September 2, 2010

Watch David Cameron’s First Prime Minister’s Question Time – PMQ’s June 2nd 2010

Thankfully for us international audiences – ITN news has posted the entire PMQ’s from yesterday. It was David Cameron’s First Prime Minister’s Questions and it’s very exciting to watch.

It’s such a change from the last 13 years!

Prime Minister’s Question Time – June 2nd 2010 – David Cameron vs Harriet Harman

A Pint of Bitter: UK Coalition government, and how men’s relationships matter

In one way, Britain’s new government – the coalition, as we’re beginning to call it – resembles the  administration it replaced, rather than representing a break from it. Just as Labour government since 1997 was dominated by the relationship between two men, so this government is clearly based on and revolves around the obvious chemistry between David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg. Their first joint press conference in the Downing Street rose garden was an almost embarrassing love-in, partly because the two men do visibly get on well, and partly I suspect because of their shared exhilaration at sealing their deal, each having demonstrated political panache and each now tasting the reward of power. Do watch it here if you want a flavour of how the Conservative–LibDem government started. The two men’s reaction to the question 18 minutes in tells you a lot.

Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

And the new government is, as Alastair Campbell said on the BBC’s Question Time on Thursday, motoring. Since I last wrote, the coalition has published a detailed programme for government, fleshing out what it’s proposing to the country. Some of the agreement is unsurprising: the coalition will take urgent action to reduce Britain’s budget deficit, it will reform banking and it will legislate to reverse what it sees as Labour’s authoritarian measures, getting rid of the planned identity card scheme, for instance, and reducing the scope of the national DNA database. Some of it is clearly compromise – on European policy, on human rights and on immigration. But other parts of the agreement are much less expected.

The coalition Cabinet | Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Most controversial has been a complex but important proposal to require a super-majority of 55% of MPs to vote in favour of an early dissolution of Parliament and a general election within five years. Parliament’s term is not fixed like that of the American Congress: at the moment, the Prime Minister can ask the Queen for an election at any time, and most Prime Ministers do so before they are legally required to, usually after about four years. And if the governing party loses its majority in the House of Commons, a vote of no confidence in the government usually triggers an election. The coalition wants to change that for a number of reasons. Liberal Democrats for their part believe in “fixed-term Parliaments“: they have long wanted to remove the PM’s power to initiate elections, which they believe should happen at regular intervals even if the government changes in the meantime. But they also want to remove David Cameron’s ability to undermine the coalition by seeking an election they don’t want. For the Conservatives, abandoning that unilateral right only makes sense if, equally, the Liberal Democrats lose the ability to leave the coalition and join with other parties to force an election. Since non-Conservatives are 53% of the House, settling on 55% as the threshold suits both parties’ aims admirably. But it is precisely this transparently partisan benefit that makes the proposal highly controversial. I’ve written against it myself.

The other surprise proposal is to grant anonymity to rape suspects, a policy that was adopted a few years ago by the Liberal Democrat conference but which most political junkies, never mind the general public, were unaware of. Women who report being raped have been granted anonymity since the 1970s, when the protection was brought in to encourage them to come forward, but this is a rare exception to the principle here that justice should be in public. There is a strand of opinion that thinks defendants in rape cases should be given “equal treatment” with their alleged victims; but strong resistance to this idea comes especially from feminists who see the policy as pandering to the idea that false rape allegations are widespread. The 55% policy will be the first of these to cause real turbulence, as it’s an immediate priority for this year and was trailed in the Queen’s speech – which you can see in its entirety here. There’s no suggestion of a criminal law, sexual offences or criminal justice bill in this session, so the row about rape anonymity will be postponed for the moment.

David Laws | Liberal Democrats | Alex Folkes | fishnik.com | CreativeCommons

But nonetheless, the coalition has already run into a serious, unexpected difficulty. Its early star was David Laws, the rather dashing Liberal Democrat and new Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This is always an important post: it’s effectively deputy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is itself a Cabinet post often held by future Chancellors such as John Major and Alistair Darling. But because the Chief Secretary is specifically responsible for public spending levels, it’s even more important than usual at this time of budget cutting. It was Laws who announced the detail of the government’s immediate savings package at the Treasury last week, and it was he who defended them in Parliament. He’s become the pin-up of fiscal conservatives who admire his parsimony in small things as well as big. So it comes as a massive blow to both him and the new government that this Saturday morning the Daily Telegraph reported his having claimed expenses to pay rent to his partner, contrary to Parliamentary rules, since 2006.

The scandal seems to be dividing opinion. David Laws clearly wanted to keep his relationship private; and neither his sexuality nor his desire for privacy are matters of scandal or controversy in Britain, where people increasingly take pride in seeing such things as irrelevant to public life. Some, and not only Liberal Democrats, defend Laws on the basis that he was simply trying to maintain his privacy and that, by claiming for the rent he paid to his partner he actually saved public money, as compared with what he could have claimed had the pair openly bought and shared a property. Certainly, Laws is attracting some sympathy on a human level and because his visible competence has made him look the right man, in the right job at the right time. But this is a very serious business. Laws seems to have plainly broken the rules, which since 2006 have prohibited payments from expenses going to MPs’ partners, and this exposure resurrects the poisonous expenses scandal of last year. Not only that: this apparent abuse of taxpayers’ money comes from the very man – a rich man, at that, who it’s said retired from the City, a millionaire, at 28 – whose duty it is to make the nation face the need for austerity in the use of public funds. This is a sad story of a talented man brought down by a collision between 1950s-style prejudice, or the fear of it, and the fierce new mood of fiscal rectitude in Britain. I’m afraid he’ll probably have to go; perhaps even has gone before you read this.

Maybe next time there’ll be a little less politics to write about, and a little more room for pubs.

Watch the Queen’s Speech in Full Here – State Opening of Parliament

If you missed the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament today, ITN news has posted a video of the whole there.

Here is the entire Queen’s Speech:

If you’d like to see the entire pomp and circumstance behind the State Opening of Parliament, CSPAN has the whole thing for view on there website. Click here to watch it all.

Where to Watch the State Opening of Parliament in the USA

The recent British Election drama doesn’t officially end until tomorrow when the Queen makes her way from Buckingham Palace, dons the Crown of State and delivers her government’s speech to the House of Lords. The House of Commons then votes on whether or not to accept the speech – and when they do that’s when government business really starts.

It’s guaranteed to be a day of British pomp and circumstance spectacle. I’ve watched it many times and it’s a lot of fun.

So, where can you partake the fun in the USA if you’re so inclined?

CSPAN2 will be simulcasting the BBC’s coverage of the entire events of the day.

They’ll also be streaming the State Opening live on the web here.

Don’t expect it on BBC America – though they may cover some of it on their early morning shows since it will be going on at the same time.

No word yet as to whether or not the BBC website will be simulcasting as they did during the election. I would hope they would – we’ll keep an eye out so follow our Twitter or Facebook accounts for updates if they start streaming live.

But as of now, it looks like the best place to watch the Queen’s Speech and the State Opening of Parliament in the USA is on CSPAN2 on the TV and on the Web. Also, if you don’t have the heart to wake up early to watch the Queen in action – CSPAN always re-airs it later.

Also, this is a special Queen’s Speech due to the election and new Parliament – there will be another Queen’s Speech and State Opening this fall as usual – so you can see it all again if you miss it.

A Pint of Bitter: a hung Parliament, and a new kind of government

This has been a truly unusual, historic week in British politics. As I delivered Labour’s final leaflet in my London constituency, I felt Labour was coming back slightly. Not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to stave off disaster. Election night itself was reasonably dramatic – we spent hours wondering whether the Conservatives might still gain a majority in Parliament – but it was a night that teased us. By dawn it was clear that the Tories hadn’t quite made it. We would have a “hung Parliament”, no party having a majority. With 306 of the 650 seats, David Cameron’s Conservatives would have great difficulty governing as a minority; Labour, with only 258 seats, would have no chance of doing so. The only stable majority could be formed by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats somehow working together – and that was the truth that politicians grasped early last Friday.

Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Nick Clegg was first, saying the Conservatives – with more seats and more votes than anyone else – had the right to prove they could govern in the national interest. David Cameron acted quickly and more boldly than expected, making a comprehensive offer to open talks about forming a stable government. Gordon Brown emerged from 10 Downing Street to say the other parties could take what time they needed – and that he was ready to talk to Nick Clegg if Tory-LibDem negotiations foundered. The horse-trading began.

The BBC's Nick Robinson reporting on Cameron's "big offer" | Tom Page | CreativeCommons

On Saturday it looked as though agreement could happen very quickly. Tory and Liberal Democrat teams got on well and were clearly engaged in real detail. The mood music was so good that, by Sunday, we wondered why a deal hadn’t been closed. And on Monday, it seemed almost to fall apart when the LibDem MPs met and asked for clarification on various items. At that point, Gordon Brown’s machiavallian instincts showed one final time, as, announcing his own departure as Labour leader, he in effect invited Liberal Democrats to speak to him instead. Was it a last, desperate throw by a man clutching at a last few months of power? Or was it just a low tactic to poison Tory-LibDem relations and damage the new government from the start? We may never know. But for a moment it did throw everything into confusion. Most Liberal Democrats dream, in truth, of an arrangement with Labour, not the Tories, and they found siren Labour calls hard to resist. What killed it was partly the arithmetic – Labour and the LibDems together would still be a majority, dependent on the tolerance of Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists – and partly the resistance of a number of prominent Labour MPs for whom clinging on to power would damage Labour and give the country unstable government. Reality took hold again yesterday, when the Tory-LibDem contract was finally signed.

Gordon Brown left Downing Street to offer his resignation to Her Majesty – early on Tuesday evening,  in a final touch of spin, to deny David Cameron a “new dawn” arrival at Number 10. Even before his deal was signed, David Cameron was clearly the man most likely to command a Parliamentary majority, and was summon by the Queen to form a new government as Prime Minister. And we now know the rough shape of that new government. Under Cameron, Nick Clegg will be deputy Prime Minister, and a number of Liberal Democrats will be in Cabinet, including Vince Cable as Business Secretary and David Laws as Chief Secretary to the Treasury – the cutter-in-chief role.

Downing Street | CreativeCommons

The political significance of this week is huge. It marks the end of New Labour, at least in this manifestation. A political era that began with the death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994, and dominated by Tony Blair and his modernising philosophy, will be over. It is the first time Conservatives have defeated Labour to return to power since Margaret Thatcher in 1979. But much, more more historic is the fact that this will be the first peacetime coalition, and the first time Liberals have been in government, since 1935. The political effects are likely to be enormous, too. The Conservative party has survived the civil war that has lasted since Margaret Thatcher was removed from office, and has finally recovered enough to take office. But it remains damaged, without the swagger and confidence it once had. How it fares from now will turn on how well  ministers deal with the serious fiscal position they face, and on David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister. There’s an upside to the compromises he has had to make to Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats: he is free from the shackles of his own campaign pledges, and can discard his less popular policies. He’s been dealt an unusual hand, and has the chance to play it with skill.

The Liberal Democrats have achieved office for the first time, a development that marks their coming of age. I expect their popularity to decrease somewhat as they lose their opposition identity and are tainted by power. I also think there’s a risk they might even split: tensions are bound to surface in a party divided between the left-leaning majority and the more genuinely centrist group around Nick Clegg. They’ve also lost their dream of proportional representation, not just this time but I suspect for some time. Britain has tasted, this week, what coalition politics is like, and most people have disliked the backroom wheeler-dealing it involves. Exciting though the spectacle may be, it seems undemocratic. I’d be surprised if, at the next election, the two main parties do not increase their share of the vote. There’s a vocal lobby for proportional representation, but I doubt many people support it. We can probably forget it for a while.

President Obama calls David Cameron | Prime Minister's Office | CreativeCommons

Labour is defeated, but not crushed, to the relief of many of its supporters, and its leader Gordon Brown – a divisive and poor leader – is leaving. Opposition to a government making deep cuts and facing certain difficulty gives it a big opportunity to rebuild, and opportunity made all the greater with the effective removal of its competitor on the centre-left. Ideally, Labour would take some time to rethink its new direction. Gordon Brown, with his last-ditch resignation as leader to lure the LibDems into talks, may have done Labour a final bad turn by accelerating its leadership contest unnecessarily. David Miliband is the front runner already, and most expect the fight to be between him and Ed Balls. I’d caution, though, against ruling out Jon Cruddas, who I think stands a good chance of leading Labour by this autumn.

If the British constitution is a fine old stately home, this week we’ve revisited a disused and dusty wing. Absence made the heart grow briefly fonder. I expect, though, that we’ll only visit again if we must.