Wednesday, 27th February 2008
1:15pm
Open House have afforded Ed Davey a plaform from which to deliver his version of yesterday's events. Unfortunately - yet predictably - he uses it peddle the Lib Dem's ludicrous line on Europe. One passage leapt out at me:
"It’s not unusual for Liberal Democrats to be squeezed out of parliamentary debates by the other parties seeking to maintain their cosy establishment arrangements.
True, but this was different.
First, all the parties fought the last election on referendum pledges, so there is a democratic obligation for a debate. Second, it goes to the heart of the disagreements between the parties over EU reform. Third, we had undertaken an unprecedented amount of preparatory work to secure a debate, but were still denied. So we were cross."
One wonders whether Davey noticed the grand irony in his claim that "there is a democratic obligation for a debate". After all - now that their red-herring referendum has been slapped down - his party are doing all they can to deny the public a promised debate on the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution). Now that's worth getting "cross" about.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (2)
12:56pm
A rather downbeat PMQs session, where the following quote from Cameron is the highlight.
“If he really thinks these exchanges once a week are a substitute for a proper television debate, then he’s even more out of touch than I thought. We have to be honest with ourselves – not many people watch these exchanges and not all those that do are hugely impressed with them. We’ve seen TV debates in Italy, Australia and Poland. So I have to ask him: what on earth is he frightened of?”
Cameron came to PMQs today on a mission to clean up politics, and sought to enlist Brown’s support. Does he agree that MPs should not vote on their own pay? Erm, yes he does and he voted on it too. Does he agree that the Commons final salary pension scheme should be closed to new entrants? No answer. And will he agree to do a TV debate? You must be joking. Brown’s claim that PMQs is a substitute is risible. The claim that it would be like JFK v Nixon is also wide of the mark. Brown makes Tricky Dicky sound like Cicero.
Cameron didn’t score many points on this, but he’s on the right track. As I argued a few weeks ago, the political class is held in contempt – and the Tories need to stand against the political class, Obama-style. Cameron rather misfired today, but it’s the right target.
Clegg continued with his formula of a good question (on dismal mental health provision) followed by a bad one (on his preposterous position on the Lisbon Treaty). Words fail me when describing the LibDems on Europe, so I’ll move on.
Robert Wilson (Con, Reading East) asked – as CoffeeHouse did last week – why a record 207,000 Brits emigrated last year. Basic trend of global migration, he answered, it will continue. Hmm. Doesn’t explain why no other country (other than New Zealand) has lost so many of its high-skilled people.
The SNP’s Angus Robertson had quite a funny wee question – about a vote in a ward in the Highlands where 60% voted nationalist and just 3% voted Labour. “What government policy does he think motivated those 97 hardy souls to vote Labour?” Brown replied independence per se remains unpopular. That won’t help him when he’s relying on Scots to overrule a Tory-voting England on 6 May 2010.
A CoffeeHouser (David Gillies) recently observed that Brown’s poor debating performance makes one question him more broadly. “If the man can't think on his feet, what reason do we have to believe he can think sitting down?” Conversely when Cameron does think on his feet, as per the above quote, it’s a positive sign.
But I’ll leave you with this figure. At this same stage in the election cycle, end-Feb 1995, a Gallup/Telegraph poll had Tony Blair on 60.5% of the vote, a 40-point lead. Cameron’s averaging a 7-point lead. The Tories have so, so much to do.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (7)
11:01am
With anti-Heathrow-expansion protestors scaling the roof of Parliament - and sparking all kind of security concerns in the process - it's worth asking when & whether protests cross the line of decency.
It's a question that Benedict Brogan's certainly tackling over at his excellent blog. He takes a hard-line on the matter. Brian Haw and his ilk were yesterday described as "a disgusting bunch" whose public profanity is (technically) illegal. And now today's protestors are dismissed as "idiots".
But does that mean we should clamp down on such protestors? Or can we pardon their methods on the basis that they're not doing any particular harm? The answers aren't obvious, but - whatever they are - I suspect their application should be equal in all cases.
Put it this way: I have no doubt that I Want a Referendum's mass-lobby of Parliament today will be nothing less than a decorous affair, but should a few voices be raised in anger - and, even, a few swearwords uttered - I don't think I'll be on the phone to the police. It would be hypocritical - and perhaps even antidemocratic - of me to act differently in the case of protests I'm not sympathetic to.
What do CoffeeHousers think?
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
9:03am
The Today Programme's interview with Hector Sants – the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority – is well-worth listening to. His message is that the credit crunch will change banking “forever”, and that never again will money be available so cheaply.
At first, the words seem doom-laden, but Sants puts a positive spin on them. Yes, there will be short-term difficulties - he says - but eventually people will adjust to the long-term unavailability of easy money and fast credit. The result? Excessive borrowing will become a thing-of-the-past, and the UK can finally leap from the swamp of debt it's currently mired in.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (2)
Tuesday, 26th February 2008
8:29pm
The Information Commissioner is wrong to order that the minutes of the Cabinet meeting where the legality of the Iraq war was discussed be published. If Cabinet Minutes can be released so soon after the event, no one will speak their mind in cabinet anymore; it would effectively mean the end of Cabinet government.
As Sam Coates puts it: “Cabinet Ministers need somewhere they can discuss, debate and disagree about policy in private. This is surely sensible (if they did not have a chance to raise concerns, how can they exercise collective responsibility?) and this is why Cabinet discussions and the minutes are secret.”
One of the things that all the various enquiries into Iraq revealed is how pernicious sofa government is to good government. But if the records of Cabinet Meetings are no longer guaranteed to be private for at least 30 years, then Ministers are going to—by necessity—discuss the most sensitive of matters in informal conversations of which there is no record.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (11)
8:14pm
Political Betting has details of a new YouGov poll which shows Boris five points ahead of Ken Livingstone at 44 percent. Livingstone’s people are reportedly claiming that their polling still has him ahead, but even here the advantage is only a couple of points. It seems that the Jasper affair and the Mayor’s bizarre behaviour are taking their toll.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (8)
6:24pm
Tonight, an all star panel debate whether all schools should be allowed to select their own pupils. Speakers for the motion are Chris Woodhead, former chief inspector of schools, Dr Martin Stephen, High Master of St Pauls, and Lord Tebbit. Opposing them are David Bunkett, Fiona Millar, Cherie Blair’s former aide, and William Atkinson, headmaster of the Phoenix School. Click here to listen.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comment
5:40pm
Just a reminder that the latest Spectator/Intelligence Squared debate - "All schools, state as well as private should be allowed to select their own pupils" - begins at 18:45 tonight.
The speakers for the motion are Professor Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools; Martin Stephen, High Master of St Paul's School; and the Rt Hon Lord Tebbit.
Whilst those against it include the renowned journalist Fiona Millar; William Atkinson, the Headteacher of Phoenix High School; and the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
The debate will be chaired by the broadcaster Joan Bakewell.
Spectator.co.uk visitors will be able to listen to live audio of the event.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comment
4:57pm
Fraser told us to "stay tuned" to the Lib Dems' continuing efforts to force an "in or out" referendum, and now we've been rewarded with a spot of Parliamentary drama.
Ed Davey - the Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman - was ejected from the Commons for his angry insistence on the matter. The rest of his party then walked out in protest.
It's difficult to see what the Lib Dems hope to gain from their bizzare behaviour. Of course, they're trying to present themselves as staunch defenders of the British public's rights. But their actions will most-likely deny that same public a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whilst achieving nothing by way of compensation. It's one thing to enshrine a red herring as party policy, but running round and slapping everyone in the face with it is quite another.
I've been praiseful of Nick Clegg in the past. But now he's shuttled from the sublime to the ridiculous at supersonic speed. One wonders whether he'll be able to find his way back.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
4:15pm
Michael Martin has for once proved his worth by throwing out Clegg’s amendment for an “in or out” referendum saying its not relevant to the Lisbon Treaty (which, of course, it isn’t). So is Davidson’s amendment their only hope? Or might his amendment get thrown out too? Stay tuned.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comment
Previous
