot older than Milton Friedman. The only new ideas libertarian “economists” came up with are the crazy ones, so I’m pretty sure that one wasn’t his first.
Has anyone read Polly Toynbee’s pathetic piece in the Guardian today? Not only does it have the most strangled metaphor in the history of writing (and a phallic one to boot – the “rocket” of a “progressive coalition”) but it contains this gem of wishful thinking:
I think I’ve heard rumours that she has a house in france but I think she’d have to be living permanently on the destination of her lib-labour rocket in order to believe that twaddle.
One enjoyable thing about the New Labour implosion has been watching all the self-satisfied middle class left who welcomed Blair trying to come to terms with how completely he has ruined his party and his country, while simultaneously managing to avoid ever admitting that he has. Every sentence is a juicy package of denial and cognitive dissonance which would be a horror for any leftist to read if the people writing it weren’t such obvious brown-nosing hacks like Polly and her mates. Keep it up Polly, you have to aim high to beat the Iraqi information minister but your efforts are always a pleasure.
Skepticlawyer, I can’t even be bothered checking but I’m pretty confident that the idea that poor people shouldn’t pay any income tax is a lot older than Milton Friedman. The only new ideas libertarian “economists” came up with are the crazy ones, so I’m pretty sure that one wasn’t his first.
Too many of the comments here simply assume that the lib-dems can be understood as a party of the centre-left. It is far more complicated than that. During the campaign polling was done on the subject of whom lib-dem supporters would be comfortable about getting into bed with after the election. As it turns out, supporters were split on the question, as you would expect from a party that is itself a broad church of old social democrats and genuine liberals. On social policy, the lib-dems are more reliably “progressive” but that doesn’t exactly make them an ideal match for the modern Labour Party, which spent much of the past 13 years undermining civil liberties in Britain. The lib-dems will have their differences with both major parties. There will be tensions within the coalition. But as I said on the other thread, the Tories were prepared to concede much more ground on policy than Labour appeared to be and holding together the rainbow coalition would have been far more difficult. Also, while Labour might have been prepared to hold a referendum on proportional voting, they would have been unlikely to support that change in a referendum.
Too many of the comments here simply assume that the lib-dems can be understood as a party of the centre-left. It is far more complicated than that. During the campaign polling was done on the subject of whom lib-dem supporters would be comfortable about getting into bed with after the election. As it turns out, supporters were split on the question, as you would expect from a party that is itself a broad church of old social democrats and genuine liberals. On social policy, the lib-dems are more reliably “progressive” but that doesn’t exactly make them an ideal match for the modern Labour Party, which spent much of the past 13 years undermining civil liberties in Britain. The lib-dems will have their differences with both major parties. There will be tensions within the coalition. But as I said on the other thread, the Tories were prepared to concede much more ground on policy than Labour appeared to be and holding together the rainbow coalition would have been far more difficult. Also, while Labour might have been prepared to hold a referendum on proportional voting, they would have been unlikely to support that change in a referendum.
sg, what Milton Friedman was one of the first to propose was a negative income tax that was both simple (only 1 marginal tax rate), implied that poor and low-income workers paid no tax while receiving a guaranteed minimum income, and by rolling a lot of social transfers into the policy made it easier to avoid high effective marginal tax rates on low income workers. Perhaps you should actually do some reading? The person that first proposed it was a British Liberal who eventually became a conservative.
The negative income tax is progressive. How progressive depends on at what level of income the income tax cuts in. Friedman developed it as a more efficient way to to deliver social goals. That is, even though he wasn’t in favour of redistributive policies, he thought that if you were going to pursue them, the negative income tax was a superior way to do it.
SL’s main point is that you cannot assume that all the Lib-Dem policy ideas, especially on economics, have their origins in centre-left politcs. On that, she is right.
sg, what Milton Friedman was one of the first to propose was a negative income tax that was both simple (only 1 marginal tax rate), implied that poor and low-income workers paid no tax while receiving a guaranteed minimum income, and by rolling a lot of social transfers into the policy made it easier to avoid high effective marginal tax rates on low income workers. Perhaps you should actually do some reading? The person that first proposed it was a British Liberal who eventually became a conservative.
The negative income tax is progressive. How progressive depends on at what level of income the income tax cuts in. Friedman developed it as a more efficient way to to deliver social goals. That is, even though he wasn’t in favour of redistributive policies, he thought that if you were going to pursue them, the negative income tax was a superior way to do it.
SL’s main point is that you cannot assume that all the Lib-Dem policy ideas, especially on economics, have their origins in centre-left politcs. On that, she is right.
“On social policy, the lib-dems are more reliably “progressive” but that doesn’t exactly make them an ideal match for the modern Labour Party, which spent much of the past 13 years undermining civil liberties in Britain.”
Word up.
“On social policy, the lib-dems are more reliably “progressive” but that doesn’t exactly make them an ideal match for the modern Labour Party, which spent much of the past 13 years undermining civil liberties in Britain.”
Word up.
I’m aware of Friedman’s negative income tax, Labor Outsider, but that’s not the claim skepticlawyer is making, which is that the stunningly practical idea that the poor pay no income tax was a libertarian one. Unless the tax-free threshold is also Friedman’s idea?
I’m aware of Friedman’s negative income tax, Labor Outsider, but that’s not the claim skepticlawyer is making, which is that the stunningly practical idea that the poor pay no income tax was a libertarian one. Unless the tax-free threshold is also Friedman’s idea?
Nick Clegg seems to be under the impression that David Cameron and the Tories have learnt to share … uh oh! I think this coalition is going to end in tears …
Nick Clegg seems to be under the impression that David Cameron and the Tories have learnt to share … uh oh! I think this coalition is going to end in tears …
I was gobsmacked to hear the news. This was the least plausible outcome IMHO (short of Brown offering Clegg the leadership of a Lib-Lab coalition government).
I’m glad I didn’t put any money on this, as I really thought a minority Tory govt. supported in the Commons by the Lib Dems or a mega-progressive coalition were the only two options.
Dave has just signed the death warrant for single-party majority government in the UK. There is no way the combination of ministerial cred for Nick, Vince and co. plus the guaranteed pickups the Lib Dems are going to make with simple preferential voting doesn’t lead to at least AV Plus at the election after next.
I predict there might be one more majority Conservative or Labour govt., depending on the circumstances of the next election (this year? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015?) but it wouldn’t have any greater mandate than what Major won in ’92.
Then it’s hello continental elections for the mother of all parliaments.
I know that’s not meant to be a particularly deep observation, but what’s up with the lack of Australian Greens coming out and claiming the politics of Cleggmania for themselves? Andrew Bartlett seems to be the only one moving in that direction, and I think that’s mostly because as a former AD leader he would’ve had personal contact with the Lib Dem establishment.
I mentioned on the other thread that Billy Bragg is a Lib Dem booster. Isn’t that enough oldish Left cred for any local Greens concerned not to look too middle class?
I was gobsmacked to hear the news. This was the least plausible outcome IMHO (short of Brown offering Clegg the leadership of a Lib-Lab coalition government).
I’m glad I didn’t put any money on this, as I really thought a minority Tory govt. supported in the Commons by the Lib Dems or a mega-progressive coalition were the only two options.
Dave has just signed the death warrant for single-party majority government in the UK. There is no way the combination of ministerial cred for Nick, Vince and co. plus the guaranteed pickups the Lib Dems are going to make with simple preferential voting doesn’t lead to at least AV Plus at the election after next.
I predict there might be one more majority Conservative or Labour govt., depending on the circumstances of the next election (this year? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015?) but it wouldn’t have any greater mandate than what Major won in ’92.
Then it’s hello continental elections for the mother of all parliaments.
I know that’s not meant to be a particularly deep observation, but what’s up with the lack of Australian Greens coming out and claiming the politics of Cleggmania for themselves? Andrew Bartlett seems to be the only one moving in that direction, and I think that’s mostly because as a former AD leader he would’ve had personal contact with the Lib Dem establishment.
I mentioned on the other thread that Billy Bragg is a Lib Dem booster. Isn’t that enough oldish Left cred for any local Greens concerned not to look too middle class?
sg, Thomas Paine the radical Enlightenment genius at making complex issues simple argued in support of natural rights which in his mind meant an improvement in the material conditions of the underprivileged and a more egalitarian distribution of resources. In “Common Sense” and other writings he advocated no taxes for the poor and progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes to be used to finance social welfare schemes and programs.
He also wanted young people to be given bonuses so they could have a good start in life and advocated free education for the children of the poor and financial and material support for the unemployed.
It’s profoundly ironic that the US, the heartland and impetus for neo-liberal policies and which today has one of the most lax, regressive taxation systems in the developed world, was where Paine placed his hopes that such humane, democratic policies would be fully realised.
sg, Thomas Paine the radical Enlightenment genius at making complex issues simple argued in support of natural rights which in his mind meant an improvement in the material conditions of the underprivileged and a more egalitarian distribution of resources. In “Common Sense” and other writings he advocated no taxes for the poor and progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes to be used to finance social welfare schemes and programs.
He also wanted young people to be given bonuses so they could have a good start in life and advocated free education for the children of the poor and financial and material support for the unemployed.
It’s profoundly ironic that the US, the heartland and impetus for neo-liberal policies and which today has one of the most lax, regressive taxation systems in the developed world, was where Paine placed his hopes that such humane, democratic policies would be fully realised.
Vanessa, according to wikipedia when the tax was introduced by William Pitt it had a 60 pound threshold, which seems to indicate that the idea the poor should pay no income tax is as old as … income tax. I’m sure it’s been more clearly stated subsequently, but there doesn’t seem to be much chance that it’s a brainchild of the libertarian monster.
Vanessa, according to wikipedia when the tax was introduced by William Pitt it had a 60 pound threshold, which seems to indicate that the idea the poor should pay no income tax is as old as … income tax. I’m sure it’s been more clearly stated subsequently, but there doesn’t seem to be much chance that it’s a brainchild of the libertarian monster.
This rumour from the Guardian is great:
I had visions last year of the UK being forced by some kind of economic crisis into choosing to adopt the Euro, so that David Cameron could go down in history as the Conservative who abolished the pound. But I’ll settle for his being the Conservative who democratised the House of Lords.
I wonder if they’ll use the coalition as an excuse to get rid of his zany “Big Society” ideas, or if the 15 year old single mums and uneducated gaffers of the UK are going to be press-ganged into running local services within the year.
As they say over there: That’s Pants!!!!
This rumour from the Guardian is great:
I had visions last year of the UK being forced by some kind of economic crisis into choosing to adopt the Euro, so that David Cameron could go down in history as the Conservative who abolished the pound. But I’ll settle for his being the Conservative who democratised the House of Lords.
I wonder if they’ll use the coalition as an excuse to get rid of his zany “Big Society” ideas, or if the 15 year old single mums and uneducated gaffers of the UK are going to be press-ganged into running local services within the year.
As they say over there: That’s Pants!!!!
The negative income tax proposal of Friedman became the unearned income tax credit proposal that was bandied about by Nixon, implemented by Ford (don’t bite my head off if the actual policy doesn’t conform to Milton’s original paper, okay?)
It’s a very strange policy beast in the context of American politics, even more so than what Labor Outsider says about the contradiction of Friedman inventing it in the first place.
For instance, the `supply sider’ Reagan administration expanded it, saying it was a fundamental part of reducing the overall tax burden—yet a surprising number of the US Right commentariat hate it. They accuse it of being an instrument that allows the undeserving poor to bludge off society (I think the shitstorm caused by Obama telling that fake plumber guy that “we have to spread the wealth around” was part of a discussion that included unearned tax credits).
I disagree about the Libs Dems relying much on their classical liberal heritage. At the end of the day that stuff is as important to the contemporary party as the old Gang of Four’s cold warrior policies is. Ditching Trident isn’t something that would appear to conform to a Gaitskellite view of British military power.
The negative income tax proposal of Friedman became the unearned income tax credit proposal that was bandied about by Nixon, implemented by Ford (don’t bite my head off if the actual policy doesn’t conform to Milton’s original paper, okay?)
It’s a very strange policy beast in the context of American politics, even more so than what Labor Outsider says about the contradiction of Friedman inventing it in the first place.
For instance, the `supply sider’ Reagan administration expanded it, saying it was a fundamental part of reducing the overall tax burden—yet a surprising number of the US Right commentariat hate it. They accuse it of being an instrument that allows the undeserving poor to bludge off society (I think the shitstorm caused by Obama telling that fake plumber guy that “we have to spread the wealth around” was part of a discussion that included unearned tax credits).
I disagree about the Libs Dems relying much on their classical liberal heritage. At the end of the day that stuff is as important to the contemporary party as the old Gang of Four’s cold warrior policies is. Ditching Trident isn’t something that would appear to conform to a Gaitskellite view of British military power.
Nickws
“as I really thought a minority Tory govt. supported in the Commons by the Lib Dems”
I was pretty well sure on what I had read that this would have been the outcome. Im gobsmacked that the Lib Dems would risk splitting their party for cabinet posts. Will it be their “GST negotiations” moment that wrecks them, or will it see them a real political force?
Nickws
“as I really thought a minority Tory govt. supported in the Commons by the Lib Dems”
I was pretty well sure on what I had read that this would have been the outcome. Im gobsmacked that the Lib Dems would risk splitting their party for cabinet posts. Will it be their “GST negotiations” moment that wrecks them, or will it see them a real political force?
sg, perhaps more pertinently the idea that the privileged (rather than the poor) should pay no taxes is as old as income tax.
A major factor in cementing the role of the Roman Christian clergy was Constantine’s decision to grant priests freedom from taxation and conscription into the army. A later emperor, Gratian, freed priests from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
By the 5th century priests were a privileged, even dominant class: rich, firmly in charge of Church doctrine and all that entailed and largely a law unto themselves.
sg, perhaps more pertinently the idea that the privileged (rather than the poor) should pay no taxes is as old as income tax.
A major factor in cementing the role of the Roman Christian clergy was Constantine’s decision to grant priests freedom from taxation and conscription into the army. A later emperor, Gratian, freed priests from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
By the 5th century priests were a privileged, even dominant class: rich, firmly in charge of Church doctrine and all that entailed and largely a law unto themselves.
Ilium @ 16 – skepticlawyer and Labor Outsider have addressed your misconception, but even if dividing the various parties into two camps was possible, it’s not appropriate for analysing the election and the democratic bona fides of the result.
Regarding the pedigree of income tax exemptions, some sections of the Left oppose(d) anyone not paying tax, as it disconnects people from the communitarian project (see “From each according to his ability…”). In the same way, the military draft has also been, at times, advocated by certain flavours of Leftists.
Ilium @ 16 – skepticlawyer and Labor Outsider have addressed your misconception, but even if dividing the various parties into two camps was possible, it’s not appropriate for analysing the election and the democratic bona fides of the result.
Regarding the pedigree of income tax exemptions, some sections of the Left oppose(d) anyone not paying tax, as it disconnects people from the communitarian project (see “From each according to his ability…”). In the same way, the military draft has also been, at times, advocated by certain flavours of Leftists.
A sad, stupid, utterly counter-productive result.
Clegg should have resigned with Brown. What a despicable kick at the guts of ordinary Britains.
A sad, stupid, utterly counter-productive result.
Clegg should have resigned with Brown. What a despicable kick at the guts of ordinary Britains.
I’m a bit surprised at how negative everyone’s expectations for this coalition are.
Both parties seem to be negotiating in good faith, and they have clearly spelled out the issues that they will compromise on to work together. This offers a good basis for the electorates and media to hold them to account. There are serious downsides for both the Tories and Lib-Dems now if they are seen to be going back on this deal.
I think people are forgetting that much of the business of our parliaments is non-contentious and often has bipartisan support. We only hear about the points of disagreement. So this coalition will only be worrying about (at a wild guess) about 20% of the substance of government.
I am prepared to be hopeful about this. I think it could work, particularly given the impact of EU politics and the ‘green’ consensus in the UK.
I’m a bit surprised at how negative everyone’s expectations for this coalition are.
Both parties seem to be negotiating in good faith, and they have clearly spelled out the issues that they will compromise on to work together. This offers a good basis for the electorates and media to hold them to account. There are serious downsides for both the Tories and Lib-Dems now if they are seen to be going back on this deal.
I think people are forgetting that much of the business of our parliaments is non-contentious and often has bipartisan support. We only hear about the points of disagreement. So this coalition will only be worrying about (at a wild guess) about 20% of the substance of government.
I am prepared to be hopeful about this. I think it could work, particularly given the impact of EU politics and the ‘green’ consensus in the UK.
“It’s profoundly ironic that the US, the heartland and impetus for neo-liberal policies and which today has one of the most lax, regressive taxation systems in the developed world, was where Paine placed his hopes that such humane, democratic policies would be fully realised.”
I swear you guys just make shit up sometimes. The US tax system is not regressive, it is progressive. You pay more income tax the higher your income is. The top 5% of income earners pay more than half of total income tax. The US also does not levy a VAT (it does have a low sales tax though), unlike all European countries, which tends to be quite regressive. Post-tax income is highly unequal in the US primarily because pre-tax income is highly unequally distributed and because their welfare system is less redistributive than many European countries.
“It’s profoundly ironic that the US, the heartland and impetus for neo-liberal policies and which today has one of the most lax, regressive taxation systems in the developed world, was where Paine placed his hopes that such humane, democratic policies would be fully realised.”
I swear you guys just make shit up sometimes. The US tax system is not regressive, it is progressive. You pay more income tax the higher your income is. The top 5% of income earners pay more than half of total income tax. The US also does not levy a VAT (it does have a low sales tax though), unlike all European countries, which tends to be quite regressive. Post-tax income is highly unequal in the US primarily because pre-tax income is highly unequally distributed and because their welfare system is less redistributive than many European countries.
Jarrah@35: Firstly, I do not agree that it is inappropriate to see the Lib-Dem vote as centre-left simply because tactical voting is so widespread in the UK. There are seats where an anti-Tory vote must be realised as a Lib-Dem vote if it is to be effective.
Secondly, can you please back up your claim that a discussion of the popular vote is ‘not appropriate for analysing … the democratic bona fides of the result’? The Tories received much less than a majority of votes. I cannot see how this is not relevant.
Jarrah@35: Firstly, I do not agree that it is inappropriate to see the Lib-Dem vote as centre-left simply because tactical voting is so widespread in the UK. There are seats where an anti-Tory vote must be realised as a Lib-Dem vote if it is to be effective.
Secondly, can you please back up your claim that a discussion of the popular vote is ‘not appropriate for analysing … the democratic bona fides of the result’? The Tories received much less than a majority of votes. I cannot see how this is not relevant.
“Europhobic” – like joining the Euro is a good idea right now.
“Europhobic” – like joining the Euro is a good idea right now.
SG, @30,
from what I can recall, Pitt’s original income tax had no provisions for enforcement, and thus failed when most who were liable to pay income tax claimed their income as STG 59/19/11.
Wasn’t that tax also introduced to fund a war against Napoleon?
SG, @30,
from what I can recall, Pitt’s original income tax had no provisions for enforcement, and thus failed when most who were liable to pay income tax claimed their income as STG 59/19/11.
Wasn’t that tax also introduced to fund a war against Napoleon?
@38: The US, as such, does not issue a sales tax. The individual states do. Five states do not have a sales tax at all, the remaining 45 have varying rates.
@38: The US, as such, does not issue a sales tax. The individual states do. Five states do not have a sales tax at all, the remaining 45 have varying rates.
Heather – I know that, I just taking a short-cut to avoid having to spell out the detail. Similarly, many US states levy an income tax that is additional to the federal income tax. The US states benefit from considerably more revenue raising powers than the Australian states.
Heather – I know that, I just taking a short-cut to avoid having to spell out the detail. Similarly, many US states levy an income tax that is additional to the federal income tax. The US states benefit from considerably more revenue raising powers than the Australian states.
Stupid poms have just elected a bunch of silly-walking, kick-the-beggar upper-class twits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/uk-election-winner-meet-t_b_565762.html
Stupid poms have just elected a bunch of silly-walking, kick-the-beggar upper-class twits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/uk-election-winner-meet-t_b_565762.html
Razor …
Phobias are irrational or unsound fears rather than reluctance based on sound reasoning.
It might well be that for a variety of reasons, this isn’t the right time to try enmeshing the British financial system in Euro-rules. On the other hand, worrying about what Brussels says about the definition of the British sausage is pretty silly.
Razor …
Phobias are irrational or unsound fears rather than reluctance based on sound reasoning.
It might well be that for a variety of reasons, this isn’t the right time to try enmeshing the British financial system in Euro-rules. On the other hand, worrying about what Brussels says about the definition of the British sausage is pretty silly.
The Guardian has the full text of the Coalition agreement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/lib-dem-tory-deal-coalition
Voter-initiated by-elections if you can get a 10% petition of constituents to sign!
A commission on the West Lothian Question!
Green Investment Bank!
Other stuff!
d
The Guardian has the full text of the Coalition agreement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/lib-dem-tory-deal-coalition
Voter-initiated by-elections if you can get a 10% petition of constituents to sign!
A commission on the West Lothian Question!
Green Investment Bank!
Other stuff!
d
As has been pointed out elsewhere liberal-conservative coalitions are common in Europe, so is this a Europeanisation of the British Conservatives? However this is likely to encourage a renewed electoral push by the hard right and PR would enable them to make an electoral breakthrough.
As has been pointed out elsewhere liberal-conservative coalitions are common in Europe, so is this a Europeanisation of the British Conservatives? However this is likely to encourage a renewed electoral push by the hard right and PR would enable them to make an electoral breakthrough.
“is this a Europeanisation of the British Conservatives”
I have wondered how the Conservative party room is going to hold up. The Coalition and the fixed-term parliament pretty much prevent the Tories from going hard right and calling a snap election. So will the Tory right wing fade away like the Australian Liberal Party’s left or will they fight? And if they fight, what does victory look like?
d
“is this a Europeanisation of the British Conservatives”
I have wondered how the Conservative party room is going to hold up. The Coalition and the fixed-term parliament pretty much prevent the Tories from going hard right and calling a snap election. So will the Tory right wing fade away like the Australian Liberal Party’s left or will they fight? And if they fight, what does victory look like?
d
OT, but LO @24 is wrong, for once. Only American chauvinists believe the BI/FT proposals were original to Uncle Milton. They can be found in the late writings of JS Mill 150 years ago, and were extensively canvassed in WWII Britain as an alternative to the Beveridge proposals for a post-war contributory system of social security (google Lady Barbara Rhys-Williams).
Not that Uncle Milton wasn’t a very creative thinker, at least by economist standards, though. It’s just that he tended to be original but wrong, as distinct from his heirs who are derivative but wrong.
OT, but LO @24 is wrong, for once. Only American chauvinists believe the BI/FT proposals were original to Uncle Milton. They can be found in the late writings of JS Mill 150 years ago, and were extensively canvassed in WWII Britain as an alternative to the Beveridge proposals for a post-war contributory system of social security (google Lady Barbara Rhys-Williams).
Not that Uncle Milton wasn’t a very creative thinker, at least by economist standards, though. It’s just that he tended to be original but wrong, as distinct from his heirs who are derivative but wrong.
Ilium, the popular vote was – Conservatives, 36.1%; Labour, 29%; Liberal Democrats, 23%. You want to lump together Labour and LD on spurious grounds (as briefly alluded to by others), and that is what is inappropriate.
Ilium, the popular vote was – Conservatives, 36.1%; Labour, 29%; Liberal Democrats, 23%. You want to lump together Labour and LD on spurious grounds (as briefly alluded to by others), and that is what is inappropriate.
Is it just me or do Clegg & Cameron look kind of similar? Maybe they share some genes from way back…
Is it just me or do Clegg & Cameron look kind of similar? Maybe they share some genes from way back…
Terangeree @41, Federal income tax in Australia was also introduced in 1915 as a temporary measure to fund a war. Some states continued to levy their own income taxes on top of that until 1942 when they voluntarily handed them over to the Commonwealth (a war measure again).
They retain the power to introduce their own income taxes (and a wide range of other taxes too) anytime they like – but they all much prefer having the Commonwealth wear the blame and do the taxing for them.
Terangeree @41, Federal income tax in Australia was also introduced in 1915 as a temporary measure to fund a war. Some states continued to levy their own income taxes on top of that until 1942 when they voluntarily handed them over to the Commonwealth (a war measure again).
They retain the power to introduce their own income taxes (and a wide range of other taxes too) anytime they like – but they all much prefer having the Commonwealth wear the blame and do the taxing for them.
Some US states also impose a “wealth tax”.
Virtually anything you say about American tax systems is likely to be true somewhere.
Some US states also impose a “wealth tax”.
Virtually anything you say about American tax systems is likely to be true somewhere.
I don’t dispute that Friedman may have advanced the idea of zero tax for the poor but suggest that the logic behind this is that his conception of the poor is what most other people would consider to be the utterly destitute. That is, you cannot tax those who literally have nothing. Economic policies are social polices therefore any valorisation of Friedmanite economic policies (read anti-human social policies) needs to be reality checked against the history of the Chicago school’s great experiment in Chile before uneducated enthuisiasm for misnamed “libertarianism” further inflames the imagination of the ignorant and historically uninformed:
I don’t dispute that Friedman may have advanced the idea of zero tax for the poor but suggest that the logic behind this is that his conception of the poor is what most other people would consider to be the utterly destitute. That is, you cannot tax those who literally have nothing. Economic policies are social polices therefore any valorisation of Friedmanite economic policies (read anti-human social policies) needs to be reality checked against the history of the Chicago school’s great experiment in Chile before uneducated enthuisiasm for misnamed “libertarianism” further inflames the imagination of the ignorant and historically uninformed:
And nothing, BTW,better exemplifies the widespread human rights abuses and a reign of terror in Chile more than the murder of Victor Jara. What a grotesque parody of political philosophy it is when one of the bloodiest and dirtiest ideas ever spewed out of the USA masquerades as a force for freedom under the name of libertarianism.
And nothing, BTW,better exemplifies the widespread human rights abuses and a reign of terror in Chile more than the murder of Victor Jara. What a grotesque parody of political philosophy it is when one of the bloodiest and dirtiest ideas ever spewed out of the USA masquerades as a force for freedom under the name of libertarianism.
derrida derider et al, thanks for confirming the utility of my basic method of discrimination: if someone claims a sensible idea originated in libertarian thought, that someone is wrong.
derrida derider et al, thanks for confirming the utility of my basic method of discrimination: if someone claims a sensible idea originated in libertarian thought, that someone is wrong.
Katz said:
Like … you know, for quite a while after the war the top marginal tax rate was well over 75% and even exceeded 90% for a while
I am ready to stand corrected on this but IIRC during the halcyon 1950s and early 1960s it was never less than 80%.
Katz said:
Like … you know, for quite a while after the war the top marginal tax rate was well over 75% and even exceeded 90% for a while
I am ready to stand corrected on this but IIRC during the halcyon 1950s and early 1960s it was never less than 80%.
“I am ready to stand corrected on this but IIRC during the halcyon 1950s and early 1960s it was never less than 80%.”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The top US Federal income tax marginal rate (out of 24(!) brackets) was 91% from 1950 – 1964
d
“I am ready to stand corrected on this but IIRC during the halcyon 1950s and early 1960s it was never less than 80%.”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The top US Federal income tax marginal rate (out of 24(!) brackets) was 91% from 1950 – 1964
d
It was a very exciting count with the Tories looking they might achieve a majority at about one-third of the count and then later watching on as they got closer to 318 seats which would have allowed a coalition with the Northern Ireland Alliance Party – so close!
I think a referendum on Electoral Reform is a fair result since only 23% directly supported the electoral reform party with a further 29% supporting the Labour Party who offered a referendum on electoral reform. Dunno how much of the 12% ‘Other Parties’ vote supported electoral reform.
It was a very exciting count with the Tories looking they might achieve a majority at about one-third of the count and then later watching on as they got closer to 318 seats which would have allowed a coalition with the Northern Ireland Alliance Party – so close!
I think a referendum on Electoral Reform is a fair result since only 23% directly supported the electoral reform party with a further 29% supporting the Labour Party who offered a referendum on electoral reform. Dunno how much of the 12% ‘Other Parties’ vote supported electoral reform.
Actually Daryl, on those figures it peaked at 92% and it wasn’t until 1962 that it dropped … to 77% and then remained at 70% until 1982 when it really crashed … first to 50% and then to about 38% whwere it is today. This coincides with the major declines one sees in US infrastructure and public policy.
It underlines why the wealthy are so politically powerful in the US and so invested in the Repugs
Actually Daryl, on those figures it peaked at 92% and it wasn’t until 1962 that it dropped … to 77% and then remained at 70% until 1982 when it really crashed … first to 50% and then to about 38% whwere it is today. This coincides with the major declines one sees in US infrastructure and public policy.
It underlines why the wealthy are so politically powerful in the US and so invested in the Repugs
DD, Rhys-Williams was a British Liberal who later joined the conservatives. I was referring to her in my original post. See above. And it is indisputable that Friedman did a lot to develop the idea further and popularise it amongst public policy intellectuals. I didn’t claim he invented it.
The broader point I was making was that claiming low tax rates on low income workers has exclusively been associated with left wing thinkers is wrong.
And on what basis do you make the claim that Friedman tended to be original but wrong? A bit of a glib statement don’t you think? He was right about many things (no long run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, the benefits of freely floating exchange rates, had a strong influence on public choice theory, etc). I don’t agree with many of his political ideas, and monetarism ended up being a dead end (though still helped provide the intellectual underpinnings for understanding the importance of central banks controlling inflation and inflation expectations), but I’m not biased enough to think that he and other libertarians haven’t made a lot of useful contributions.
DD, Rhys-Williams was a British Liberal who later joined the conservatives. I was referring to her in my original post. See above. And it is indisputable that Friedman did a lot to develop the idea further and popularise it amongst public policy intellectuals. I didn’t claim he invented it.
The broader point I was making was that claiming low tax rates on low income workers has exclusively been associated with left wing thinkers is wrong.
And on what basis do you make the claim that Friedman tended to be original but wrong? A bit of a glib statement don’t you think? He was right about many things (no long run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, the benefits of freely floating exchange rates, had a strong influence on public choice theory, etc). I don’t agree with many of his political ideas, and monetarism ended up being a dead end (though still helped provide the intellectual underpinnings for understanding the importance of central banks controlling inflation and inflation expectations), but I’m not biased enough to think that he and other libertarians haven’t made a lot of useful contributions.
“…but I’m not biased enough to think that he and other libertarians haven’t made a lot of useful contributions”
Care to name who, what and why? And useful to whom?
“…but I’m not biased enough to think that he and other libertarians haven’t made a lot of useful contributions”
Care to name who, what and why? And useful to whom?
There is no difference between the British tories and the Australian ALP. Why the fuss??
There is no difference between the British tories and the Australian ALP. Why the fuss??
The single biggest contribution made by the right wing anarchists (libertarians) was by Nozick whose minimalist state makes liberalism attractive. Nozick’s “night watchman state” is Hobbes on steroids and famously deluded as to the reality of human species-nature. Rawls and Walzer, by contrast, suggest societies fit for humans. Nozick and the libertarians create utopias fit for madmen only.
The single biggest contribution made by the right wing anarchists (libertarians) was by Nozick whose minimalist state makes liberalism attractive. Nozick’s “night watchman state” is Hobbes on steroids and famously deluded as to the reality of human species-nature. Rawls and Walzer, by contrast, suggest societies fit for humans. Nozick and the libertarians create utopias fit for madmen only.
Darryl @ 48
This.
All the magical thinking of “we’re all really just Gladstonians, we like minded Tories and Lib Dems”, it just isn’t going to last until 2015. And because of the commitment to a fixed term the two parties can’t desolve their coalition amicably at any point before then, as was the case when Labour were given leave to just walk from Churchill’s wartime government before the ’45 general election.
I think Cameron has come to the conclusion he must either work sucessfully with his new partners, or else he must at some point fall out badly with them in order to gain advantage at a snap election brought on by an ugly vote of no confidence.
Good luck to Nick and Vince in hoping their new partners can avoid a new Enoch Powell movement in the Tory Party inspired by the simple fact the Lib Dems are the most pro-Europe party at Westminster.
Jarrah @ 50
Face it, the only joint manifesto those two parties ran on, and won on, was Brown Must Go. And the bigger party would have preferred to have had a monopoly on ABBism so they could win a majority of their own.
If you’re looking for the Lib Dems to be part of a new, permanent anti-labour side of politics in the UK I have a bridge with towers on it over the Thames you might be interested in buying.
Darryl @ 48
This.
All the magical thinking of “we’re all really just Gladstonians, we like minded Tories and Lib Dems”, it just isn’t going to last until 2015. And because of the commitment to a fixed term the two parties can’t desolve their coalition amicably at any point before then, as was the case when Labour were given leave to just walk from Churchill’s wartime government before the ’45 general election.
I think Cameron has come to the conclusion he must either work sucessfully with his new partners, or else he must at some point fall out badly with them in order to gain advantage at a snap election brought on by an ugly vote of no confidence.
Good luck to Nick and Vince in hoping their new partners can avoid a new Enoch Powell movement in the Tory Party inspired by the simple fact the Lib Dems are the most pro-Europe party at Westminster.
Jarrah @ 50
Face it, the only joint manifesto those two parties ran on, and won on, was Brown Must Go. And the bigger party would have preferred to have had a monopoly on ABBism so they could win a majority of their own.
If you’re looking for the Lib Dems to be part of a new, permanent anti-labour side of politics in the UK I have a bridge with towers on it over the Thames you might be interested in buying.
What, exactly, is the status of an undertaking to decline to call an election before the expiry of a term?
Answer: less than the paper it’s written on.
The whole point of the Westminster system is that the government is responsible to the parliament. If the parliament votes a want of confidence in the government, then it must resign.
It would be easy for either the Tories or the LibDems to engineer such a vote. Then, perforce the government must resign. Presumably, any replacement government would include the Labour Party and the “guarantee” against an early election would lapse.
This whole arrangement reeks of bad faith on the part of the Tories and naivete on behalf of at least the Cleggite LDs.
What, exactly, is the status of an undertaking to decline to call an election before the expiry of a term?
Answer: less than the paper it’s written on.
The whole point of the Westminster system is that the government is responsible to the parliament. If the parliament votes a want of confidence in the government, then it must resign.
It would be easy for either the Tories or the LibDems to engineer such a vote. Then, perforce the government must resign. Presumably, any replacement government would include the Labour Party and the “guarantee” against an early election would lapse.
This whole arrangement reeks of bad faith on the part of the Tories and naivete on behalf of at least the Cleggite LDs.
Yes, it’s tosh. It’s highly likely that there will be another election within a couple of years. A majority of 40 spread across two parties doesn’t get you too far – when you take into account by-elections, defections, backbench rebellions (which are much more likely with the Lib Dems in Coalition). Of course they may be hoping for a John Major style Parliament – where you live leadership challenge to leadership challenge, win votes by the skin of your teeth, and generally stumble from crisis to crisis. But I’d be very surprised if the hard heads in the Tories don’t seize any opportunity to gain electoral advantage.
The opportunities for friction between and within the two parties really can’t be wished away.
Yes, it’s tosh. It’s highly likely that there will be another election within a couple of years. A majority of 40 spread across two parties doesn’t get you too far – when you take into account by-elections, defections, backbench rebellions (which are much more likely with the Lib Dems in Coalition). Of course they may be hoping for a John Major style Parliament – where you live leadership challenge to leadership challenge, win votes by the skin of your teeth, and generally stumble from crisis to crisis. But I’d be very surprised if the hard heads in the Tories don’t seize any opportunity to gain electoral advantage.
The opportunities for friction between and within the two parties really can’t be wished away.
And, if at any stage the Coalition crumbles, and Cameron no longer has the confidence of the Commons, it would surely be more in the Labour leader’s interest to ask for a dissolution rather than to try to form a government.
And, if at any stage the Coalition crumbles, and Cameron no longer has the confidence of the Commons, it would surely be more in the Labour leader’s interest to ask for a dissolution rather than to try to form a government.
“What, exactly, is the status of an undertaking to decline to call an election before the expiry of a term?
Answer: less than the paper it’s written on.”
According to the coalition document, it’s going to be a binding motion to the House followed by legislation. The House can bind itself (though not it’s successors, except through legislation).
Of course, a PM could ignore the decision of the House and go the Queen seeking a dissolution, which I suppose would be granted, but then we’re in Super-Double-Crisis territory. Parliament trumps Crown, but if the House has resolved not to dissolve and the PM advices/directs the Queen to dissolve the House, you’ve got yourself a Glorious Revo^H^H^H^H mess. (And a PM in contempt of Parliament.)
If the legislation goes through as described so the House requires a 55% vote to dissolve, and it applies to the current Parliament, then the only way to dissolve is for the LDs to vote with a big party to dissolve (not likely I wouldn;t think), or the two big parties to both support it (less likely).
d
PS as I think about this, it seems to me that the only way to legislate for fixed terms and avoid a potential crisis I describe above is to remove the power to dissolve parliament from the Crown.
“What, exactly, is the status of an undertaking to decline to call an election before the expiry of a term?
Answer: less than the paper it’s written on.”
According to the coalition document, it’s going to be a binding motion to the House followed by legislation. The House can bind itself (though not it’s successors, except through legislation).
Of course, a PM could ignore the decision of the House and go the Queen seeking a dissolution, which I suppose would be granted, but then we’re in Super-Double-Crisis territory. Parliament trumps Crown, but if the House has resolved not to dissolve and the PM advices/directs the Queen to dissolve the House, you’ve got yourself a Glorious Revo^H^H^H^H mess. (And a PM in contempt of Parliament.)
If the legislation goes through as described so the House requires a 55% vote to dissolve, and it applies to the current Parliament, then the only way to dissolve is for the LDs to vote with a big party to dissolve (not likely I wouldn;t think), or the two big parties to both support it (less likely).
d
PS as I think about this, it seems to me that the only way to legislate for fixed terms and avoid a potential crisis I describe above is to remove the power to dissolve parliament from the Crown.
As DR suggests, any such legislation is a sure-fire shake’n'bake constitutional crisis which could easily become an existential crisis for a number of long-standing British institutions.
55% per se isn’t a major hurdle to jump to bring on a dissolution. Ine many can imagine many situations when numbers of Tories would cross the floor to vote for a dissolution. It’s a paper tiger.
As DR suggests, any such legislation is a sure-fire shake’n'bake constitutional crisis which could easily become an existential crisis for a number of long-standing British institutions.
55% per se isn’t a major hurdle to jump to bring on a dissolution. Ine many can imagine many situations when numbers of Tories would cross the floor to vote for a dissolution. It’s a paper tiger.
“As DR suggests, any such legislation is a sure-fire shake’n’bake constitutional crisis”
Only if the Crown retains the power to dissolve the House. If the House has the power to dissolve itself, there’s no constitutional crisis. Political crisis, quite possibly, but not constitutional.
“55% per se isn’t a major hurdle to jump to bring on a dissolution.”
55% is 350, which, assuming *all* the mini-parties and Labour vote to dissolve and the LDs and conservatives vote against, it means 77 Conservatives MPs have to cross the floor. Not impossible, but that’s a quarter of their party room voting to send themselves into opposition.
d
“As DR suggests, any such legislation is a sure-fire shake’n’bake constitutional crisis”
Only if the Crown retains the power to dissolve the House. If the House has the power to dissolve itself, there’s no constitutional crisis. Political crisis, quite possibly, but not constitutional.
“55% per se isn’t a major hurdle to jump to bring on a dissolution.”
55% is 350, which, assuming *all* the mini-parties and Labour vote to dissolve and the LDs and conservatives vote against, it means 77 Conservatives MPs have to cross the floor. Not impossible, but that’s a quarter of their party room voting to send themselves into opposition.
d
Yes, it will be interesting.
Presumably the LDs will want to behave until they can get the referendum. Conversely, Cameron presumably has an incentive to delay this referendum as long as possible, without obviously looking like bad faith.
What incentive the Tory backbench have to behave is much less clear, particularly if they sense that the upcoming referendum may succeed, and thereby endanger many of their careers.
Yes, it will be interesting.
Presumably the LDs will want to behave until they can get the referendum. Conversely, Cameron presumably has an incentive to delay this referendum as long as possible, without obviously looking like bad faith.
What incentive the Tory backbench have to behave is much less clear, particularly if they sense that the upcoming referendum may succeed, and thereby endanger many of their careers.
There may come a time when the Tory leadership wants some of their backbenchers to dash the poisoned chalice from the hands of their government.
There may come a time when the Tory leadership wants some of their backbenchers to dash the poisoned chalice from the hands of their government.
Liberal Democrat Voice says that the 55% threshold doesn’t preclude a government falling on a normal no confidence motion:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/confusion-reigns-over-55-the-reality-is-rather-different-19488.html
I don’t know how authoritative this blog is, though.
Liberal Democrat Voice says that the 55% threshold doesn’t preclude a government falling on a normal no confidence motion:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/confusion-reigns-over-55-the-reality-is-rather-different-19488.html
I don’t know how authoritative this blog is, though.
Mark,
I would have thought no Act could override the fundamental power of the House to express its lack of confidence, and request the monarch to dissolve the House and set in motion a general election?
Mark,
I would have thought no Act could override the fundamental power of the House to express its lack of confidence, and request the monarch to dissolve the House and set in motion a general election?
@75 – I really don’t know, Ambi. On one hand you have the prerogatives of the Crown, on the other the supremacy of the Commons. This is what you get with an unwritten constitution, I guess!
@75 – I really don’t know, Ambi. On one hand you have the prerogatives of the Crown, on the other the supremacy of the Commons. This is what you get with an unwritten constitution, I guess!
“I would have thought no Act could override the fundamental power of the House to express its lack of confidence, and request the monarch to dissolve the House and set in motion a general election?”
The powers of the Crown (and the Crown itself) exist at the pleasure of Parliament, so the Parliament could certainly reserve the power of dissolution to itself. (As the Long Parliament did in 1641.)
A government has to fall if it lacks confidence, but that does not always indicate a need for fresh elections. Like the Commonwealth in 1941 or Queensland in 1995.
d
“I would have thought no Act could override the fundamental power of the House to express its lack of confidence, and request the monarch to dissolve the House and set in motion a general election?”
The powers of the Crown (and the Crown itself) exist at the pleasure of Parliament, so the Parliament could certainly reserve the power of dissolution to itself. (As the Long Parliament did in 1641.)
A government has to fall if it lacks confidence, but that does not always indicate a need for fresh elections. Like the Commonwealth in 1941 or Queensland in 1995.
d
LO, my apologies – you did indeed refer to Rhys-Williams.
On Uncle Milton, I meant no disrespect. But I think an awful lot of his ideas – including the flat LR Phillips curve and associated idea of a “natural” rate of unemployment – just have not stood the test of time. The most important one that has, though, is the permanent income hypothesis.
Back on topic, Darryl is right. A PM has to advise an election if no government that would have the confidence of the House can be formed. So theoretically if the LDs, Labour and minor parties got together and announced they were forming a majority government then Cameron should just advise HMQ to send for Milibrand, rather than advise her to dissolve the House.
LO, my apologies – you did indeed refer to Rhys-Williams.
On Uncle Milton, I meant no disrespect. But I think an awful lot of his ideas – including the flat LR Phillips curve and associated idea of a “natural” rate of unemployment – just have not stood the test of time. The most important one that has, though, is the permanent income hypothesis.
Back on topic, Darryl is right. A PM has to advise an election if no government that would have the confidence of the House can be formed. So theoretically if the LDs, Labour and minor parties got together and announced they were forming a majority government then Cameron should just advise HMQ to send for Milibrand, rather than advise her to dissolve the House.