miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)miss_s_b ([personal profile] miss_s_b) wrote,
@ 2010-05-12 12:51 am UTC
Current mood: hopeful
Entry tags:libdemmery, omg! we're in coalition!, politics
I should say up front that none of this is confirmed, but this list agrees with what was read out on the BBC. From the Graun's Live Blog comes this list of policy agreements of the coalition:

• £6b in year cuts in non frontline services subject to the advice from the treasury and the bank of england (Tory)
- I think this one was inevitable

• Scrapping of national insurance rises (Tory)
- agreed with this one anyway

• A substantial increase in the personal tax allowance from April 2011 with a focus on low and middle income earners, with a "long term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. There is no a timetable for this, but there is a promise to make further real term steps each year towards this objective. This is described as a "funded increase". It will be funded by taking the money the Tories had planned to use to increase the employee threshold for national insurance, and by an increase in capital gains tax for non business assets to bring it closer to the level of income tax.
- sad that this is not going to be immediate, but glad it's been adopted.

• Marriage tax allowance. The liberal democrats have agreed to abstain on this, which gives the Tories a "real chance" of getting that through.
- furious about this. Commitment to equality is on the back of the membership card, FFS. We should not be making judgements on relationships.

• Tax relief for higher rate pensioners will not be pursued
• Mansion tax dropped
- sad about these two, but again, see them as inevitable if agreement to be reached with tories.

• Raising the threshold on inheritance tax dropped, described as "unlikely to be achieved in this parliament".
- Hurrah!

• Referendum to bring in some form of alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force the legislation for a referendum through, but they will be free to campaign against the reforms before referendum.
- "some form of alternative vote system"? So STV COULD be inserted. This is better than I was hoping for.

• New pupil premium to be introduced, steering more funding to schools for every child they take from poor homes. Both parties back this policy, but the Lib Dem version attaches more money to it.
- this is amazing.

• Reducing the tax burden on low earners. This could go some way towards the Lib Dem aim of lifting tax threshold to £10,000.
- I hope it does.

• A wholly or mainly elected house of Lords.
- Hmmm. I was always outside of the majority of my party on this anyway. Would rather see fixed term appointments myself.

• More equal constituency sizes
- YAY!

• Fixed term parliaments, including this one. The next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Legislation will mean such agreements can only be broken by an enhanced majority of the House of Commons.
- YAY!

• A cap on immigration and an end to child detention immigration controls (the latter was a Lib Dem proposal).
- first half bad, second half good.

• Tory Welfare reform programme to be implemented in full.
- THIS is worrying.

• School reform programme providing all schools are held accountable.
- This also worrying.

• A commitment to maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent. Renewal of Trident will be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will be free to continue the case for alternatives.
* shrug *

• A referendum lock will ensure that any proposal to transfer new powers to the EU must by law be put to a referendum.
- unsurprising, and I agree with this. Anything that big should go to a referendum.

• A great repeal or freedom bill to scrap the ID card scheme and the national identity register and the next generation of biometric passports
- YES YES YES! YES!

• Extending the scope of the Freedom of Information bill to provide greater transparency
- Yes!

* Adopt protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database
- Voted for this myself at conference.

• Protecting trial by jury
- Oh Cthulhu, thank you for this. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Judge Jack Straw.

• Reviewing libel laws to protect freedom of speech
- YES!!!! I hope that Simon Singh et all have seen this bit.

• Further regulation of CCTV and other items
- YES!

• Measures to boost economy in key areas such as low-carbon industries and investment in infrastructure. A green investment bank, a smart grid, retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping home information packs.
- This, also, is good.

• Lib Dems will be free to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to put forward the national planning statement for ratification by parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.
- Fair enough

Banking reform

• A banking levy will be introduced.
• Bonuses will be tackled.
• A "more competitive banking industry".
• More credit to flow to businesses. The proposals of the respective parties will be looked at before deciding which is the better one.
• An independent commission will be set up to consider Lib Dem proposals to separate retail and investment banking and the Tories' proposals for a quasi separation. An interim report will be published within a year.
• The Bank of England could be given control of macro prudential regulation and oversight of micro prudential regulation under proposals to be put forward.

- All sounds good to me.

I can see why the MPs and Fed Exec were overwhelmingly in favour if this is all true. I would - will, if I can get my shift covered at work on Sunday - vote for this. It's not my dream, but it's close enough. I have spent my life fighting the Tories and what they stand for, and am suspicious that they will deliver on some of the aspects of this, but it's good, grown-up politics, and it's a damn sight better than the last government. Freedom Bill! Libel Reform! Referendum on Voting Reform!

I have more hope now than I did when Cam announced the coalition.


(37 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

etoile: (I don't know. You know.)


[personal profile] etoile
2010-05-12 12:23 am UTC (link)
Doesn't look all that bad but honestly? The welfare reform bit fucking terrifies me. *shudders*

(Reply to this)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 12:47 am UTC (link)
Aye; people I trust are reading up on what they actually said, we'll see. It's possible a lot of it is rhetoric to make good ideas look tough, surprising amounts of their policy isn't as bad once you strip out the language.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



[personal profile] po8crg
2010-05-12 12:27 am UTC (link)
If you can get your shift covered, do you want a lift to Birmingham? I could do with some company, and you could probably do with not paying for a train ticket.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)


[personal profile] miss_s_b
2010-05-12 12:29 am UTC (link)
That would be awesome, yes, assuming it actually IS on Sunday. Mat will be going anyway I reckon, so can I bagsie a seat for him too?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[personal profile] po8crg
2010-05-12 12:32 am UTC (link)
I wouldn't make an offer to you, and not extend it to Mat. Will see if someone else wants fourth seat.

*feeling really smug about cleaning car last weekend*

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 12:49 am UTC (link)
I'm also talking to other local reps, so might have someone for that, possibly the new mayor of Todmorden, she gets made mayor Saturday...

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



(Anonymous)
2010-05-12 12:28 am UTC (link)
Clearly your Tories are not joined at the hip to banks as our conservatives are. This would be called a leftist platform here. We did try getting more credit to flow to business by giving money to the banks, but the banks just thumbed their noses and kept it. You may be discussing an immigration problem from the States if this keeps up. :) Vert

(Reply to this)  (Thread


miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)


[personal profile] miss_s_b
2010-05-12 12:30 am UTC (link)
Our politics has always been a way left of yours anyway, I reckon.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


Wow


(Anonymous)
2010-05-12 12:51 am UTC (link)
There are a few big Yeses there - the AV referendum, elected HoL, the Great Repeal Bill, DNA, protecting trial by jury, libel reform, reducing CCTV, fixed term parliaments, end to child immigration detention, pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, dropping IHT threshold rise, raising CGT - bloody hell, that is a lot of stuff. And so much more than Labour would've conceded. A LOT of stuff. I can't believe it! Very pleased about the child immigrant detention thing - whoever thought the Tories would have the moral high ground to Labour.

The banking stuff is good too. The main drawbacks are the immigration cap (Labour would've done that anyway), schools and welfare reform.

But my god. If the Lib Dems held the Tories to that stuff, and none of it is stuff that Tories would viscerally disagree with, then this could be the best government we've had since the 60s. And Chris Huhne will easily be the best Home Secretary since the late 1940s - especially compared to the twazzocks Labour have rolled out these last 13 years.

I have massive respect for the Lib Dem negotiation team. The unquoted Tory grandee is right - they've allowed the Lib Dems to erase parts of the Tory manifesto and just put their own bits in there!

(Reply to this)  (Thread


Re: Wow


[personal profile] po8crg
2010-05-12 02:08 am UTC (link)
Huhne will have to go some to be a better Home Secretary than Roy Jenkins, but otherwise, I agree with all of that.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Wow


[identity profile] fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com
2010-05-12 08:22 am UTC (link)
Huhne has been confirmed as Environment & Climate Change Sec'y. Which is wonderful, obviously, but is giving me the jitters about Home. Hoping for David Davis, would settle for Dominic Grieve, will be the first real disappointment if we get fucking Grayling.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


burkesworks: (feynman)

Re: Wow


[personal profile] burkesworks
2010-05-12 08:43 am UTC (link)
Everything's pointing towards Gove.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2010-05-12 01:04 am UTC (link)
This makes me feel a lot better. Thank you.

(Reply to this


purplecthulhu: (powered)


[personal profile] purplecthulhu
2010-05-12 07:07 am UTC (link)
Thanks for going through all this so that i don't have to feel guilty about not doing it.

You seem rather keen on the great repeal bill ;-)

(Reply to this


davegodfrey: Marvin: ...and me with a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side... (Marvin)


[personal profile] davegodfrey
2010-05-12 07:08 am UTC (link)
It seems more left wing than I was expecting. I'd say it needs more nationalisation, (I am, as you know, considerably more left wing than Labour) but we don't actually have a manufacturing industry so that point's rather moot. I do however worry about the cuts in museums and libraries, which the Tories will see as fair game, even though it won't actually save them much money.

Given that the "rainbow coalition" was never going to work out, this is the best result we can expect. I still don't think its going to last that long. I certainly doubt it'll make it to five years.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


innerbrat: (thing)


[personal profile] innerbrat
2010-05-12 07:24 am UTC (link)
What puzzles me is that if this isn't a rainbow, what have we got? There's already a Green party, but if we go for additive colours, is this a white coalition? That sounds very BNP.


...I think my brain has fried itself.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


davegodfrey: South Park Me. (Liff)


[personal profile] davegodfrey
2010-05-12 06:37 pm UTC (link)
Everything ends up a murky brown under the rainbow. I propose we call the coalition Gordon.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 01:54 pm UTC (link)
we don't actually have a manufacturing industry

Of course we don't Dave, we're only the 6th largest manufacturing economy in the world with a higher output of manufactured goods in 2007 than in any previous year in the countries history ;-)

What you mean is, we don't employ people in manufacturing anymore, we've automated so that people can do jobs that require thought instead.

SRSLY, we're one of the worlds biggest players in manufacturing, but we're an even bigger player in a chunk of other sectors. Which is why, compared to most of the rest of the world, we're actually quite rich.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


davegodfrey: South Park Me. (Liff)


[personal profile] davegodfrey
2010-05-12 06:35 pm UTC (link)
I stand corrected, but surprised.

What do we actually make then? Because I have a hard time working out what it is. Coal is gone. Iron & steel is virtually non-existent. There's oil, and what else? There are plenty of people making cars, but none of the big players are British owned. Additionally the British firms that do make stuff often do the actual manufacturing overseas.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Masses, the ONS has lots of data on it (and I've a copy of the stats somewhere on this machine).

Large number of cars, but also widgets, hoovers, there's a white good factory up the road from me, chocolate, beer (that's a manufactured good), etc.

We don't make the low end grunt stuff any more, but we do still have high end textile plants, toys, etc.

Basically, you name it, odds are someone in the UK is making it in the UK. Some of those factories may be small, some may be foreign owned (like the Nissan plants), but they're in the UK making stuff.

Coal and Steel is old news. Think of computers, chips, phones, components, bits and pieces, high end tech products, etc.

Plus there's a lot of end point assembly and similar, all of which counts, as they count the value added nature (ie if you import two parts, but the thing you make is worth X more than the two parts, then you've 'made' X value).

Regardless, 6th largest manufacturer. Now, little challenge, name the 5th. It surprised me.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


davegodfrey: South Park Me. (Liff)


[personal profile] davegodfrey
2010-05-12 07:07 pm UTC (link)
*googles* Surprises me too. I'd have said France or Germany. I'm not entirely surprised Italy's up there, but I wasn't expecting it that high.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 07:31 pm UTC (link)
Lots of smaller high end stuff, amongst other things. You rmemeber I said Chocolate above? Green and Blacks used plants in Italy. Plus there's cars, shoes &c.

Remember that trade war that nearly happened with China that Mandy stopped when he was Trade Commissioner? That was Italy trying to keep up barriers to China competing with its artisan manufacturies.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


davegodfrey: South Park Me. (Liff)


[personal profile] davegodfrey
2010-05-12 08:16 pm UTC (link)
Nope. I think I was arguing with creationists at the time.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


purplecthulhu: (powered)


[personal profile] purplecthulhu
2010-05-12 07:09 am UTC (link)
I'm guessing that the fixed parliament thing would fail if a sitting government can't survive a vote of no confidence, for example if the coalition falls apart...

(Reply to this)  (Thread


hairyears: (Banded Tussock)


[personal profile] hairyears
2010-05-12 07:48 am UTC (link)
It comes down to internal discipline within the Conservative party. The 'Bastards' who gave John Major problems are still there, and the Fruitcake anti-Europe factions of the party do not play well with other children. Some of them are sufficiently deranged and vindictive to bring down a Conservative government, never mind a coalition.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


ext_120532: (Blockhead)


[identity profile] ggreig.livejournal.com
2010-05-12 08:19 am UTC (link)
Maybe not. If you follow the Scottish model, if the sitting government fails a vote of confidence then there's a period (I think of a month or so) during which the parties must try to establish an alternative government. Only if that fails are you then looking at the need for a new election. Unless there's an alternative government already in waiting, it's likely to be in everyone's interests to arrive at a workable compromise that will allow stable government. This is one reason why the SNP minority government, with one vote more than Labour, has been stable for the last three years.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


londonkds: (a lover of liberty)


[personal profile] londonkds
2010-05-12 08:42 am UTC (link)
• More equal constituency sizes
- YAY!


The danger here is that, as was suspected of the Tories earlier plan to reduce the number of MPs, this will be used as an excuse for pro-Tory gerrymandering.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


ext_51145: (National Pep)


[identity profile] andrewhickey.info
2010-05-12 10:02 am UTC (link)
In isolation, it would be. With even AV, though, it just becomes *fair*...

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


drplokta: (Grand Canyon)


[personal profile] drplokta
2010-05-12 11:55 am UTC (link)
We actually need some pro-Tory gerrymandering; the current constituency boundaries are significantly rigged against the Tories and in favour of Labour.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 01:59 pm UTC (link)
Actually, my reading is that simply isn't true. Turnout in Labour's safest seats is amongst the lowest in the country, so while the Tories get more votes, they get a higher turnout, Labour voters are distinctly less likely to vote.

I have actually got a set of stats to analyse on this from the current election, but I haven't time to do it immediately (I want to, but I'm as much a policy geek as I am a psephology geek, and frankly we've years for the psephology, I get to go vote on this agreement on Sunday).

When I do, it'll be published in various places.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


spudtater: (me)


[personal profile] spudtater
2010-05-12 11:40 am UTC (link)
Thanks for stepping through these! Am cautiously optimistic — there's more Lib Dem policies in here than I would have thought. (Here via [personal profile] gominokouhai, btw!)

(Reply to this


drplokta: (Grand Canyon)


[personal profile] drplokta
2010-05-12 11:53 am UTC (link)
Transferring powers to the EU doesn't have to be something big. Do you think we should have a referendum before (for example) allowing the EU to regulate the keeping of rhinoceroses as domestic pets?

(Reply to this)  (Thread


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2010-05-12 02:02 pm UTC (link)
No. Because regulation of domestic animals either is or is not a competence. Powers refers to what areas the EU can legislate on, not the actual legislation.

And, to be honest, I don't know if that's currently an EU competence or not, I suspect not but it's been awhile since I had to know the treaty law.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


leoniedelt: pd caves grimace (pd caves grimace)


[personal profile] leoniedelt
2010-05-12 07:31 pm UTC (link)
it aint perfect, but its not Gordie and his chums any more!1!11!eleventyone yay!

(Reply to this


cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Cesy)


[personal profile] cesy
2010-05-12 08:14 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for explaining all the details of this. It sounds much better than I was expecting, though there are still some worrying bits.

(Reply to this



[identity profile] tommybblog.blogspot.com
2010-05-23 12:12 pm UTC (link)
Of the ones that I care about:

- Personal tax allowance increase
Undoubtedly a good thing for those at the lower end of the income scale, and should hopefully do a little bit towards encouraging more people to get a job rather than being content to live on handouts such as 'jobseekers'' allowance. But how will it affect me? I'm assuming tax on income above the new allowance will be increased to compensate, so will I notice a difference? Or will I end up seeing more of the money I earn? Or less of it? I don't consider myself to be earning a high-income, but neither am I in a particularly low-income job. I think I'm somewhere towards the high end of middle for my demographic, but I'm not sure what the average is.

- Marriage tax allowance
Utter bollocks. I don't intend to get married, yet am in a longer term and more stable relationship than many of the married folk that I know. Why, then, am I to be overlooked for this benefit on the basis of what is essentially an arbitrary bit of paper? Won't this just encourage more people to get married, including people who probably shouldn't?

- Alternative vote
I didn't realise how shockingly unfair the current system is (even though I had been told- I don't make a point of believing things just on the basis that I've been told them) until I took the time (about 2 minutes) to do some really, really basic maths with some election data. I've also been amazed by the number of people who are totally closed to the idea of changing the voting system, and even more so by the number of these people who have cited "that's how the NAZIs got in" as an argument against introducing a different voting system.

- Pupil premium
Mmmmyeah. Depends what else is done to schools around it. 'Oversubscribed' is a word that many schools proudly display in their literature, yet few seem to think about what it means: It means 'overcrowded,' 'too many kids,' and 'not enough teachers'. The way schools are funded already encourages schools to take in far more kids than they have space for, and that puts a strain on resources (yes, that includes teachers). This would be another incentive for schools to give more places that don't exist to more kids. Don't get me wrong: I think it's essential that kids form poor backgrounds are given the opportunity to go to decent schools, but it needs to be done in the right way. I know what the main argument will be- schools will get extra money for these kids which can go into resources etc. But it won't: It'll go into filling the financial void that exists in most schools. The extra cash won't make a dent; it won't even touch the sides as it goes down. The only way this will work is if the government starts to take schools and schooling seriously. The only way that will happen is if the people start taking it seriously. There are far too many people in positions of responsibility with regards to national school policy and funding who haven't set foot in a classroom and don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

- School reform
The bits of info I've managed to gather on this make me feel worried for the teaching profession. If half of it comes to fruition, I predict mass-walkouts by good teachers who are fed up with the trend for more work, less time to do it in and less money to do it with (without even mentioning decreasing salaries).

(Reply to this



(37 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)