In a spirit of cooperation
Peter Hoskin 6:19pm
One of the more striking aspects of the Damian Green affair is how it's angered MPs from every side, corner and alcove of the House. And quite right too - this is something that could have hefty implications for Parliament as a whole. The Tories and Lib Dems, in particular, have been singing from an almost identical hymn-sheet when condemning the heavy-handedness of the arrest, and now it's emerged that they've taken the cooperation a stage further. According to the Beeb, Cameron and Clegg are going to meet to "discuss tactics" ahead of the Queen's Speech tomorrow. Their aim is to secure a debate on the Green arrest; although one can't help but wonder whether they'll also discuss the plan to force out Michael Martin said to be brewing among certain Tory MPs.
So far as the Green arrest is concerned, discussions between the two opposition leaders are good to see. Coordinated action tends to be real action; and can be taken as a sign that Parliament isn't going to sit on its collective hands. The question now is whether this opens the door for further cooperation over the issues at hand. Call it idealistic (or put it down to the Red Bull I just drank), but one option that's popped into my head is for the Tories and Lib Dems to set up a cross-party commission for civil liberties. For the past few months, the idea of a Tory-only commission has been mooted as a way of using David Davies's particular talents. But, to my mind, involving Clegg & Co. would send out a much stronger message about how parliamentarians won't tolerate repeats of the Green fiasco.
Previous
Comments
Stu
December 2nd, 2008 6:45pmCameron should be tabling a motion of no confidence -and I don't think that would be a heavy handed option at this point. A debate needs to be had on the democratic deficit in this country and a motion of no confidence is just the way to do it.
C Powell
December 2nd, 2008 6:56pmCo-operation with the Lib Dems on civil liberties would be a very good thing. The Tories need to make the civil liberties/freedom from state bullying & interference their own. Quite apart from being right in principle, it's good politics because (a) this is an area where Labour is very weak; (b) it will discomfort those few decent Labour MPs who don't like what their own party is doing on this; and (c) it will help attract voters put off Labour by their constant attacks on our freedoms. Those voters are not natural Tory voters but this would be one way of getting them onside. To keep them onside, of course, DC has to be serious about this and not just treat this as a tactic. But - frankly - if Conservatives are not in favour of conserving our hard-won liberties and freedoms, what is the point of them?
TGF UKIP
December 2nd, 2008 7:11pmAs I've posted previously the missing voices are potentially the most powerful voices - those of Labour MP's. As always with Labour people though it seems to be a case of party before country and principle. (Anyone hear Tony Wright being his usual pompous and sophist self on the Week in Westminster last Saturday?)
The test of the likes of Field, Marshall-Andrews, Gibson and all the other so-called principled brigade will come with the now inevitable vote of no confidence in Gorbals Mick.
Time will Tell
December 2nd, 2008 11:20pmTGIF
Calling Michael Martin Gorbals Mick is what he wants more than anything. He will benefit from the visceral support of the hard left which still has a surprisingly high number of representatives within the PLP, including many of the 101 Dalmations elected in 1997.
catesby
December 3rd, 2008 10:52amMilord Mandelson was on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning claiming that Green and Galley were as guilty as hell.
Isn't it highly improper for cabinet ministers to go about declaring people to be guilty at a time when charges may be pending?
Verity
December 3rd, 2008 1:54pmWould Lord Rhumba of Rio say guilty as hell as in Tony Blair selling honours for cash? Or guilty as hell as in the Speaker flying his whole family down from Glasgow on airmiles, despite it being against the law to so use public funds? Or guilty as hell as in the Speaker's wife take a taxpayer- funded taxi to the supermarket?