UK Politics III

[mormont]

But we will start with some Cameron issues...

First, what do we make of this?

The SDLP has demanded a meeting with the Conservatives over talks they held in England with the two main unionist parties, the DUP and UUP.

The SDLP's deputy leader has written to David Cameron demanding to discuss what he described as the "naked, sectarian play of the orange card".

In the letter, Dr Alasdair McDonnell said he was deeply concerned by "Tory intervention" during a sensitive period of political negotiations.

He said the talks had created mistrust.

Dr McDonnell accused Mr Cameron of exploiting the crisis at Stormont and said political stability in Northern Ireland would not be achieved by "secret Tory/unionist back room deals in the face of a possible hung parliament after the Westminster elections".

Unionists uniting? Nothing more natural than that, surely? ;) But it does look like a rather unwise move, creating potential problems for a future Tory Northern Ireland secretary. There is some recent history in this respect with John Major, of course, and that created some significant bad blood - but at least Major didn't get caught doing deals with the DUP ahead of the election.

While I'm doing my bit to kick Cameron around, there's this too:

Are the Tories being honest with their claims on violent crime? Last week, David Cameron told me that one reason he could justify the phrase "broken society" was because of "significant" increases in violent crime, notably gun and knife crime in Britain.

When I challenged him to produce the evidence, his party press office sent the BBC a list of statistics.

It emerges that the only way the Conservative leader can back up his claims is to ignore the klaxon warning attached to the statistics following changes in the way police record violent incidents in England and Wales.

So the claim is based on comparing statistics that are specifically noted as not being comparable. Well, after all, they all do it when it suits them, and we all know the BBC attitude to the Tories. ;) But the final part of the trifecta: the return of prison ships.

David Cameron today said that he had "always believed" in using prison ships amid reports of an internal row over the party's plans to rapidly increase jail capacity.

The Tory leader confirmed that the party was preparing to explain how it would increase the number of places so that it could scrap the controversial early release scheme.

He said an incoming Conservative administration would need to find extra jail places quickly to meet its pledge. "One of the fastest ways would be prison ships," he said.

Ugh. Still, at least that's one more firm policy pledge from the Tories, even if it is to reintroduce a discredited, regressive and unnecessary measure.

[BigFatCoward]

I can't beleive that people will still have him so far ahead come the election. at some stage he is going to have to come out with something he believes in, then he is scuppered. i said it before and i'll say it again, you cannot let a man run a country if he doesnt know how to chain up a bike.

much as i hate thatcher, at least she believed in things (admittedly those things were being an evil witch) but she had the courage of her convictions, cameron has no spine whatsoever.

[VarysTheSpider]

Cameron's 'broken society' comments yesterday in the wake of those children being sentenced is fairly old hat. In the deepest corners of my memory I recall the James Bulger case, and apparantly Labour said much the same then. It's like how they deal with terrorism - take a vanishingly rare incident and use it to invent a widespread problem that can be solved. Much easier to solve imaginary problems I suppose, god knows they suck at dealing with the real ones.

I can't beleive that people will still have him so far ahead come the election. at some stage he is going to have to come out with something he believes in, then he is scuppered.

And what do you base that on? Polls show time and time again that the public have no great love for Cameron, they just have a deep and perfectly understandable and welcome loathing of Brown. Whether he enters Downing Street on a wave of naivety or by wading through a mire of grim resignation, the end result is the same. From today's poll:

The poll will give some reassurance to opposition leaders, with the Tory lead widening slightly to 11 points thanks to an increase in the Liberal Democrat vote at Labour's expense. It also shows voters back the party's proposals on marriage and think Gordon Brown's leadership made the recession worse. They agree overwhelmingly, too, that it is time for a change of government.

Good to see the Lib Dems profiting. And it seems the Tories didn't do themselves much harm with the marriage tax break, despite the break down in communications. I'm surprised at how popular it is:

"Despite Conservative confusion over who would gain and how the tax cut could be paid for, 65% think a cut for couples with children is a good idea, against 29% who oppose one. Among married couples, backing rises to 78%. Among definite Labour supporters, it is 70% remarkably one point higher than among Tories."

I think the prison ship idea will go down well too. It has an interesting blend of punishment, banishment and pragmatism that people seem to want out of a prison system.

[lacuna]

[...]

Ugh. Still, at least that's one more firm policy pledge from the Tories, even if it is to reintroduce a discredited, regressive and unnecessary measure.

What would you say are the chances of this being a paper tiger, a.k.a. pre-election waffle? To what degree are promises made before an election enacted afterwards in the UK? *

(An honest question, I'm still noobish on UK politics.)

*ETA: Using this as an example.

[williamjm]

What would you say are the chances of this being a paper tiger, a.k.a. pre-election waffle? To what degree are promises made before an election enacted afterwards in the UK? *

(An honest question, I'm still noobish on UK politics.)

It is very variable. Based on past performance some pre-election promises will be kept, some may be half-heartedly implemented, many may be quietly forgotten about and in some cases the new Government might well end up doing the exact opposite of what it pledged to do. I don't really know what the ratio of each category is, but I suspect the ratio might be much the same regardless of which party wins an election.

[mormont]

What would you say are the chances of this being a paper tiger, a.k.a. pre-election waffle? To what degree are promises made before an election enacted afterwards in the UK? *

(An honest question, I'm still noobish on UK politics.)

*ETA: Using this as an example.

In this particular case, it'll probably happen. I despair of all the main parties when it comes to prison policy. Bookshelves in the Home Office and party policy units are simply groaning under the weight of decades' worth of reports showing beyond a doubt that there are far too many people in prison who shouldn't be there, that the vast majority are non-violent and many are in for such heinous crimes as non-payment of fines, that this costs absurd amounts of money and actually increases reoffending, that this contributes to family breakdown, poverty and low educational attainment in their children, that our prisons are hopelessly underfunded and inadequate when it comes to rehabilitation, that conditions in prisons are poor, and that community sentences and tagging work much better. Both main parties know these things to be true but prefer to pretend to believe the opposite because they're so keen to (falsely) accuse their opponents of being soft on crime, and correctly fear that their opponents are going to do the same to them. Facts? Fuck 'em. That lie looks much more comfortable, we'll have that.

Prison ships were abandoned because they were too draconian even for this ridiculous false consensus, but I fully expect the Tories to bring them back and wring as much machismo out of the resulting arguments with the prison inspectors and the courts as possible before being forced to abandon them again.

Now if you want to talk about paper tigers, look at the parties' plans for cutting the deficit. No surprise they're unwilling to give specifics about how they'll do that.

[Hereward]

The Tories know they're going to have to put up taxes, which will enrage their core vote. So, they're trying to throw some red meat at the "hang 'em high" traditionalists. So far we've had family good, prison good, inheritance good. I expect a row with Europe is already brewing and I wouldn't rule out a promised crackdown on benefit cheats, unless there's already been one and I missed it. Or was that Labour?

[Usotsuki]

Unionists uniting? Nothing more natural than that, surely? ;) But it does look like a rather unwise move, creating potential problems for a future Tory Northern Ireland secretary. There is some recent history in this respect with John Major, of course, and that created some significant bad blood - but at least Major didn't get caught doing deals with the DUP ahead of the election.

I've never quite understood the choice of name for the UUP Conservative alliance - a New Force seems to have some unfortunate connotations.

That said I'd have thought that the weaker party going into any negotiations between the DUP and the New Force was the DUP. New Force has very little to lose by splitting the unionist vote at the Westminster elections the DUP has rather more at stake.

Edit: Extremely unreliable statistics show that there are more people employed in making adverts warning about the consequences of cheating on benefit applications than are engaged in any actual cheating. It's one of the most successful stimulus programs in the world

[mormont]

I've never quite understood the choice of name for the UUP Conservative alliance - a New Force seems to have some unfortunate connotations.

That said I'd have thought that the weaker party going into any negotiations between the DUP and the New Force was the DUP. New Force has very little to lose by splitting the unionist vote at the Westminster elections the DUP has rather more at stake.

The argument would be, though, that the Tories do indeed have something to lose from the split in the Unionist vote, or rather something to gain from maximising it, i.e. support in a hung UK parliament. They are therefore pressuring the UUP to achieve this. The question is, what do the UUP and DUP get in return?

[Usotsuki]

I don't think that fits with the single most reliable guide to political activity in Northern Ireland though - who is complaining about what.

The DUP (audio file- 4:10 on) grievance is that New Force is not reneging on its commitment to stand in every constituency thus endangering DUP held seats.

The DUP is fairly clearly offering an electoral agreement so it's New Force that is being courted by the DUP not the other way round.

[Hereward]

The question is, what do the UUP and DUP get in return?

The same the SDLP get for taking the Labour whip? Very close to bugger all.

[mormont]

I don't think that fits with the single most reliable guide to political activity in Northern Ireland though - who is complaining about what.

The DUP (audio file- 4:10 on) grievance is that New Force is not reneging on its commitment to stand in every constituency thus endangering DUP held seats.

The DUP is fairly clearly offering an electoral agreement so it's New Force that is being courted by the DUP not the other way round.

I think his complaint is actually that by not reneging, they are helping Sinn Fein hold onto seats, but that's nit-picking. :P The key issue is that the Tories hosted the Hatfield House meeting in the first place: this suggests that they were at least willing to listen to the DUP grievance and contemplate the idea of reneging on their commitment.

Not that surprising, perhaps. The New Force, after all, is in essence an electoral pact to maximise the Unionist vote - it just excludes the DUP. (Cameron's claim that it's a 'non-sectarian force' is odd to say the least.)

[Usotsuki]

So you don't believe the claim that it was a meeting designed purely to address the policing crisis, I'm shocked. ;)

But maximising the unionist vote isn't really the issue it's combining the vote, and New Force doesn't alter that calculus at all.

The Conservative total in the last Westminster election was under 3000 votes - less than 1% of the unionist total vote - there were essentially two competitors for the unionist vote in 2005 and there will be two in 2010.

[Usotsuki]

Two posts in a row. I need a new hobby, something more socially acceptable than following UK politics - still whilst I make the difficult choice between heroin addiction and penguin wrangling:

A deal between NI's biggest parties, the DUP and Sinn Fein, could see policing and justice powers devolved to Northern Ireland on 12 April.

A cross-community vote on devolving the powers will be held in the NI Assembly on 9 March.The DUP's 35 assembly members agreed to back the deal late on Thursday night.

A roundtable session of the assembly to discuss the deal is taking place on Friday morning attended by Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Brian Cowen.

[Hereward]

Gordon was there and yet it didn't go to pot? Damn, must be expensive, then.

[ljkeane]

That's something of a surprise, I thought we had months of recriminations to come before any progress was made.

[Usotsuki]

Hereward, stuffing their mouths with gold has a time-honoured role in Northern Ireland politics - sadly Westminster frequently underestimates the ability of the assembly to swallow without chewing.

Though I did like the careful choice of date for the transfer - one week after the Easter parades - well done that civil servant.

[Hereward]

So, only four out of the hundreds of thieving bastards will actually be charged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8499590.stm

Shame there's no LibDem amongst them. Their sheer worthiness makes me feel a little queasy, to be honest. Then I remember Lembit Opik...

[Usotsuki]

Don't forget Mark Oaten - that's sleaze you can believe in.

BTW I'm horribly disappointed with the BBC's abuse of "refute" I know the MPs did it first but I expect them to defile the language, the BBC I hold to a higher standard.

[mormont]

I listened to George Foulkes indignantly discussing how horribly maligned and terribly underpaid MPs are and how completely unfair it is that they're being forced to pay back money at all yesterday morning. Quite ruined my breakfast.