General Election

[Paul McKeown]

I mean, you do know that Laws broke the rules?

You may be right, but you may be wrong. I think it best to wait for the report from the Commissioner for Standards.

That there is not just the question of his arrangements vis a vis his partner but some other *very* extravagant expenses claims??

With regard to unreceipted claims, he wasn't in breach of the rules at the time. If he was, there would be perhaps about 20 MPs remaining from before 2005. If you have ever been seconded on business or something of the sort, you will be aware of the idea of allowances for amounts up to which one can make unreceipted claims.

Yes, the Telegraph has its own agenda

And Alistair Campbell had no idea before QT? With his framed photograph, it would seem more like a shot from the grave. Good riddance... And as for the rest of the hissing Labour geese, they might bear in mind that if the current coalition were to fail to a confidence motion, that with fixed term parliamentary terms, they might find themselves sharing the government benches later in the parliament. Wouldn't do to annoy one's neighbours before you have even moved in, eh? And they might also bear in mind that they might have to share government anyway after the General Election from May 2015. The majoritarian duopoly may return, then again, it may not. It would be a shame to put the kibosh on future co-operation, when there might be choices on offer...!

his sexuality was in fact reasonably well known to those within the "bubble"

Known, or sniggeringly speculated upon, by people who should known better?

But you LibDems are big boys now - this is part of what that is like

True, but the point about the Lib Dems not being an establishment stitch up party is also true. Do you think they really give a damn if they upset the proprietors of various news media, whilst they have a share on the levers of a government with a mandate for reform? The harlotry of the fourth estate was first commented on when Labour was not even in existence. Actually it has amused me is how shocked the Tories have been on occasion when they have found how radical some of the Liberal Democrat ideas are (it's not like many of the ideas haven't been in the Liberal/LD manifestos for decades, if not even for a century or more!) I don't think they really would shirk from one more radical reform even if it meant a very bloody catfight with a brothel full of harlots, if they thought their pimps were looking for the fight.

Re Ben Bradshaw - I suppose you may not be aware that back in 1997, his ragingly homophobic Tory opponent issued a leaflet stating that if he (BB) won "schoolchildren would be in danger"?

So, its a personal campaign, rooted in his own sense of grievance. As I said, hypocrite, two wrongs don't make a right.

I suspect that Laws will be told that he was foolish, but not venal. Then back on the government front bench soon enough, where he is needed. But that is speculation.

[Paul McKeown]

I mean, you do know that Laws broke the rules?

That there is not just the question of his arrangements vis a vis his partner but some other *very* extravagant expenses claims??

Matt,

Before making a judgement, you might like to consider the Green Book rules, to be found here, Allowances for MPs, for 2005 and 2009, and then consider the chronology. I suspect Laws will be vindicated; actually some are suggesting that he was daft paying back the money he did, a result perhaps of a hyperactive shame gland.

Regards,
Your Liberal Democratic Friend.

[Paul McKeown]

And as for the rest of the hissing Labour geese, they might bear in mind that if the current coalition were to fail to a confidence motion, that with fixed term parliamentary terms, they might find themselves sharing the government benches later in the parliament.

But, I suppose I should say that I think that unlikely. The coalition document is pretty comprehensive and will keep both parties busy for a long time. The LDs are desperate to make the most of this period of government, as are the Tories. And even the wilder elements amongst the parliamentary Conservative party are extremely keen to keep Labour out. So, although there will be pretty public disagreements (good to remind the electors that there are actually two very different parties in government), discipline is likely to be good, at least for a while. I was pleased to hear Ming on Hard Talk saying he would vote against the Bill to raise tuition fees. Good old Ming, support the party and the government, just let them know from the off what your limits are! To be honest, the LDs are a bit gobsmacked at some of the better Tory ideas, too, like the idea of publishing details of government spending. Why wasn't that an LD manifesto promise, particularly as they had been plaguing the last government with FoI requests and the like... And the promotion of co-operatives and mutual societies, a grand old Liberal obsession, where did the Tories dust that one up from, although naturally with things like that there is the worry that it is just an attempt to do things on the cheap. [For me the main annoyance at the moment is the disproportional reduction in the transport budget, which is to hit the railways very hard, seemingly rather at odds with Chris Huhne's ambitious green agenda, which is something I very much favour. Reserving judgement there.] And anyway, both governing parties have loads of concessionary bones they can throw at each other over the next few years; I suspect the problems will arise when they run out of obvious "harmless" concessions they can cede to each other.

Anyway, Labour is a long way from ready even to be an effective opposition at the moment, never mind government, so there is no real prospect that a failed confidence vote in the short term would help Labour at all.

I think Cameron must be pretty pleased at the moment, with a safe majority straddling the centre ground, and his own rightwing impotent, unlike under John Major.

And they might also bear in mind that they might have to share government anyway after the General Election from May 2015. The majoritarian duopoly may return, then again, it may not. It would be a shame to put the kibosh on future co-operation, when there might be choices on offer...!

And of course I have no real idea what will happen in the future. I know the LDs are all desperate to avoid repeating any fiascoid National Liberal history.

[Rob Thompson]

And they might also bear in mind that they might have to share government anyway after the General Election from May 2015. The majoritarian duopoly may return, then again, it may not. It would be a shame to put the kibosh on future co-operation, when there might be choices on offer...!

And of course I have no real idea what will happen in the future. I know the LDs are all desperate to avoid repeating any fiascoid National Liberal history.

I think what happens in the future is going to be very dependent on what sort of electoral reform we get offered. On AV, the seat allocation would be a little more representative of the will of the public, but not much. And even that isn't certain, with only a referendum being offered, though it does seem likely. If, however, over the next five years public demand for PR, or at least STV, grows, such as the "Take Back Parliament" campaign currently running, it may force more reform for the next election. That would make it interesting

[Paul McKeown]

I think what happens in the future is going to be very dependent on what sort of electoral reform we get offered. On AV, the seat allocation would be a little more representative of the will of the public, but not much. And even that isn't certain, with only a referendum being offered, though it does seem likely. If, however, over the next five years public demand for PR, or at least STV, grows, such as the "Take Back Parliament" campaign currently running, it may force more reform for the next election. That would make it interesting

Rob,

I think in a strange way that AV is best for the Liberal Democrats at the moment. They have never really done well in PR elections, such as EU Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, etc. Their problem is one of resources. What they have learned to do well is target seats. AV will help them expand the list of seats that they can target effectively.

Of course party funding is one of the problems for the parties outside of the duopoly, which will be reformed during this Parliament. That should help the LDs (and the SNP, PC, Greens, UKIP, etc.) fight on a more even footing in future.

Eventually STV will happen, it serves natural justice, people understand that the current system is unfair and are perhaps beginning to realise that the duopolists cry of "strong government" doesn't really stack up given the way this current coalition appears to have resolved most of its apparent contradictions and has been able to come up with a sensible program of government. It certainly would open up plural politics, where the ridiculous broad blue coalition and the equally ridiculous broad red coalition, could no longer hold coalition formation discussions internally behind closed doors, but would have to negotiate publicly and justify their compromises. I look forward to the day when a wide choice of political opinions is offered, with the likelihood that some elements of those opinions can be implemented. I look forward to the day when people can genuinely vote for what they want rather than against what they fear. I look forward to the day when governments will require majority support to form.

I just hope that the LDs will be ready for the day when STV is implemented.

You might be right, Cameron could indeed even pull a Disraeli in this parliament. Who knows?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Oooh, voting theory. One of my favourite subjects, and I've learned a lot about it over the past couple of years. (In particular, I've learned a bit about the strange properties of Alternative Vote - it can do funny things in 3-way marginals.)

[Paul McKeown]

I noticed the following (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parli ... -2010.html):

"I play golf quite badly and chess quite well." - David Mowat MP (Con, Warrington South).

I guess he is this fellow: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getre ... ef=260140A

[Paul McKeown]

and Phil Woolas, having to defend an election court petition under the Representation of the People Act, for misleading and erroneous claims in election literature, which, if successful, would see a by-election in Oldham, with him and his agent potentially disbarred.

I see that Phil Woolas has had his come-uppance delivered by the Election Court, which upheld Elwyn Watkins claim that Woolas had deliberately made false statements about Watkins in election literature, contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People's Act, the chief consequence of which (something which has not happened since 1911) is that (under section 160), he is loses his seat, he is banned for three years from being registered to vote, voting, being elected to the House of Commons, and holding any other elective office.

There will be a by-election in Oldham East, unless Woolas makes an appeal against the verdict and the appellate court grants leave, which presumably would stall the by-election.

[Alex Holowczak]

There will be a by-election in Oldham East, unless Woolas makes an appeal against the verdict and the appellate court grants leave, which presumably would stall the by-election.

Are Labour entitled to field a replacement candidate at this election?

[Paul McKeown]

Are Labour entitled to field a replacement candidate at this election?

Naturally.

I was gobsmacked a month ago when Ed Milliband gave Woolas a shadow ministerial position. Was EM really not aware that this was going to happen????

[Alex Holowczak]

Are Labour entitled to field a replacement candidate at this election?

Naturally.

I was gobsmacked a month ago when Ed Milliband gave Woolas a shadow ministerial position. Was EM really not aware that this was going to happen????

In that case, it's quite interesting. In the earlier election, it was a very narrow win for Labour from LD, with Conservative not that far behind. Given all that's gone on since then, it'll be quite interesting to see whether Liberal Democrats do as well as they did before.

[David Sedgwick]

I noticed the following (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parli ... -2010.html):

"I play golf quite badly and chess quite well." - David Mowat MP (Con, Warrington South).

I guess he is this fellow: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getre ... ef=260140A

Sorry - I missed this post originally.

You're quite correct in your supposition. There are earlier references to David Mowat MP on pages 3, 6 and 14 of this thread.

[Paul McKeown]

In that case, it's quite interesting. In the earlier election, it was a very narrow win for Labour from LD, with Conservative not that far behind. Given all that's gone on since then, it'll be quite interesting to see whether Liberal Democrats do as well as they did before.

I would expect a lot of the "nasty" votes that went Woolas's way to go BNP. Wild prediction: Conservative win.

[Matt Mackenzie]

In that case, it's quite interesting. In the earlier election, it was a very narrow win for Labour from LD, with Conservative not that far behind. Given all that's gone on since then, it'll be quite interesting to see whether Liberal Democrats do as well as they did before.

I would expect a lot of the "nasty" votes that went Woolas's way to go BNP. Wild prediction: Conservative win.

Wild indeed

You can forget about the BNP - they have imploded since the GE and are on the verge of total disintegration

Woolas may still appeal, btw. And what bits we have seen of the court judgement seems to suggest it was a fairly close run thing.........

[Paul McKeown]

I would expect a lot of the "nasty" votes that went Woolas's way to go BNP. Wild prediction: Conservative win.

Wild indeed

You can forget about the BNP - they have imploded since the GE and are on the verge of total disintegration

Woolas may still appeal, btw. And what bits we have seen of the court judgement seems to suggest it was a fairly close run thing.........

1. BNP imploded since the GE - happily true
2. The full court judgement can be found here. Your belief that it was a close run thing seems at odds with reality. Woolas and his election agent chose to run a deliberate campaign of - utterly baseless - smears designed to "get the white folk angry" to "galvanise the white Sun vote" because "it's s**t or bust", just a few choice excerpts from the damning trail of emails that the court took into consideration.
3. Woolas has made clear his intent to appeal, apparently on the grounds that if one cannot deliberately tell lies during an election campaign that political debate will be suppressed. It is, however, up to the Court of Appeal to determine whether his case has sufficient merit even to be considered or not. Woolas might be better advised to save his pennies to defend the libel case that possibly might follow, as I understand that a number of lawyers have made it clear that they would be happy to handle such a case against Woolas. One could imagine that Elwyn Watkins might well want to recoup at least his election expenses.
4. Prediction - I can't see that the Oldham East and Saddleworth electorate are going to reward either the Labour or Lib Dem candidate in the coming by-election, hence my wild prediction of a Conservative win. The seat is, in any case, a genuine three way marginal. Who knows though, all three results must be possible, depends on a lot of things. Ladbrokes choosing Labour as the odds on favourite seems just a little automatic to me. Electors aren't automatons.