Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement?


by Sunny Hundal    
1:34 pm - May 12th 2010

      Share on Tumblr

I’ve been sent this document from a source who wishes to remain anonymous.

They say this document forms the basis of the agreement between the Libdems and Conservatives. I’m not going to publish the Word document, but here it is in HTML format.

Update: Apologies, Site went down due to the traffic surge, and still remains slow.

——————

Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations

Agreements reached

11 May 2010

This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering
the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.

1. Deficit Reduction

The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:

  • a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes;
  • arrangements that will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints; and
  • protection of jobs by stopping Labour’s proposed jobs tax.

The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.

The parties agree that modest cuts of £6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the
Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.

The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.

2. Spending Review

– NHS, Schools and a Fairer Society

The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments.
The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.

The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.

We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

3. Tax Measures

The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.

We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.

The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

4. Banking Reform

The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.

We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and
investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.

5. Immigration

We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

6. Political Reform

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive
result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.

7.
Pensions and Welfare

The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not
be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.

We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.

We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.


8. Education

Schools

We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:

  • that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand;
  • that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,
  • that all schools are held properly accountable.

Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

  • increase social mobility;
  • take into account the impact on student debt;
  • ensure a properly funded university sector;
  • improve the quality of teaching;
  • advance scholarship;
    and,
  • attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain
in any vote.

9.
Relations with the EU

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would
be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

  • A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
  • The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
  • Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
  • The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
  • Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
  • The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
  • The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
  • The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
  • Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
  • Further regulation of CCTV.
  • Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
  • A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

11. Environment

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:

  • The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
  • The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs.
  • Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
  • The creation of a green investment bank.
  • The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
  • Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.
  • Measures to encourage marine energy.
  • The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to
    meet the emissions performance standard.
  • The establishment of a high-speed rail network.
  • The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.
  • The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
  • The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.
  • The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
  • Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
  • Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats
    and restore biodiversity.
  • Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
  • Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment
    to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
  • We are agreed that we would seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.

Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they
receive no public subsidy.

We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national
planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.

This process will involve:

  • the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;
  • specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and
  • clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.

——————

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Fuck all about the NHS. This is clearly a stitch up by the ConDems.

Mark my words, both LibDem and Cons have plans to make the NHS a commissioner-only and not a provider of healthcare. What this means in practice is that your local NHS hospital will slowly close down as services are cherry picked by private corporations. The eventual aim is for there to be a healthcare market with private hospitals “competing for patients”. Clegg is in favour of an insurance system to pay for healthcare (that’s me fucked, as someone with a chronic, and uninsurable condition).

Hannan’s “60 year mistake” will not survive the next five years

section 10 is bloody good isn’t it? fingers crossed.

@Richard Blogger: fuck all except “funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament”.

4. astateofdenmark

Sounds unbelievably good. Elected Lords. Individual Voter Registration. Great Reform Bill. Rolling back new labour’s attack on civil liberties. Scrapping ID Cards and 3rd Runway. God I hope this is true.

2

A turd, however lovingly polished, remains a turd.

If they do all the things in section 10, great…. but let’s face it, it’s only one section of the whole, and giving them credit for being less inimical to civil liberties than New Labour smacks of damning with faint praise.

“Labour’s financial crisis”?

Proportional Representation for peers but not for the commons?

Also, no comment on ‘Labour’s’ Digital Millenium Economy Bill. But then, where are the tabloid scare stories about that?

Some good (civil liberties), some bad (electoral reform), some horrible (relations with the EU). But what on earth is this??

“to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis”

That’s just childish.

“work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.”

oh FFS.

@3. Rob did you read what I said? It says fuck-all about what they intend to do. The “funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament” was well trailed during the campaign, as well as “cut admin by a third” – which no one knows how it can be implemented since it is the internal market not targets that takes up the majority of admin.

Galen10,

2

A turd, however lovingly polished, remains a turd.

If they do all the things in section 10, great…. but let’s face it, it’s only one section of the whole, and giving them credit for being less inimical to civil liberties than New Labour smacks of damning with faint praise.

Um, the verbs “repeal” and “scrap”, to name but two, suggest rather more to me than “being less inimical”…

It seems to me it’s well past time for Labour supporters to get over the fact that their party is not the party of civil liberties – it has after all spent the last 13 years trying to destroy them.

Section 10:

“The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.”

Nice try. Except that without biometric passports no Brit will be able to enter the US, so that part is cloud cuckoo land. The rest (NIR, ID cards), unfortunately, lead on from the biometric passports. I’ll like to see how Dave will persuade the US congress (Obama has no power there) that British citizens should be made a special case, especially since they will shout back “Richard Reid”!

@Rogue_Leader – it means you get your geographical representation in the commons and your wider party political representation in the Lords.

I think it’s a reasonable compromise.

@8 – I noticed that.

What a rip! (But hardly surprising…)

10

Well, even assuming this document is a true refelction of what they propose, it hasn’t happened yet. Reminds me of the Spartan reply to Philip of Macedon’s threat that he would utterly destroy them if he invaded: “If”.

I’m not saying “repeal” and “scrap” aren’t good things (when and “if” they happen), I’m just saying that your excitement about one part of the programme doesn’t make the rest of it smell good.

Quite good, don’t you think Sunny? Better than what Labour have done in 13 years.

OT, sort of

at least the stupid tweets have been demoted – well done

It has only been out for a couple of hours and already Cameron is breaking the pledges. The FT reports:

“Cameron drops pledge to raise NHS spending in real terms”

The coalition document is yet to be published. But I’ve been told that the ring-fence on NHS funding has been lifted. The exact wording is:

“We will increase NHS spending in every year of the parliament.”

This meets the Lib Dem policy of not protecting any department from public spending cuts, while guaranteeing that health funding will at least be flat in cash terms .

Of course Cameron was never going to honour that campaign pledge, but it seems that the LibDems have forced his hand early. Hospital closures by the end of the year, and there is nothing we can do about it.

The welfare bit is what worries me the most.

It’s quite telling that so many Lib Dem members are cheering potential improvements regarding civil liberties (fair enough, I say, Labour really did take the piss on that one) BUT – big but- little is being said about welfare.

The Tory agenda is to be steamrolled in, with no mitigating factors. They even got Iain Duncan Smith as Work & Pensions Secretary, which is proper back to vintage Tory stuff last seen with Howard, Shephard and Portillo at the helm back in the days of John Major.

This is bad. Basically this is a man, IDS, whose social policies could sit with ease in a George W Bush administration (and in fact thay are actively cheered by the Daily Mail). The LibDems are going to support him. Grrrreat.

So, to our Lib Dem friends.
Remember to tell the hundreds of thousands who will lose their jobs through mega cuts and will then be forced to go on compulsory welfare to work programmes that at least we got a fixed parliament.

I’m sure you will make their day.

Warning. Comments not appearing.

Have not yet read this document in full, but if even half of it is enacted, I’m going to look forward to seeing how an avowedly “Liberal” blog finds ways to paint this government as the second coming of King Herod, as Sunny is clearly champing to do.

Some good stuff in here.

Wow, the Lib Dems have secured even less than I’d assumed this morning.

On the civil liberties front, there is *nothing* here worth bothering with, except the money saved from scrapping the ID card programme (since it was always going to be impossible to make the DB work – see the much simpler but still impossible NPFIT – the civil liberties implications were always irrelevant). No storage of data “without good reason” is exactly where we were before: the government can always say “all internet records to be stored for 2 years to prevent terrorism, which is a good reason”. And the fact that there’s no explicit commitment to retain the Human Rights Act is *bloody disturbing*.

As I suggested earlier, the “electoral reform” is a commitment to a referendum where the Tories aren’t bound to support the “yes” campaign, and which will therefore probably fail. The Lords rhetoric looks pretty, but it’s just a guarantee to have a commission which will report this year / next year / sometime / never and to slightly favour the Tories in allocation of new peers in the meantime.

Not locking up kids for being foreign is nice. An absolute cap on non-EU foreigners is nasty. So that one’s 50/50.

Sounds unbelievably good.

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Remember all the wonderful things Tony promised us in ’97? I’m not believing a single fucking word of it until I see it in action, and even then I’ll be damn suspicious.

The fact that the HRA is missing from section 10, whereas a “great repeal” is mentioned, makes me bloody nervous. Am I just being paranoid?

Lib. Dem nuclear agreement can only be judged by history..I would say it is a tragedy in embryo.. We have renewable alternatives, much better and safer. This should be a conscience vote.

This looks pretty good. Great news for all liberals, including right-wing liberals like myself.

I didn’t realise the LibDems were anti-nuclear. Glad they’ve been forced to drop that idiotic policy. If we really want to lower the carbon footprint, nuclear is the only way to go.

On the NHS, I look forward to whatever reforms they might come up with. If they can make the system a bit less pointlessly inefficient, perhaps by introducing Swedish-style partial privatisation, then perhaps some of the hospitals closed by Labour will be able to reopen!

28. Yurrzem!

@25 June Birch

Time to drop that particular Green shiboleth. We need nuclear. http://web.me.com/stewartbrand/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_Nukes.html

29. Shatterface

Anaerobic digestion? Don’t like the sound of that. Exercise on a full stomach? No thanks! Quite like the idea of replacing the motorways with a Scalextric though. Time to make a green case for nuclear power too.

If even half of part 10 is carried out that’s a massive victory over control freakery. So what if the Americans won’t let us in? Fuck ‘em. Why should out entire population sacrifice their civil liberties for the convenience of a few tourists who want to gawp at the Grand Canyon. It’s a big hole, get over it.

@1 Richard Blogger: Mark my words, both LibDem and Cons have plans to make the NHS a commissioner-only and not a provider of healthcare.

I don’t see anything wrong with that, in principle. After all, at the moment, the NHS is a commissioner, but not a producer, of the drugs it uses, hospital beds, and vast amounts of other things that it buys, running from biros to computers. Unless you are suggesting that the NHS should itself produce all these itself (which would be silly), there’s no difference in principle for the NHS to commission medical treatment to be provided by other organisations.

31. John Palmer

“legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”

If you can’t get an overall majority then change the rules so you don’t need one. Once the Lib/Dems sign up for this their days are numbered.

55% of 650 is 357.5 say 358 MP’s needed to overthrow the government. Only 292 Conservative MP’s needed to support the government in a vote of confidence. The 305 they got (not including the Speaker) should allow 13 to go down the pub and have a good laugh.

“The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not
be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.”

“We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.”

So basically, taken to a logical conclusion what they’re saying is that they want to make it compulsory to work whatever hours our bosses demand, no matter how unreasonable, and that if we haven’t earned enough for a nest egg, we’re supposed to work until we die.

Good stuff. I’m not sure I like this kind of “progressiveness”

The fixed term parliament sounds good but it will take 55% to dissolve parliament sounds highly undemocratic. Conveniently the Tories have 47% of the seats so even if the Liberals fall out of love with them, they’ll be nothing anyone can do.

Sounds a highly regressive and bloody convenient reform.

I’m reminded of part of a speech I heard almost a quarter of century ago by someone shedding crocidile tears for the victims of Tory Thatcherite policies; who stood by and let others fight the battles he and his cabal did not have the stomach to fight and whose mindset lives on today in the Sectarian Tribalist Tendancy who would rather be losers, who would rather sit sniping on the sidelines than give up its self-proclaimed right to claim exclusive ownership of the terms “left”; “progressive” and “radical” by letting anyone else not part of the “tribe” into the enclosure they have set up as the paternalistic vanguard of ordinary working people.

Those over about the age of 40-45 may recognise it. I’ve updated it to reflect what is, sadly, the situation as it stands:

“I’ll tell you what happens with authoritarian tribalists. You start with a far-fetched series of policies designed to placate the right wing media, the unelected money markets and neo-con interests.

And these are then pickled into a rigid micro-managerialist dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, misplaced, outdated, irrelevant to the real needs.

And you end in the grotesque spectacle of a Tory Government, a Tory Government, scuttling round Parliament and the Country committing themselves to scrapping ID cards and a National Identity register of its own people; outlawing the DNA fingerprinting of schoolchildren; stopping the retention of innocent peoples DNA; restoring the rights to non-violent protest; defending trial by jury; reviewing the libel laws to protect freedom of speech; ending the detention of children for immigration purposes; further regulating CCTV cameras; doing away with the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences; and restoring the state pension link to earnings.

Anti-civil rights policies and legislation all of which were introduced by a Labour Government, a Labour Government. I tell you – and you’ll listen – you can’t play politics with people’s civil rights and people’s pensions and people’s lives.”

It is the tribalist majority within the Labour Party – the old right wing authoritarians and their blairite fellow travellers at all levels who are the ones who have put us in this position.

They are spinning like a top and lying like troopers to deflect the blame for their own cowardice and ego’s onto others.

They have lost all credible claim to be progressive and of the “left”. Until they have cleared out the dead wood, got rid of their control freak mindset, and learned how to work with others of like mind they deserve to be sidelined.

They have a great deal to answer for in spurning the opportunity to stop the damage of a Tory Administration.

35. John Palmer

“Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they receive no public subsidy.

We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.

This process will involve:

* the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;
* specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and
* clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.”

So the Lib/Dems have signed up for an agreement where they are allowed to speak out against a proposal but are NOT allowed to vote against it?

Furthermore this is not regarded as a vote of confidence?

Haven’t the Tories read their own agreement? They have already rigged the percentages so that they can always win a vote of confidence, they only need 292 votes under their proposed vote rigging legislation to block any motion.

Mark @ 16

Getting the Tories to right something that reads well on paper is not difficult. After all concepts like ‘Care in the Community’ sounded great when they were announced, but nowhere did they say that people with mental health issues would be expected to wander about seaside towns whilst the B&B hostels were closed during the day.

I think you will find that many of those policies will bear little relation to the actual practices.

Holy crap, I’ve only got up to the environment section so far, but this is seriously good stuff O_O

Dare I allow myself a speckle of optimism?

Richard Blogger,

Section 10:

“The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.”

Nice try. Except that without biometric passports no Brit will be able to enter the US, so that part is cloud cuckoo land. The rest (NIR, ID cards), unfortunately, lead on from the biometric passports. I’ll like to see how Dave will persuade the US congress (Obama has no power there) that British citizens should be made a special case, especially since they will shout back “Richard Reid”!

Labour’s proposals went well beyond international requirements. The National Identity Register as proposed is not prerequisite for a functional and internationally accepted passport system.

Galen10,

… I’m not saying “repeal” and “scrap” aren’t good things (when and “if” they happen), I’m just saying that your excitement about one part of the programme doesn’t make the rest of it smell good.

I did say I was keeping my fingers crossed. I’m not so much excited as I am quietly hopeful.

John B,

… On the civil liberties front, there is *nothing* here worth bothering with, except the money saved from scrapping the ID card programme (since it was always going to be impossible to make the DB work – see the much simpler but still impossible NPFIT – the civil liberties implications were always irrelevant). No storage of data “without good reason” is exactly where we were before: the government can always say “all internet records to be stored for 2 years to prevent terrorism, which is a good reason”.

That would be Labour’s ‘good’ reason. The evidence over the past 13 years suggests the Tories and LibDems will be rather more interested in procedural correctness and proportionate responses; there is a good reason to store records from specific conversations / people but there is not a good reason to store records of everyone in the UK.

I disagree with you John, I think there are messages in section 10 about the sorts of things that will not be infringed and I think that’s important, not least because we can point the finger if they turn out to be liars.

And the fact that there’s no explicit commitment to retain the Human Rights Act is *bloody disturbing*.

… The fact that the HRA is missing from section 10, whereas a “great repeal” is mentioned, makes me bloody nervous. Am I just being paranoid?

I don’t see much value in reading into the absence of things. There are lots of things they haven’t mentioned – for example I’d liked to have seen them say that “we aren’t thinking about recording everyone’s land, sea and air journeys”.

Even if there is a plan to get rid of the HRA, the ECHR will continue to provide protection so long as we’re signed up to it – incidentally, the UK under Labour is the only party to the ECHR that has derogated from it. I think the Tory position has been one of “let’s tell our supporters we will do something about the HRA even though it won’t make any real difference and we can pin any blame on Europe”.

Changed my mind about the lack of mention of HRA and it’s importance.

For one thing the queue for the ECtHR is ridiculously long as it is.

Henry Porter noticed the omission of control orders.

We can rebuild our party from within the halls of power even if we have to sacrifice a few ideological goats with the Condems.

Follow our coalition new policy agreements as they unfold at:

http://www.libservative.org.uk

“Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement?”

Exclusive: Was this the Con-dem agreement?

I am a stickler for accuracy.

Its all about to get much worse…you didn`t think that could happen, did you.

“The Common People”

http://tinyurl.com/32zkop4


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. CathElliott

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  2. Paris Gourtsoyannis

    Real-terms yearly rise in NHS spending; .7% foreign aid spending RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  3. Luke Carey

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  4. Julie Bristow

    RT @CathElliott: RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  5. Alison Wheeler

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  6. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  7. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  8. Tony Kennick

    Claims this could be the agreement: http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  9. Tony Kennick

    Claims this could be the agreement: http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  10. Tony Kennick

    Claims this could be the agreement: http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  11. Lee Griffin

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  12. Lee Griffin

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  13. Sean

    @AIannucci Via @libcon http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft Was this the Con-Lib agreement?

  14. Teobesta

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  15. James Anthony

    And it starts RT @CathElliott: "We will, in particular, work to limit the app of the Working Time Directive in the UK" http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  16. Oliver Collinge

    RT @wlmager: Apparently @libcon have leaked the full agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw

  17. Neil Baker

    Apparent text of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement: http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  18. Curly15

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/ Quite a scoop for Sunny Hundai

  19. Curly15

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/ Quite a scoop for Sunny Hundai

  20. Joe Gravett

    Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @libcon <– fascinating read

  21. Rob MollartHighfield

    "funding for the NHS should increase in real terms" (http://is.gd/c5LqC) v "ring-fence on NHS funding has been lifted" (http://is.gd/c5LsF)

  22. john rickards

    RT @McKelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  23. Andrew Parrington

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  24. Research Fortnight

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  25. Genevieve Sibayan

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  26. Paul Jenkins

    RT @tweetminster: According to @sunny_hundal (Liberal Conspiracy) this is the Con-Lib agreement: http://goo.gl/J3yP

  27. john king

    If so the civil liberties section is impressive. RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  28. jameskennell

    Already? RT @CathElliott "We will in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the UK" http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  29. LiberalLabour

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  30. Liberal Conspiracy

    Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  31. Michael Park

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  32. Fabian Neuner

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  33. lisa jones

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  34. lisa jones

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  35. Ian Duncan

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  36. Ian Duncan

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  37. Lovely Horse

    "New providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand" http://bit.ly/922Cgs via @libcon

  38. Lovely Horse

    "New providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand" http://bit.ly/922Cgs via @libcon

  39. Lovely Horse

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  40. Lovely Horse

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  41. kosmopolit

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  42. kosmopolit

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  43. Sheryl Odlum

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  44. Sheryl Odlum

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  45. Paris Gourtsoyannis

    Real-terms yearly rise in NHS spending; .7% foreign aid spending RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  46. Charlotte Gore

    "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  47. Luke

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  48. Thomas O Smith

    http://is.gd/c5Kbi Bargain? The Lib Con Pact

  49. Thomas O Smith

    http://is.gd/c5Kbi Bargain? The Lib Con Pact

  50. dan phillips

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  51. dan phillips

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  52. sunny hundal

    According to this document, http://bit.ly/922Cgs a commission will also be established to "consider the West Lothian Question"

  53. sunny hundal

    According to this document, http://bit.ly/922Cgs a commission will also be established to "consider the West Lothian Question"

  54. Chris Wood

    @Davewwest If this document is right, which looks likely, it says there will be real terms increases in NHS each year: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  55. Chris Wood

    @Davewwest If this document is right, which looks likely, it says there will be real terms increases in NHS each year: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  56. Jared Gaites

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  57. Jared Gaites

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  58. Timothy Pendry

    RT @sunny_hundal: According to this document, http://bit.ly/922Cgs a commission will also be established to "consider the West Lothian …

  59. Timothy Pendry

    RT @sunny_hundal: According to this document, http://bit.ly/922Cgs a commission will also be established to "consider the West Lothian …

  60. Gordon Darroch

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  61. Gordon Darroch

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  62. farhanashaikh

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  63. farhanashaikh

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  64. Julie Bristow

    RT @CathElliott: RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  65. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  66. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  67. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  68. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  69. Fiona McLaren

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  70. SomeBeans

    Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  71. SomeBeans

    Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  72. SomeBeans

    Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  73. SomeBeans

    Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  74. SomeBeans

    Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  75. Thetis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  76. Thetis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  77. Thetis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  78. Thetis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  79. Thetis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  80. Johnnie Shannon

    I'm reading this: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft and almost crying with emotion at the civil liberties bit (para 10). Let's hope it's all true.

  81. Johnnie Shannon

    I'm reading this: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft and almost crying with emotion at the civil liberties bit (para 10). Let's hope it's all true.

  82. Johnnie Shannon

    I'm reading this: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft and almost crying with emotion at the civil liberties bit (para 10). Let's hope it's all true.

  83. Johnnie Shannon

    I'm reading this: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft and almost crying with emotion at the civil liberties bit (para 10). Let's hope it's all true.

  84. Johnnie Shannon

    I'm reading this: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft and almost crying with emotion at the civil liberties bit (para 10). Let's hope it's all true.

  85. olivier_anthore

    RT @nickpthinking: RT @kosmopolit (via @libcon) Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  86. olivier_anthore

    RT @nickpthinking: RT @kosmopolit (via @libcon) Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  87. olivier_anthore

    RT @nickpthinking: RT @kosmopolit (via @libcon) Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  88. olivier_anthore

    RT @nickpthinking: RT @kosmopolit (via @libcon) Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  89. olivier_anthore

    RT @nickpthinking: RT @kosmopolit (via @libcon) Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  90. kryz brnlt

    Looks legit. (Also vague.) RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @kosmopolit

  91. kryz brnlt

    Looks legit. (Also vague.) RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @kosmopolit

  92. kryz brnlt

    Looks legit. (Also vague.) RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @kosmopolit

  93. kryz brnlt

    Looks legit. (Also vague.) RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @kosmopolit

  94. kryz brnlt

    Looks legit. (Also vague.) RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs /via @kosmopolit

  95. joey coco

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  96. joey coco

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  97. joey coco

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  98. joey coco

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  99. joey coco

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  100. Stephen Way

    ID cards, storage of electronic records without good reason gone: RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  101. Stephen Way

    ID cards, storage of electronic records without good reason gone: RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  102. Stephen Way

    ID cards, storage of electronic records without good reason gone: RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  103. Stephen Way

    ID cards, storage of electronic records without good reason gone: RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  104. Stephen Way

    ID cards, storage of electronic records without good reason gone: RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  105. Tony Kennick

    Claims this could be the agreement: http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  106. Tony Kennick

    Claims this could be the agreement: http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  107. tomatosquid

    If this is the con-lib agreement then the LibDems have negotiated well. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  108. tomatosquid

    If this is the con-lib agreement then the LibDems have negotiated well. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  109. tomatosquid

    If this is the con-lib agreement then the LibDems have negotiated well. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  110. tomatosquid

    If this is the con-lib agreement then the LibDems have negotiated well. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  111. Sean

    @AIannucci Via @libcon http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft Was this the Con-Lib agreement?

  112. Sean

    @AIannucci Via @libcon http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft Was this the Con-Lib agreement?

  113. Sean

    @AIannucci Via @libcon http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft Was this the Con-Lib agreement?

  114. quixoticgeek

    http://is.gd/c5KCk – If this is real, then the first bullet point in section 10 makes me happy! This assumes it's real tho. #ukgov #libcon

  115. quixoticgeek

    http://is.gd/c5KCk – If this is real, then the first bullet point in section 10 makes me happy! This assumes it's real tho. #ukgov #libcon

  116. quixoticgeek

    http://is.gd/c5KCk – If this is real, then the first bullet point in section 10 makes me happy! This assumes it's real tho. #ukgov #libcon

  117. Teobesta

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  118. Teobesta

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  119. Rosanna

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  120. Rosanna

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  121. muradahmed

    RT @dizzy_thinks: Quite the scoop for @sunny_hundal if genuine http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  122. muradahmed

    RT @dizzy_thinks: Quite the scoop for @sunny_hundal if genuine http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  123. Chas Booth

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs << Lib Dems to sit on their hands while Gov approves nuclear!? #fb

  124. Chas Booth

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs << Lib Dems to sit on their hands while Gov approves nuclear!? #fb

  125. Jonathan Haggart

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  126. Jonathan Haggart

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  127. James Anthony

    And it starts RT @CathElliott: "We will, in particular, work to limit the app of the Working Time Directive in the UK" http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  128. Neil Baker

    Apparent text of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement: http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  129. Neil Baker

    Apparent text of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement: http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  130. Neil Baker

    Apparent text of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement: http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  131. Alan Ford FCD

    It does: RT @SmallCasserole: Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  132. Alan Ford FCD

    It does: RT @SmallCasserole: Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  133. Alan Ford FCD

    It does: RT @SmallCasserole: Purported Lib-Con agreement, seems plausible: http://bit.ly/9uKVt1

  134. TimesHigherEducation

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  135. TimesHigherEducation

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  136. TimesHigherEducation

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  137. Chris Kendall

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs < Wow! Section on Europe terrible but env & civil libs are great

  138. Chris Kendall

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs < Wow! Section on Europe terrible but env & civil libs are great

  139. Chris Kendall

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs < Wow! Section on Europe terrible but env & civil libs are great

  140. Jamie McKelvie

    Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  141. Jamie McKelvie

    Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  142. Jamie McKelvie

    Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  143. Boyce

    The Lib-Con deal? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  144. Boyce

    The Lib-Con deal? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  145. Boyce

    The Lib-Con deal? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  146. Cali

    RT @CharlotteGore: "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  147. Cali

    RT @CharlotteGore: "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  148. Cali

    RT @CharlotteGore: "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  149. Curly15

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/ Quite a scoop for Sunny Hundai

  150. Carole Williams

    The question has been asked. Is this the ConDem agreement? http://bit.ly/cby2ef #fb

  151. Moose de Carabas

    If this is genuine, it is seriously not nearly as bad as it could have been. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  152. Moose de Carabas

    If this is genuine, it is seriously not nearly as bad as it could have been. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  153. Moose de Carabas

    If this is genuine, it is seriously not nearly as bad as it could have been. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  154. Moose de Carabas

    If this is genuine, it is seriously not nearly as bad as it could have been. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  155. Moose de Carabas

    If this is genuine, it is seriously not nearly as bad as it could have been. http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  156. john rickards

    RT @McKelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  157. john rickards

    RT @McKelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  158. john rickards

    RT @McKelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  159. john rickards

    RT @McKelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  160. Andrew Parrington

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  161. Andrew Parrington

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  162. Andrew Parrington

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  163. Gordon Darroch

    @CalMerc If this is right, there's going to be a commission on the West Lothian Question. Potentially explosive? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  164. Gordon Darroch

    @CalMerc If this is right, there's going to be a commission on the West Lothian Question. Potentially explosive? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  165. Gordon Darroch

    @CalMerc If this is right, there's going to be a commission on the West Lothian Question. Potentially explosive? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  166. Jonathan Bartley

    Leaked agreement details of Con-Lib coalition here: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  167. Jonathan Bartley

    Leaked agreement details of Con-Lib coalition here: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  168. Jonathan Bartley

    Leaked agreement details of Con-Lib coalition here: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  169. Research Fortnight

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  170. Research Fortnight

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  171. Rob D. P.

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  172. Rob D. P.

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  173. nobloodyworries

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  174. nobloodyworries

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  175. Genevieve Sibayan

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  176. davina

    RT @CharlotteGore: "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  177. Derek Bryant

    But site has crashed due to too much trafficRT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  178. Tony Veitch

    Leaked doc: end to "the detention of children for immigration purposes" http://bit.ly/cby2ef (h/t @cathelliott)

  179. Dylan Mouratsing

    All Brits need to read this: the leaked Con-Lib agreement http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

  180. UNISON

    RT @CathElliott: RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  181. bex sumner

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  182. ebony

    RT @tweetminster: According to @sunny_hundal (Liberal Conspiracy) this is the Con-Lib agreement: http://goo.gl/J3yP

  183. Faye Davies

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  184. Faye Davies

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  185. mmcnickle

    Hope Section 10 is for real: http://bit.ly/aFkwiR

  186. mmcnickle

    Hope Section 10 is for real: http://bit.ly/aFkwiR

  187. Nicola Jones

    RT @CathElliott: RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  188. Nicola Jones

    RT @CathElliott: RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  189. Belinda Webb

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  190. Belinda Webb

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  191. jameskennell

    Already? RT @CathElliott "We will in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the UK" http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  192. Dan Hutton

    RT @tweetminster: According to @sunny_hundal (Liberal Conspiracy) this is the Con-Lib agreement: http://goo.gl/J3yP

  193. Mike

    Reading the possible Con-Lib agreement posted on @libcon (though their site's down just now) http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  194. Richard Wilson

    Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  195. Vicky

    Leaked document. The con-lib agreement. http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  196. mjrobbins

    Yup RT @dontgetfooled: Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  197. Tom Griffin

    From BBC description of coalition agreement, sounds like Sunny_Hundal's doc is the real deal http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  198. Oda Rygh

    RT @dontgetfooled: Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  199. Cat

    RT @UMSU_Welfare: Leaked document. The con-lib agreement. http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  200. Hannah Devlin

    RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  201. Raj Bavishi

    Coalition Agreement: http://is.gd/c5MIo. Apparently.

  202. Bob Tregilus

    Contrast of extremes-Compare Obama's BS on #environment http://bit.ly/c96t66 to <24hour old left/right UK coalition gov http://bit.ly/aftS0p

  203. Liberal Conspiracy

    Again: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs (most of the text now being released in policy announcements)

  204. paulwmk

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  205. unslugged

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  206. Niall Millar

    A taste of things to come. RT: @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  207. Martin Brook

    Apparently this could be the text of the con-lib agreement: http://bit.ly/dmfM6r

  208. sunny hundal

    Libcon back up – our leaked exclusive was right on the money! http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  209. Jonathan Hansen

    RT @dontgetfooled: Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  210. Harriet Godfrey

    Retweeting @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  211. ebony

    If this is to be believed http://goo.gl/J3yP then LibCons are looking at Alternative Vote; a non-proportional convoluted system #ukelection

  212. blogbenchers

    RT @sunny_hundal: Libcon back up – our leaked exclusive was right on the money! http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  213. sunny hundal

    Libdems formally release deal with Cons http://j.mp/CoalitionAgreement minutes after we publish on @libcon http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  214. Chris Holt

    via@libcon This is the Con-Dem agreement: http://goo.gl/J3yP

  215. Danielle Foy

    RT @tweetminster: According to @sunny_hundal (Liberal Conspiracy) this is the Con-Lib agreement: http://goo.gl/J3yP

  216. Claire Butler

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  217. karen birch

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  218. David Hayward

    If this is true, good news on civil liberties: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

  219. johnhalton

    @tchee Leaked coalition document at @libcon says NHS spending will increase in real terms year-by-year. http://bit.ly/aFkwiR

  220. OurManInAbiko

    A shortlived scoop RT @sunny_hundal: Libdems deal with Cons http://j.mp/CoalitionAgreement after we publish on @libcon http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  221. PadPad

    Gotta say, gettin a bit excited about this LibCon thing- http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

  222. Charlie Davies

    RT @dontgetfooled: Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  223. James Stewart

    thinking that @monkchips will be interested in the mention of "smart grids" in this apparent leak of the #condem deal http://bit.ly/9gLpYz

  224. Clare Jones

    RT @mckelvie: Some good stuff to come out of the coalition: Check out "10. Civil Liberties" in this alledged agreement: http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  225. Raymond Carlin

    @Montgumberry RT @dizzy_thinks: Quite the scoop for @sunny_hundal if genuine http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  226. Steven Holdsworth

    The Con-lib agreement: http://bit.ly/cby2ef

  227. Text of the Tory Lib Dem agreement « Mac Uaid

    [...] of the Tory Lib Dem agreement Posted on May 12, 2010 by Liam Via Liberal Conspiracy comes what is claimed to be the agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dems. They are going to [...]

  228. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by benclowney, Jamie McKelvie, mjrobbins, Tweetminster, TimesHigherEducation and others. TimesHigherEducation said: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli [...]

  229. Tom Houslay

    lib-con agreement? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

  230. Dominic Sayers

    Hope this is true (http://bit.ly/libcon) "Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation" http://ff.im/-kdFRs

  231. Jane Bradley

    also a cap on non-EU immigration and political reform – wonder how many libs will be happy with this? And Tories? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  232. Ryan Bestford

    Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/dqStgC (via @LibCon)

  233. Keyur Desai

    @PaulGrahamRaven Can't help with the £10k tax break but looks like Con-Lib agreement document may have leaked: http://tinyurl.com/33ydgft

  234. David Wood

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/bpZPUV

  235. James Haddrill

    hmmm, interesting http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  236. Alex Willmer

    @aminorjourney Possible leaked Con-Lib agreement http://bit.ly/922Cgs The environment section is very pertinent to TWiE (via @sunny_hundal)

  237. Alastair Smith

    Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/cby2ef /via @libcon <- v. interesting if it is real.

  238. Mike Seery

    RT @NeilWhitstable: Apparent text of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement: http://bit.ly/922Cgs. < If true some int'g stuff: per plane duty..

  239. Rebecca Rothwell

    Have to say the more I read @libcon's leak of agreement here http://bit.ly/cGb4gw the less fearful I am: no more third runway at Heathrow

  240. Kenny McCracken

    RT @libcon Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/a7x27s

  241. Kenny McCracken

    @tom_watson If http://bit.ly/a7x27s is true, can you imagine Labour offering Section 10 for coalition with Lib Dems

  242. Rich Beer

    Leaked coalition agreement document. This is what's in store for the ConDem Nation: http://bit.ly/cby2ef. Could be worse, frankly.

  243. Fringe Thoughts - Conservative-Liberal agreement document leak

    [...] don’t know if this is real or not. But via Sonny H at Liberal Conspiracy here is what looks very much like the the agreement from the conservative -liberal [...]

  244. Vic Forte

    I've just seen the agreement. Not bad, Nick. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/

  245. Huddersfield Uni PGR

    RT @ResFortnight: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  246. Banditry » Tories stitch up Lib Dems on civil liberties

    [...] Sunny at LC reckons he has a copy of the Libservative agreement. [...]

  247. David Jones

    We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes http://bit.ly/aFkwiR

  248. .

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/bpZPUV

  249. David Jones

    A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill. The scrapping of ID card scheme. The review of libel laws. http://bit.ly/aFkwiR

  250. Jake Dearlove

    RT @sunny_hundal: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  251. Tom Blackburn

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  252. Simon Singh

    RT @dontgetfooled: Promising? #libelreform 'review' & PR for the Lords allegedly written in to #coalition agreement http://bit.ly/cdksD7

  253. garyliffen

    Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/cKPran

  254. garyliffen

    Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/cKPran

  255. Clive Power

    Interesting: alleged text of Tory/LD deal – 5yr parl term, AV refrdm, immig cap but prob enuf 2 keep LDs in 4 five years http://j.mp/aftS0p

  256. The Sun-Tabloid Lies

    Tory/LD deal http://bit.ly/d3jlLi inc safeguards vs anti-terror laws, e.g. proposed 90-day detention w/o charge which #theSun supported?

  257. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Clive Power, Rob MollartHighfield. Rob MollartHighfield said: "funding for the NHS should increase in real terms" (http://is.gd/c5LqC) v "ring-fence on NHS funding has been lifted" (http://is.gd/c5LsF) [...]

  258. bongi

    RT @the_sun_lies: Tory/LD deal http://bit.ly/d3jlLi inc safeguards vs anti-terror laws, e.g. proposed 90-day detention w/o charge which …

  259. Pickled Politics » How long will this ‘betrayal’ charge carry on for?

    [...] Tories have offered some serious concessions to the Libdems. This isn’t to be sniffed at because it might mean the coalition survives and [...]

  260. Tony Kennick

    @billt no details but the framework agreement mentions abolishing the NIR as well http://bit.ly/cj9JxI

  261. J Tryner

    RT @CharlotteGore: "Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason." WIN! (@libcon's leak of agreement here: http://bit.ly/cGb4gw)

  262. New UK government announces its plans for a great repeal bill – Dark Politricks

    [...] leaked document has been released at liberalconspiracy.org that seems to show the full text of the new Tory and Liberal Democrat collation agreement. Point 10 [...]

  263. The Con-LD agreement « Amused Cynicism

    [...] by cabalamat on 2010-May-12 Sunny Hundal has published a document which purports to be the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal [...]

  264. RosieBrook

    RT @MartinBrook: Apparently this could be the text of the con-lib agreement: http://bit.ly/dmfM6r

  265. skingers

    Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/dqBXnm Probably not (source: liberalconspiracy) but worth a read…

  266. What a fix!! «

    [...] it first appears to be. Looking at the finer print of the Liberal Democrat-Conservative deal that Liberal Conspiracy exclusively published we see this: A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a [...]

  267. This is what “new politics” looks like? « Sugar the Pill

    [...] was last somebody from the Yellow Party in Downing Street, coalition or not. And judging by the discussion document it would appear that some of the nastier policies have been dropped or watered down (no tax cut for [...]

  268. Lawrence Morgan

    RT @libcon: Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement? http://bit.ly/922Cgs

  269. Con/Dem benefits cuts « Harpymarx

    [...] benefits cuts 12 05 2010 Reading the Tory/LibDem coalition negotiations, at first glance nothing that surprising on “pensions and workfare”. Look in deficit [...]

  270. Doris Fone

    RT @timeshighered: RT @martin_eve Leaked document of Lib-Con coalition, including some HE policies; http://is.gd/c5Kli

  271. Daily Digest for May 12th — DLN.ME

    [...] Brits need to read this: the leaked Con-Lib agreement http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/ [...]

  272. Kalim Kassam

    "The Great Repeal Bill" makes this libertarians ears sing! http://bit.ly/d6oHqM http://bit.ly/9XDoYL #uk #ge2010 #tlot @abuhatem

  273. Kalim Kassam

    "The Great Repeal Bill" makes this libertarian's ears sing! http://bit.ly/d6oHqM http://bit.ly/9XDoYL #uk #ge2010 #tlot @abuhatem

  274. Kalim Kassam

    10 Woofie point to whomever can tell me what exactly a "green investment bank" is. http://bit.ly/d6oHqM #ge2010 #uk #green #libdem #tory

  275. Liberal Conspiracy » Have Libdems abandoned those most in need of help?

    [...] most in need of help? by Adam Lent     May 17, 2010 at 10:45 am There is a lot to like in this coalition deal stuff, to be [...]

  276. I For One Welcome Our Con-Lib Coalition Government « The Daily Soapbox

    [...] liberal conspiracy, there’s apparently the agreement between the Con and Libs on a coalition: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement. Reading through and hearing what they’ve agreed on, I found myself nodding and going “Oh, [...]

  277. andrew

    Liberal Conspiracy » Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement?: About the author: Sunny Hundal is editor of Liber… http://bit.ly/9Q8ZIg

  278. Have Libdems abandoned those most in need of help? « Dnmufc's Blog

    [...] is a lot to like in this coalition deal stuff that the Labour Government should have attended to long ago: political reform, cracking down [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.