Someone mentioned the fact that Cameron hasn't appointed a gay person to the cabinet. I then pointed out that he did but no one knew he was gay until he was caught fiddling his expenses. Laws's excuse of trying to protect his mother from the revelation may have held water 50 years ago but as fleetstreetfox points out in her excellent dissemination, he is simply a lying, cheating, fiddling 2@, who should never have been retained in public office in any shape or form.

Cameron & Clegg are now banking on "getting the message across" for the next couple of years. Unless we have suddenly morphed into a similar state of our colonial cousins, I doubt the majority of the British public will fall for them again. Clegg & the LimpDems are dead in the water in all but a handfull of constituencies. Cameron's heamorrhaged support to UKIP and is making a last lurch to the right, in the hope of getting them back. His kowtowing the the right over Lords reform has ensured that he'll get no support from the LimpDems on boundary changes, many LimpDem MPs would see the end of their seats anyway, so "turkeys voting for christmas"?

Cameron's lurch to the right will now show the public face of the nasty bastads that the tories really are and if every gay, disabled and disadvantaged person voted against them, they wouldn't get a look in again.

What does worry me though is the relative silence, apart from "you don't wanna do it like that", coming from Labour. I'm really hoping that they're keeping their powder dry but the longer they remain silent on alternative policies, the more difficult it will be to re-engage with the voters.

I'm thinking the coaltion will not go to term. it may suit both struggling parties to break it to please their respective parties. The reshiufle could just be deliberately the start of that. The Tories might judge if they go to the polls early they can still get away with blaming Labour for the mess and may catch Labour on the hop both financially and policy wise. Don't underestimate just how little confidence the electorate will have in Milliband. I maintain he is unelectable.

Under the new fiexed-term rules don't they require a majority of 75% to dissolve parliament? If so they're gonna need the support of Labour to get that




They thought that about Attlee too

If the Lib Dems walked away the Tories wouldn't be able to get anything through Parliament and they'd have to call an election, surely? The country would be ungovernable.

David Laws criminality over his expenses probably robbed the Coalition of their best asset.

Had he not done that and been sacked as Chief Secretary in 2010, I reckon he would be Chancellor now. It would have been the perfect solution for Cameron to keep the Coalition together - offer a plum job to a Lib Dem who many of the Tories view with fawning admiration because of his economic views (even if they can't stomach his social liberalism and pro Europeanism).

Laws could potentially have been a very dangerous politician, because unlike Osborne he is not a bumbling fool, he's an intelligent and articulate debater with a background in economics and had a successful career becoming a millionaire before he entered politics. There is no way with him as Chancellor that we would be having these U-turns and the rabbit in a headlight approach that is making the Tories a laughing stock. Also (even more dangerously), whereas Osborne and his chums come over as obnoxious idiots that put the public off, Laws comes across as a decent bloke, when he's been on Newsnight or politics programmes he has always come across well.

But in terms of his economics, Laws is an old school Liberal party liberal, free market as the most free market of the Thatcherites. Small state, minimalist government, free trade free markets. (Actually some Tory vested interests don't really want this, because free markets and perfect competition mean all firms break even, nobody makes profits unless they have 'market power', which is really what a lot of the 'free market' supporters want, market power for themselves). The only reason he's not in the Conservative party is because he is too much of a social liberal.

But really you are basically looking at a Daniel Hannan character, without being an obnoxious fool.

Laws could have been a massive player in government but he got caught with his hands in the till. For the sake of the anti-Coalition majority, its a good thing, because it has kept an inept fool in place as an easy target whereas Laws would have been a much more dangerous opponent.

As he was basically corrupt he never was an asset.

He might be intelligent and an intellectual giant compared to Osborne but politics is littered with bright people who ruin their own careers because they divorce themselves from reality and go and do something so outrageous that is the end of them.



No chance. There is no way a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition with a Tory majority will ever give the no 11 job to a member of their partners whether his economic views are close to theirs or not.



He is as decent as any benefit fraudster however he comes across. The fact he will no doubt now get another platform on TV to come across as a "decent bloke" is part of the problem and what Clegg and Co are banking on - that his misdemeanour's can be forgotten . However politically astute he is his judgement is flawed to the extent he stole from the state.

As to if he had been in no. 11 we wouldn't be having U turns that would not automatically make him more popular than Osborne. If his polices were unpopular and we got a double dip recession he would get as much flak for sticking with them as Osborne gets for his U turns.



He would only ever be a massive player if he crossed the floor to the Tories as they have asked him to do in the past.

They can't just [icall[/i an election. In the past ending up as a minority government would be a reason to call one but that is not allowed any more. A minority government has not got the right to call an election off its own bat. So if the Lib Dems walked out the Tory minority government could not just call an election.

There are only two ways to get an early election now.

We would get one if the government lost a vote of no confidence and no alternative government was able to be formed within 14 days. So in theory the government could lose a no confidence vote and they could all go back to the drawing board. Labour could try a minority government with the Lib Dems. The Tories could go it alone as a minority government or they could even, I suppose, try and thrash out out a new agreement with the Lib Dems. If they all fail to form a government that passes a confidence vote in 14 days we get an election.

The no confidence vote is still decided by simple majority but Labour + Lib Dems can't outvote the Tories and it would be very odd for the government to have no confidence in itself. That would be a huge message to the country to vote for someone else.

The other way is of more than 2/3 of MP's vote for an early election (434 out of 650). If the Lib Dems felt ambushed into leaving government they may abstain from such a vote or vote against and the Tories would have to vote themselves out of office with Labours help. Pretty similar to having no confidence in your own government I think.

Voting yourself out of office is a lot different politically to just calling an election because you ended up a minority administration or whatever. If we got to that stage the proverbial would have hit the fan and I reckon it would be worth quite a few percent swing away from the governing parties. So I really don't think it is an option.

They will lumber on until 7th may 2015 IMO.

Cheers, didn't realise things had changed. Are you sure Labour + Lib Dems can't outvote the Tories? I know things have changed since the election but 258 (Lab) + 57 (LD) = 315 to the Tories 307. In practice it probably wouldn't happen mind you.

(Edit - now 304, 254 and 57, so still theroretically possible)

The Deputy PM on BBC News informing us about his economy stimulation plans and how he's going to allow people to build extensions beyond 3 metres in their own homes.

Well that'll sort everything out then.

T0SSER!

If my neighbour wants to build an extension that blocks the light from my house/garden, how do I stop him (legally

) if planning permission isn't needed?

Still it's good to know this shower are focussed on getting us out of recession

You're ignoring the 2/3rds majority now required to force an election

Some lovely setting people up to fail going on in this reshuffle. Take Ministers who are already hugely unpopular, and put them into departments heading for disaster so they can take the fall.

It would be funny if the ramifications for so many people were not so serious.

I still find myself wondering if they really believe any of this nonsense or not.

Bugger me, it's getting worse: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9523901/David-Cameron-made-three-ministers-cry-when-he-sacked-them.htmlTax dodger Lord Ashcroft brought into government[/url. I wonder if he'll start paying UK tax before he takes up his duties?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19461367Honours for reshuffle casualties[/url. Where else would you expect to receive an honour for getting the bullet? And they criticise failed bankers' bonuses

Hope Ashcroft's been smart enough to move his money - the UK now has an information sharing agreement with Belize

They've also sneaked another goodie into the same bundle of proposals, developers will now no longer be forced to include a percentage of "affordable homes" as part of planning on new developments.

Both of these proposals are gifts to the building industry as a result of intense lobbying for less regulation and more freedom to do what the hell they like, expect more loosening of green belt legislation shortly.

Its like they think we can't see what they are doing all along...

It's like they don't care.

There is a bright side to the freeing up of planning regulations. If it means that someone like Isobel Waterhouse can get further up the nose of that well-known [is[/ihithouse [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/4967513/Sports-presenter-Steve-Rider-in-planning-row-in-Devon-village.htmlSteve Rider[/url then it can't be all bad

It will be interesting to see how mortgage providers and insurance companies will view any property with an extension that didn't go through the planning process.

More on the relaxing of planning regulations: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/9522902/House-builders-sitting-on-400000-undeveloped-plots-of-land-with-planning-permission.htmlDevelopers sitting on 400,000 plots with planning permission granted[/url

Now imagine if they were to be charged LVT

New junior health minister with [url=http://pdeveson.posterous.com/dr-dan-and-the-100-hour-weeksquestions to answer[/url

It's almost as if they were waiting to see if the results of their lobbying would remove the requirement to build affordable homes.

I'd be more concerned if it missed the Building Control process, rather than the planning.

How would that work then if there's no requirement to submit plans?