Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

I'd be shocked if Osborne went anywhere.

I've also got a bit of a worry that Chris Grayling might get promoted. Justine Greening I think is a good shout if May moves. They'll probably want to get another woman in to one of the senior posts if she goes.

If Cameron can't point to enough signs for hope in the economy as they approach the next election, a different face to front policy at the Treasury sounds like something that would be considered. However not something the PM will make a move on this far out i agree [even if he ought]. Of course if they follow the OBR's advice for billions in more cuts it won't matter who it is.

May appears to have similar concentration problems to Rafael when he's defending. lol

Spellman and DEFRA has been drifting along too IMO, distant are the days of Cameron standing proudly on a glacier talking of the green agenda. Instead new palling laws, HS2, a possible u-turn on Heathrow, the shires and rural economy suffering, floods, reductions in subsidies for rewnewables.


Andrew Lansley wont stay in charge of the NHS

Maybe, maybe not. Although practically i don't think any one person or either of the main parties quite has a long term strategy for the NHS. The health of the nation is even too big for its own department.
 
I think it's more to do with the fact that they are old friends. Unlike Ed "Cain" Miliband, DC understands loyalty.

There are few real friends in politics, as the Milibands made clear. He can't move Osborne because Osborne has if anything slightly more power in the party than he does.

Aside from all that I don't think anyone could be doing a significantly better job than Osborne, given the current circumstances in Europe.

:lol:

But yeah, we've been here before. I say austerity in a liquidity trap, you say the bond markets, let's call the whole thing off.
 
I think it's more to do with the fact that they are old friends. Unlike Ed "Cain" Miliband, DC understands loyalty. Aside from all that I don't think anyone could be doing a significantly better job than Osborne, given the current circumstances in Europe.

The Tories are far more ruthless than Labour, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Labour would probably still have IDS as leader if he was one of them.
 
If Cameron can't point to enough signs for hope in the economy as they approach the next election, a different face to front policy at the Treasury sounds like something that would be considered. However not something the PM will make a move on this far out i agree [even if he ought]. Of course if they follow the OBR's advice for billions in more cuts it won't matter who it is.

May appears to have similar concentration problems to Rafael when he's defending. lol

Spellman and DEFRA has been drifting along too IMO, distant are the days of Cameron standing proudly on a glacier talking of the green agenda. Instead new palling laws, HS2, a possible u-turn on Heathrow, the shires and rural economy suffering, floods, reductions in subsidies for rewnewables.




Maybe, maybe not. Although practically i don't think any one person or either of the main parties quite has a long term strategy for the NHS. The health of the nation is even too big for its own department.

Osborne is a big player and I think to move him would be seen as an admission that their approach hadn't been right, which I very much doubt Cameron would want to imply. Plus as other have said, it would politically be very difficult to move him given the potential implications for the dynamics in the party.

May has had some high profile errors and may well be shuffled. Spellman I think might stay given that DEFRA's rather out the spotlight compared to some of the others. A lot of them have had issues in the past year: Hunt, May, Gove, Lansley and then elsewhere in the party the likes of Warsi. I don't think he'll be wanting to shuffle more than he needs to, he's shown with cases like Liam Fox and Jeremy Hunt a dislike for moving people on unless the pressure really becomes unbearable, so unless it's really burning I don't think we'll see a complete all-change.

I think it's more to do with the fact that they are old friends. Unlike Ed "Cain" Miliband, DC understands loyalty. Aside from all that I don't think anyone could be doing a significantly better job than Osborne, given the current circumstances in Europe.

I don't think at that level of government you keep someone in out of loyalty to an old friendship. He's still in likely because Cameron thinks he's the best person for the job, coupled with the fact moving him would be politically extremely difficult. Bit tenuous to try and use it as evidence of Cameron being a trusty old pal compared to a treacherous Miliband, in my opinion.
 
Osbourne's not going anywhere.

Agree completely. I'd never underestimate the personal loyalty there.

Rugby may be more clever,
Harrow may make more row,
But we'll row forever,
Steady from stroke to bow,
And nothing in life shall sever
The chain that is round us now,
And nothing in life shall sever
The chain that is round us now.
 
8 more years of austerity according to Call Me Dave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...erity-will-last-until-2020.html#disqus_thread

How about, you know, trying something else since you're still borrowing billions, Dave. Austerity is clearly a busted flush.

I don't know for how long the negotiations have been going on for but assuming they were recent enough, there might be some modest changes going on. The key being that though the public will be paying extra, it won't be through taxation. All these supposed improvements to railway infrastructure, those future passengers will be feeling it in the fares to be sure. Not that that was how it was presented naturally.

Ultimately future governments must increase the productivity of the economy as well as reducing costs, for reasons of an aging population here and rising one globally. Strategy and vision, commodities as opposed to prerequisites in mainstream British politics unfortunately. The NHS through the education system could be placing a far greater emphasis on preventive policies for instance.
 
Inflation and unemployment continue to fall.

:lol:

Unemployment has fallen this quarter almost entirely as a result of the Olympic project and inflation has fallen because we're in recession again. Well done, Dave and Nick.
 
I don't know for how long the negotiations have been going on for but assuming they were recent enough, there might be some modest changes going on. The key being that though the public will be paying extra, it won't be through taxation. All these supposed improvements to railway infrastructure, those future passengers will be feeling it in the fares to be sure. Not that that was how it was presented naturally.

Ultimately future governments must increase the productivity of the economy as well as reducing costs, for reasons of an aging population here and rising one globally. Strategy and vision, commodities as opposed to prerequisites in mainstream British politics unfortunately. The NHS through the education system could be placing a far greater emphasis on preventive policies for instance.

There was a good debate on R4 on Monday morning with some esteemed economists about what to do. Most agreed building houses, like the 30s was the obvious answer. But unlike then, we now have strict planning laws and money(mortgages etc)is too complex to acquire. In short, there's no quick fix and any proper fix will take years to see the benefits of. Pretty depressing stuff.
 
There was a good debate on R4 on Monday morning with some esteemed economists about what to do. Most agreed building houses, like the 30s was the obvious answer. But unlike then, we now have strict planning laws and money(mortgages etc)is too complex to acquire. In short, there's no quick fix and any proper fix will take years to see the benefits of. Pretty depressing stuff.

There is a quick fix. Take advantage of the free money and invest it in some infrastructure, not just housing.

It doesn't even need to be useful, though it might as well be. They could build a 50 billion pound gold statue of George Osborne bumming a fox and it would at least create some jobs and stimulate some spending in the economy.
 
One footnote to the Olympics politically might turn out of be Boris Johnson's willingness to be seen and on friendly terms with Rupert Murdoch.

I heard a quite ludicrous interview earlier on today with the chairman of Louise Mensch's local conservative association, in answer to a question he kept saying "to be honest" whilst refusing to actually be so. Laughable. All he had been asked was if he would welcome Boris standing as an MP in his constituency. either say "no comment" or "it would depend on his policies" [or you despise him utterly].



So Clegg says the Tories have broken faith over Lords reform, is mere talk where it ends?
 
Only since (I felt) she made life easy for the Murdochs during the Committee hearings, Nick. I just don't really feel she was ever qualified to be an MP, I guess.
 
Only since (I felt) she made life easy for the Murdochs during the Committee hearings, Nick. I just don't really feel she was ever qualified to be an MP, I guess.

Hmm, maybe it was her questioning of the top brass at the Met as opposed to Murdoch but i do recall some fairly impressive sessions from Mensch during the inquiry.
 
So are we going to look back on this week as the moment when irrevocable fractures in the coalition rose to the surface, and not thanks to differences over the economy or Europe but two self serving unnecessary electoral reforms?
 
I have to say for all the criticism of Milliband he just aced this politically. I mean the Tories vote against and he scuppers a really bad House of Lords reform and then gets the boundary changes shelved as a bonus. The coalition is fighting with itself, back benchers on both sides name calling and blaming each other and the country looking on and saying what are you guys playing at. A plague on both your houses will probably follow and labour must benefit in the long term following a probably short lived Olympic bump.
 
A clear boon for Miliband to be sure, not that he has had much to do with it personally and i think it was an inevitable flashpoint.

I can't sat i've seen any burying of any bad news during the Olympics, a nice cover for a bit of a spat mind you.

As for Labour in the log term, i bloody hope not.

Do you remember before the last election we used to discuss the lightweight nature of both the cabinet and shadow cabinet? Well, just look at what we have now. Cursed.
 
Conservative MPs revolt over new threat to green belt

Proposals by the Coalition to ease planning restrictions on green belt land in an urgent attempt to boost growth has sparked a revolt by Conservative MPs.

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
18 Aug 2012


green_2313991b.jpg


Backbenchers hit out after it emerged that ministers had been ordered to “think the unthinkable” in efforts to stimulate the economy back to life and pull Britain out of its double-dip recession.

Following a meeting earlier this month of the “Quad” – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Treasury chief secretary – the planning laws are back on the reform agenda just months after being redrawn in a controversial set of changes.

Senior sources have confirmed that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor want to examine every idea that could make it easier for hundreds of thousands of new homes to be built, as well as new retail developments and airport expansion projects.

This could include building on green belt land in future years – something which was specifically ruled out in the Conservatives’ 2010 general election manifesto and which would spark major protests by environmental groups.

In their new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March and carefully drawn up in the wake of wide-scale opposition to draft proposals, planners were specifically ordered to protect green belt land.



There are 14 green belts in England, which “ring” urban areas and provide space for agriculture, forestry and leisure.

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, opposes any move to unpick his new planning framework and ease restrictions on building on the green belt, The Sunday Telegraph understands.

Tory MPs have hit out against the proposals. Chris Skidmore, who has campaigned to protect the green belt in his Kingswood constituency, said: “Protecting the green belt is not simply a case of saying 'not in my back yard’.

"We have a duty of trust to protect green belt land for future generations. It is right that the NPPF contained specific protections.”

Nick de Bois, the MP for Enfield North, described himself as a “growth zealot”, but added: “While we have many barriers to infrastructure projects, and we should be easing those, any plans that allow major housing estates on the shrinking green belt would be flawed as they would fly in the face of the government’s Localism Bill, which hands powers to local people to define their own neighbourhood plans. I don’t see how the government can square the circle on this one.”

Tracey Crouch, the MP for Chatham and Aylesford, said: “It is essential that we protect the green belt. It would be quite wrong for the Coalition to take away the green belt from the next generation, which is already burdened with the debt left to it by the last Labour government.”

The “Quad” meeting – over dinner nine days ago – was said to have been dominated by the desperate need to come up with ideas to stimulate growth and to fill a planned Economic Regeneration Bill to be published in the autumn, which will fill the “hole” in the government’s legislative plans caused by the decision to abandon reform of the House of Lords.

A Conservative source said: “You would have expected the Liberal Democrats to be up in arms at any move to permit more building on the green belt, but they seem to be quite relaxed about it.”

Mr Osborne, in particular, is said to be attracted by plans to build hundreds of thousands of new homes – which, it is argued, would ease the housing crisis as well as help the construction industry.

Tory ministers are also pushing airport expansion in the South East, although it is not thought likely there will be any firm decision on going ahead with a third runway at Heathrow until after the next general election, which is scheduled for May 2015.

Last week the Liberal Democrats effectively ruled out any expansion in airport capacity at all in the region.

In a policy paper ahead of the party’s annual conference in Brighton next month, the party set its face against new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted as well as proposals for a new “Boris Island” airport – the pet project of Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, on the Thames Estuary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ha...MPs-revolt-over-new-threat-to-green-belt.html
 
Tomorrow's papers

A02ZVC1CQAAdFAi.png:large


641974761.jpg


Is Gideon really gonna dig his heels in and continue with failed austerity?

It's going to be hilarious watching him backtrack now that 'business' is breathing down his neck.
 
Tomorrow's papers

A02ZVC1CQAAdFAi.png:large


641974761.jpg


Is Gideon really gonna dig his heels in and continue with failed austerity?

It's going to be hilarious watching him backtrack now that 'business' is breathing down his neck.

I don't see the government doing a 180 on public sector cuts, we may see further announcements regarding infrastructure projects but these would need to rely heavily on private sector involvement. Of course the trouble with the latter is that they are rarely an immediate term boost.

Is a poor time for the retail sector over the Christmas season something Osbourne is willing to risk? If the answer be in the negative it is possible that he'll act to ensure things go as well as possible. John Lewis i know did report a bounce during the Olympics although they are a gem on the high street, difficult to use them as a guide in isolation.

The Treasury is helped by the fact that neither Labour nor the other parties sin Westminster are offering an alternative which wider media/public opinion will buy into, thereby creating pressure with the potential to influence policy.
 
Cameron's reshuffle is imminent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/david-cameron-shakeup-reshuffle

Any predictions, people?

Nothing major, I reckon:

Ken Clarke - moved to Leader of the House. A lot of movement in Justice, with a swing to the right.
Lansley, Cable and Gideon - remain in post.
Welsh secretary - Maria Millar
Jeremy Hunt and Caroline Spellman - moved and replaced by one of the up and coming 2010 lot.

David Laws coming back is going to be controversial. Where will this corrupt orange booker go? Will Cameron really give the Lib Dems an extra seat just to bring him back? The tory right will not be happy.
 

Christ almighty, the comments section of that is absolutely cringe-worthy bollocks.

'The message - for those of us in the UK with the intelligence to work it out - is that Mr Osborne and the Coalition government here don't WANT to solve our economic woes.
They want to cause as much misery and create the largest problems possible for whoever succeeds them after the next election, while lining their pockets and those of their corporate benefactors at the same time.
This is the only rational reading of events here.'


Yeh, I'm sure that's exactly what they want.
 
I don't doubt that they believe the austerity and trickle-down bollocks.

I think there is an element of truth in that comment though, in that they have their constituency and don't care about anyone else. Well, two major constituencies: their core concern, the very rich, both corporate and gentry; and their electoral base, rural and southern property owners.
 
I feel one thing that unites politicians is their thirst for continuing control. Getting the economy back into some kind of shape will win them the next election. The Tories can't rely on the Shires alone. It's impossible to say whether they 'care' about the average bloke, but they certainly care about his vote, which is enough to debunk the claim they want the economy to be disastrous.