Laws: “Hold this a second, Danny”
by Anton Howes / @antonhowes / 
by Anton Howes / @antonhowes /
by Jennie Rigg / @miss_s_b /
Vince Cable has resigned as deputy leader of the parliamentary Lib Dems to concentrate on his cabinet role. “So what?” I hear you cry. Well, the Deputy Leader of the party, whoever it turns out to be, will have a crucial effect on the coalition and its running. If we elect a bullish anti-Tory that could have some serious repercussions…
So far, the only declared candidate is Tim Farron, although other names being thrown about include Don Foster, Lorely Burt, and the inevitable Simon Hughes. There was an early push for Jo Swinson to put herself forward, but she has declined.
There is a movement abroad to elect someone female to the role, if only to counter the bad press we have been getting on equalities since the electorate rejected our huge numbers of stellar female candidates – Susan Kramer, Julia Goldsworthy, Sandra Gidley, Bridget Fox, hell, even Hilary Myers in my own constituency. The fact that El Presidente and the party chair are both female doesn’t seem to cut much ice with the media, or the public, neither of whom pay any attention to either of these roles. The problem with this proposal is that there isn’t that big a pool to choose from. Lynne Featherstone, utterly awesome as she is, is a minister, and so is Sarah Teather. Lorely is chair of the party. Jenny Willott is due for maternity leave soon. Tessa Munt has endorsed Tim Farron. Jo has ruled herself out. That leaves Annette Brooke as the only female MP who is non-ministerial who could run… And nobody knows who she is.
So it looks like our MPs are going to be left with a choice between Simon Hughes, the perpetual candidate, and Tim Farron. Which means that the public face of our leadership is going to remain white middle-class middle-aged men in suits. Oh well, at least Tim is properly Northern…
by Stuart Sharpe / @sshrpe /
In what’s probably something of a disappointing decision for tech geeks everywhere, Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Culture Secretary, has told paidContent:UK that the coalition government does not have plans to repeal the controversial Digital Economy Act.
The Digital Economy Act includes the so-called ‘three strikes’ policy whereby ISPs are asked to send warning letters to customers suspected of illegal file sharing, eventually leading to their internet connections being cut off or severely throttled. The Open Rights Group launched a petition and website calling for the repeal of the act almost immediately after the coalition government took power, along with a counter which continues to tick until the act is repealed (if ever).
During the election campaign, Nick Clegg pledged that a Liberal Democrat government would repeal the act. The Conservatives mostly abstained from the act’s second reading in April, and the Act is not mentioned in the Coalition agreement or the new Programme for Government – though some had hoped that this would be included in the much-vaunted Freedom/Great Repeal Bill.
Campaigners against the act – or at least the more insidious measures it contains – can take some hope, however, from Hunt’s hints that the act may not remain in it’s entirety – he told paidContent that individual measures in the act will be subject to alterations depending on how they perform – suggesting that some of the more controversial provisions of the act may still be up in the air.
by Stuart Sharpe / @sshrpe /
The coalition government have today published their ‘Programme for Government’, outlining their plans for the next five years.
Over the next few weeks we’ll be going through the Programme with a fine toothed comb, giving you our impressions and drawing attention to sections we think are interesting and enlightening. In the meantime, the website for the programme lets you read the whole thing and leave comments on every section, or read the entire thing in the embedded reader below.
NB: For fellow Kremlinologists, throughout the document the coalition is simply referred to as ‘The Government’.
by Jennie Rigg / @miss_s_b /
The Orange Book is a book any political anorak will have heard of, but few will have read. It’s been out of print for some years, and thus most people rely on the media’s description of it as being right wing, and referring to some Lib Dems disparagingly as “Orange Bookers”, as accurate.
But since when have the media ever been accurate?
If you want to find out for yourself what is in this famous tome, the Editor of the book who isn’t David Laws is engaging in some shameless profiteering selling it on amazon, at above RRP to reflect the sudden and insistent demand, as any true market-driven Liberal would.
Or, if you are too tight to actually buy it, you could do worse than read Joe “Extra Bold” Otten’s chapter by chapter breakdown.
by Anton Howes / @antonhowes /
David Davis just called the 55% rule a “serious mistake”. But why? Because he thinks it will be the level at which a vote of no confidence must be successful. Once again, as discussed here, and here, and even here, this is not the case!
Let’s be clear. The 55% rule is for the dissolution of parliament when the government has NOT already lost a vote of no-confidence. In that sense, it has to be at a level higher than the MPs under the government whip so that the Prime Minister cannot just call an election for tactical reasons. As shown, 55% is the post-war average, but the ideal would be 65-66% as no post-war government has had that much control.
Dammit Davis! You’re wrong, and we’ve been through this already. At the same time, Dammit Government! Can we make sure everyone’s understood this by now – it’s been days! Where’s a spokesperson when you need one…?
by Anton Howes / @antonhowes /
The new 55% rule for dissolving Parliament is meant to take the right to do so away from the Prime Minister so that it cannot be used for tactical reasons, leaving us with fixed term parliaments (once again, it must be noted that Parliament may still dissolve parliament with a straight vote of no-confidence). The diagram over at the BBC website helpfully explains why 55% is necessary. It would require all Lib-Dem and Conservative MPs to vote for it, the Conservatives could only muster 47% on their own, and all the other parties only 53%.
This suggests a major concession to Nick Clegg. In effect, Cameron would need his full support in order to dissolve parliament for tactical reasons. The reform does entrench fixed term parliaments, but it doesn’t seem to go far enough. Many governments obtain significantly more than 55% of the seats, so it looks like this reform only really applies for 5 years, with Cameron expecting an outright majority at the next election which would allow him to effectively regain the ability to dissolve parliament. Nevertheless, despite these political manoeuvers, it does guarantee the stability of the coalition government.
So, what threshold would truly guarantee the supremacy of parliament over the government and party leaders in the event of a vote to dissolve parliament?
Looking at past parliaments, and taking into account Sinn Fein not taking their seats, here are the figures for how much control the government had of the House of Commons:
The average of this does indeed work out at 55%, which means that the 55% level is to some extent justified as the usual level at which a Prime Minister cannot just call an early, tactical election. However, if it is to be done properly, the new rule should ensure that the PM never has control. This would require a level over 64%, which is the highest in the post-war period, meaning that Scotland’s 66% for the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament looks quite sensible indeed.
