The mysterious case of the 55% solution

by Guest    
May 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm

contribution by loveandgarbage

“But Holmes,” I ejaculated. “The 55% rule hidden in the coalition agreement. Surely it’s the end of democratic accountability as we know it.”

Holmes turned.

“Hah!” he cried. “You see Watson, you see but you do not observe. The hysteria of people who ought to know better about the 55% rule is an attempt to disguise their real concern about fixed term parliaments.”

I found this hard to follow. Holmes observed my confusion.
continue reading… »

Outrage against Theresa May’s appointment grows

by Sunny Hundal    
May 14, 2010 at 5:50 pm

A potentially fractious split has already opened up between Conservatives and Libdems over the issue of equality.

Outrage has been growing online over the appointment of Theresa May as the minister of equality despite her voting record.

poster created by: @RoryDoona

A Facebook group against Theresa May’s appointment has attracted over 32,000 people in less than 48 hours.

An online petition has also been launched, this states:

Her appointment is symbolically counter-productive as it suggests that there is not a more appropriate person for the job who has been positively campaigning for gay rights. We would also question her commitment to implementing effective change in this country considering her own views. Her appointment is therefore both intrinsically and instrumentally unacceptable.

The issue of equality and diversity has already cropped up as a contentious issue between Libdems and Conservatives.

Libdem MP Lynne Featherstone told Radio 4 today that neither party was doing enough to promote equality at the top:

When you look at the negotiating teams, they were male and pale.

So the issue is how do you get women through the ranks of parliament to those positions where they are then in a position to be in the cabinet?

She said she was “very disappointed”.

Therese May is her senior in government. She has yet to say anything on the matter however.

Backlash against Nick Robinson’s pro-Tory bias

by Sunny Hundal    
May 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm

A Facebook group criticising Nick Robinson’s pro-Tory bias has attracted over a thousand followers within a few days.

This group believes that Nick Robinson is too biased to serve as the BBC’s political editor.

Former president of the Oxford University Conservative Association and one-year National Chairman of the Young Conservatives, Nick Robinson is consistently unable to disguise his bias in favour of the Conservative Party. We therefore believe the BBC should install a new and more balanced political editor as soon as possible.

Creator Peter Tennant lsists five examples of Robinson’s Tory bias during the election:

a) Comparing Cameron to Disraeli before he’s even taken office;

b) Talking about Downing Street as a ‘Labour free zone’;

c) Talking about Gordon Brown as the ‘unelected prime minister’;

d) Talking about the Conservatives as having ‘won’ the election;

e) Talking about a rainbow coalition as a ‘coalition of losers’;

f) The clear pleasure on his face when the Tories returned to power.

There’s also a group annoyed at Adam Boulton for his pro-Tory bias
[hat-tip Roy Greenslade].

Update
There is in fact a much bigger group calling for Kay Burley to be sacked. Among examples of her partial reporting was this interview where she claimed people voted for a Hung Paraliament and that protestors who want electoral reform should “just go home”.

This represents the end of Thatcherism. What comes next?

by Anthony Barnett    
May 14, 2010 at 2:17 pm

I’ve written an analysis of the new Coalition on OurKingdom. My core argument is that means the end of Thatcherism as the identity brand of the Tory Party and probably the end of Thatcherism as the organising culture of UK politics, as, after 30 years, her ‘conviction’ politics is replaced by ‘coalition’ politics.

If only Labour could have achieved the same – as it had every opportunity to do.

The longer term success of the Coalition will be defined by two things, its economic policy and by its reform of our democracy. I don’t say anything about the cuts, partly because I don’t perceive much difference between the parties.

I do think the political culture that will shape the way they are implemented will be different however.
continue reading… »

More thoughts on Labour’s electoral strategy

by Guest    
May 14, 2010 at 10:30 am

contribution by planeshift

Sunny has started the ball rolling on what future labour strategy should now be.

I agree with the main conclusion that Labour needs to be a broad church, and keep the centre ground, avoiding 1983-esque stupidity.

So here are some more specific suggestions:
continue reading… »

Will Harriet Harman send out deputy leader nominations?

by Guest    
May 14, 2010 at 9:08 am

contribution by Peter Kenyon

Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee meets in five days time to decide the timetable for the election of its next leader. There are three options now in play: fast track before the summer recess, normal procedure in time for Conference, Tory 2005 model using Conference for TV test ballot after.

Being a ‘harpy’ for accountability myself, shamelessly rule guided, if not bound, I support the timetable arising from the Rule Book .

The Labour Party has already budgetted a modest £500,000 to conduct a postal ballot of its members to elect constituency representatives to its NEC and National Policy Forum, which are conducted under the ‘one-member-one-vote’ system.
continue reading… »

Amnesty fundraises to attack Shell’s record

by Newswire    
May 14, 2010 at 9:03 am

Human rights organisation Amnesty International has launched a mass fundraising campaign via social networks for a hard-hitting advertising campaign targeting the oil company Shell.

It is the first time Amnesty International has used fundraising to pay for a campaigning advertisement.

The full-page newspaper ad highlights Shell’s responsibility for pollution in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where oil spillages and gas flaring have polluted people’s water supply and devastated livelihoods based on fishing and farming.

It will be timed to coincide with Shell’s AGM on 18 May.

Amnesty International UK poverty & human rights campaign manager, Naomi McAuliffe, said:

The AGM is where Shell’s Board is held to account by its shareholders, so it’s an ideal time for us to try to influence the company’s policies.

Because of the activity of Shell and other oil companies, people in the Niger Delta are left to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, farm on spoiled land and breath in air that stinks of oil and gas. We want to expose the culprits and get them to come clean and accept responsibility.

.

From a press release

The psychology of coalitions and commitments

by Chris Dillow    
May 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Several on the Left are predicting that the Libservative coalition will break up nastily. Maybe.

But I think Andrew makes a good point – there are powerful psychological mechanisms which might keep it together.

One of these is our desire to be consistent. Once we have embarked upon a course of action, however daft, we tend to stick with it. This could be because of an endowment effect; things become valuable once we have them. Or it might be because of the confirmation bias; having taken a decision, we look for evidence to suggest we were right.

But it’s also because we like to think well of ourselves, and this leads us to want to be consistent. It’s for this reason that people are often loath to sell badly performing shares; doing so is an admission of failure, and folk hating making such admissions, even to themselves let alone the wider public.

In his book, Influence (which is far better than the cover suggests) Robert Cialdini gives several examples of this. People who have just bet on a horse become more confident about its prospects than they were before they placed the bet.

In the Korean war, the Chinese got American PoWs to volunteer very mildly anti-American remarks (“the US isn’t perfect”) and found that those who made them were more likely to collaborate later. Home-owners who agreed to put up a small poster urging folk to drive safely subsequently agreed to put huge unsightly bill-boards in their garden. Students who have undergone painful or embarrassing initiation rituals to get into societies value membership highly. Salesmen are desperate to win small orders because these lead to larger ones.

These are all examples of a common habit, says Cialdini:

Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.

This has a natural implication. Having decided to ally with the Tories, Lib Dems will be loath to break up their partnership. And they will look more favourably upon future Tory actions than they would had they not allied with them, simply out of a desire to stay consistent with their initial decision.

And here’s the thing. Cameron knows this. Cialdini’s book was on the reading list he gave to MPs in 2008.
So, here’s his tactic, assuming he wants to keep the coalition together. Whenever he needs Lib Dem support, he’ll try and show that such support is consistent with the terms of their initial agreement to govern together.

The Lib Dems will only withdraw from the coalition if they can claim credibly that doing so is consistent with their original decision to join. The deal-breaker will come if they can say: “This is not what we signed up for.”

Insofar as Cameron wants to keep the coalition together, he’ll try to avoid giving them such opportunities. I'd expect the phrase "you did sign up to cut the deficit" to be wielded.

All this suggests that an acrimonious split is only one possible ending. There’s another possibility, famously written by George Orwell:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Dave Osler Wins Libel Case

by Robert Sharp    
May 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm

The journalist Dave Osler, contributor to Liberal Conspiracy and many other places, today won a libel case that had been brought by Tory (former Respect) activist Joannah Kaschke.

Jack of Kent has a little bit of analysis of Dave’s case and was first to tweet the positive outcome.

I am sure he and/or Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship will report with a full analysis of Justice Eady’s ruling soon, but the analysis from Dave’s lawyer Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave (also Simon Singh’s lawyer) is that it sets a very good precedent for bloggers, and how much responsibility we take for wayward comments posted unmoderated on our websites.

I took some photos of Dave Osler and wellwishers outside the court (including another Liberal Conspirator, Paul Evans).

True, the last photo does show Dave sipping champagne (which might undermine his reputation as a staunch defender of the working class) but otherwise it is worth noting that both Dave and his partner looked relieved rather than happy.

This case has taken three years to defend, and for much of that time he has had to defend himself. Months have been spent preparing a defence against someone who appears to be a vexatious litigant, time that could have been spend freelancing.

Substantial costs are unlikely to be recovered, meaning Dave is severely out of pocket.

One of the Libel Reform Campaign’s recommendations is the establishment of a fast-track libel tribunal to deal with cases like this.

Although Dave Osler has won his case, its another example of why the English libel laws are not fit for purpose.

Update:
Dave speaks to blogger Richard Wilson after his win

How many cabinet MPs went to private schools?

by Newswire    
May 13, 2010 at 1:22 pm

by the blogger and tweeter Hannah Nicklin

.

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel 19 Comments Watch: Chicken chases Boris Johnson 33 Comments Does Priti Patel MP care for human rights? 59 Comments Watch: funny spoof explains benefits cuts 18 Comments UKuncut to join disabled to oppose Welfare bill 15 Comments Lawson’s GWPF faces questions over funding 25 Comments Shock poll shows public indifferent to Labour’s new cuts line 38 Comments Watch: NHS report “vindicates Labour” 7 Comments Daily Mail writer: Hurrah for French fascists! 64 Comments Save our pensions! Unite slams Unilever in video 11 Comments

LATEST COMMENTS » Sevillista posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Max posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Sunny Hundal posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Sally posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Flowerpower posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Tom (iow) posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Anne posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Ian M Davies posted on Week of action against Atos begins Monday » Robert2012 posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » G.O. posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Dave posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Schmidt posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Link: “govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote” | Help Me Investigate Health posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Planeshift posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Makhno posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society