Good morning, and welcome to your super soaraway Daily View on this, the first full day of Liberal government in the UK.
Today in 1958, Velcro was trademarked before going on to applications in haberdashery and space travel.
Birthday boys today include Arthur Sullivan, Armistead Maupin and Stevie Wonder.
2 Big Stories
There’s no doubting from the papers that today is all about the new inhabitants of Downing Street. From a Lib Dem perspective, there’s wor Vince, about to wage war on the banks. Or is he? Does the update to the Guardian’s article, filed 90 minutes after the article itself, herald the first hint of trouble in Paradise?
City is right to fear Vince Cable
Make no mistake, Cable’s appointment matters. David Cameron could have given him another economic job that would have kept him well away from anything to do with City reform. Last night it was mooted that the MP for Twickenham might be made chief secretary to the Treasury, and thus responsible for the delicate negotiations with Whitehall ministries over spending cuts.
Nick Clegg has proved he is no pushover
Jackie Ashley has praise for the Lib Dem leader’s achievements. But will it be enough?
By bringing in fixed-term parliaments and setting the next election for five years’ time, the Lib Dems hope to have had enough time to prove that they have made a difference, and are not simply mini-Cameroons. But it’s a big gamble. There is provision for another election sooner if 55% of MPs vote for one. A falling out between the parties, some rebellious MPs and a few by-elections could turn the arithmetic that way.
2 Must-Read Blog Posts
What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:
- Jonny Wright: tuition fees campaign misdirected
- Dave Page: ID Cards to go
If, like me, you’re a student, and if, like me, you’re wondering how to get rid of tuition fees, then consider this. In power, Labour introduced the damn things. The Lib Dems want to scrap them, and if ever we’re in a position to do so, we will. Now, which party should you spent your efforts fighting against?
I joined the Liberal Democrats at the same time as I joined No2ID, the nationwide single-issue, non-partisan campaign against the Database State. For the last few years, I have been co-ordinating Manchester No2ID, a local group of the national campaign. I have worked with people from all political backgrounds, including fellow Lib Dems, Greens, Labour and even anarchists. Working across party lines, on a single issue, has been very refreshing and helped me see beyond party politics. Our monthly street stalls keep me in touch with people’s opinions, and lead to frank and open discussions.
Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Cllr Fran OborskiMBE
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
9 Comments
Now that the Lib Dems and the Tories have made a single agreement on policy surely this must form the basis of a shared manifesto at the postponed general election contest (not by-election) at Thirsk and Malton. The logical extension of this is that both the Lib Dems and the Tories must stand as a Leb- Dem -Tory Coalition Party at Thirsk and Malton and at any subsequent by-election. To stand as separate parties under discrete manifestos would make nonsense of the coalition agreement for in those circumstances each would be standing on a false prospectus, one that they could not remotely guarantee to implement. Surely, the only other solution to this mess is for one party to offer to withdraw?
MacK: coalitions in Scotland, Wales and other countries have not required electoral pacts, so why should this one be any different?
MacK – it’s not possible to register a new candidate, only UKIP is being allowed to replace its candidate.
This is a coalition not an electoral alliance, the parties stand on their own policies and compromise in coalition. Experience from Scotland’s LibLab coalition shows that coalition partner candidates do stand against each other.
Access to tertiary education may be a right, but not financing… especially when backed by a delayed loan. Open University students are able to study without the loan.
I admit there are arguments against tuition fees, and that single local-issues can make for good constituency campaigns, but fighting constituency campaigns on such ethereal issues is an abuse of the system and risks tossing aside otherwise good applicants because of one policy which is merely an inconvenience rather than a serious concern to constituents.
Once again, I don’t believe enrolled undergraduates should expect a vote in whichever constituency they move to.
I also admit there are arguments against ID Cards (not least the cost, which I tend to), but the ideological opposition to it is bizarre. It’s the norm elsewhere in the Industrialized World, especially countries which forms of PR or Coalition Governments which keep getting appealed to on LDV.
The Liberal/libertarian aspect of LibDems may be able to oppose it on the basis of their belief in personal liberty, but the Social Democrat element would – if they were being honest – see that sometimes the State should impose on daily routines to ensure the best provision of services: for instance, an efficient benefits system should require some form of ID; or no ID, and no immediate clue on who’s claiming what.
Not both.
Mark and Ross, I accept that at this late stage the candidates at the Thirsk and Malton contest must remain on the ballot paper. The question still remains: how can you stand on your original manifesto that everyone now knows has changed?
Alec, I suggest you read my blog post you quoted in full to discover why I objected to the compulsory national ID database. Certainly it was not about proving your identity, nor was it comparable to ID schemes abroad.
The original manifesto hasn’t changed. Which parts we can implement in this parliament, which we only have some of the mandate in, and which parts we will have to wait on implementing – that has changed.
(And it isn’t as if recent governments have managed to implement all of their manifesto promises even when they had a full majority!)
The positions on Trident and the pace of debt reduction haven’t changed? Seriously?
Dave, I did read your blog-missive. You didn’t saying summat like “if it were implemented as in Norway, I’d think again”. You used all the language of ‘an unconscionable affront to civil liberties’. In fact, you don’t think it’s gone far enough. If you oppose the Database State, I’d like to hear how you plan to operate without an NI number.
That you also spoke of “progressive public opinion” set my teeth on edge. You did not vote for a progressive Party: you voted LibDem. Labour-voters did not vote for a progressive Party: they voted Labour.
My statement remains. ID schemes are the norm in industrialized countries, without the trend towards Prussian Guards accosting passersby on street corners. There are reasonable arguments against such a scheme in Britain, but citing opinion polls is not the way… ‘cos, even if they were against ID schemes (they’re generally not), they might also advocate complete cessation of immigration and the reinstatement of the death penalty. When does one ignore plebiscites? When one knows best?
My assertion remains. At the root of No2ID there’s a middle-class delight in defying Police or the State for no rational reason.