Is Cameron just hours from No10? Tories to strike historic deal with Lib Dems 'very soon'

UK ELECTION RESULTS 2010: Gordon Brown and Clegg in talks as Tory Lib Dem deal nears | Mail Online

In the wake of David Cameron's offer of a 'big, open and comprehensive' partnership with the LibDems, strategists from the two parties spent the weekend locked in detailed talks.

But there remain significant hurdles to thrashing out even an informal partnership arrangement - let alone a formal coalition, in which LibDems get Cabinet posts.

• VOTING REFORM

What the LibDems want: 'Single transferable vote' proportional representation, where the number of votes cast translates directly into seats. Cut number of MPs by 150 and lower voting age to 16. Elected Upper Chamber.

What the Tories could swallow: Significant cut in number of MPs, and reform of Lords. Offering an initial committee of inquiry into PR. In extremis, could offer referendum on 'alternative vote system', where candidates are ranked in order of preference and losing votes are reallocated until one candidate has more than 50 per cent.

Verdict: Issue on which talks are most likely to collapse. LibDem supporters see this as a unique chance for electoral reform. Tory MPs and grassroots fiercely opposed PR because it could leave UK permanently governed by a centre-Left alliance. A referendum on even watered-down forms of PR would see LibDems and Tories on fiercely opposing sides - risking the coalition.

• TAXES

What LibDems want?: Take poorest out of tax system by raising personal allowance to £10,000. Wait until recovery is secure before scrapping NI rise.

What the Tories could swallow: Broad commitment to reducing tax burden on the poor, working towards the £10,000 threshold. Re-think of flagship policy on stopping 'NI jobs tax' would be a humiliating U-turn.

Verdict: Grounds for common agreement over personal allowance plan - but not over how it would be paid for. LibDem plans for mansion tax, changes to capital gains tax and a new raid on pension funds unpalatable. Clashes also likely over Tory plan to recognise marriage in tax system, which Mr Clegg has called unfair.

• ECONOMY

What LibDems want: Agreement to least halve the deficit by 2014 - but wait until 2011-12 to reduce public spending. Cap public sector pay. Split banks to insulate retail banking from investment risks.

What Tories could swallow: Most of the above, but want to make at least modest cuts in spending this year to reassure the markets they are serious about debt reduction.

Verdict: Shared ground on deficit reduction most likely basis for agreement. Locking LibDems into a partnership would help Mr Cameron, by silencing a respected opponent in Vince Cable. If coalition talks collapse, LibDems could agree to support Tory cuts package in informal 'confidence and supply' arrangement.

• CABINET POSTS

What LibDems want: As many as possible. Eyeing Treasury, Home Office, Education and Leader of Commons posts among others. At the least, want jobs for Mr Clegg, Mr Cable and former leadership contender Chris Huhne.

What Tories could swallow: Prepared to let key figures join cabinet. Schools spokesman Michael Gove yesterday said he would give up his own post to a LibDem. Could hand Mr Cable a key role on a financial stability committee if not a Treasury job.

Verdict: A formal coalition demands ministerial roles - but Mr Cameron's red-line policy issues on immigration, Trident and the EU make a LibDem in the Foreign Office, MoD or Home Office an unthinkable prospect. Lib-Dems could also refuse to work with Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Mr Cameron's closest political ally.

• EDUCATION

What LibDems want: 'Pupil premium' giving schools extra funding for teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Scale back tests at age 11. Scrap top-up fees

What Tories could swallow: Agree with pupil premium policy. Stop short of scrapping SATs tests but could agree to greater internal assessment instead of formal end-of-year exam.

Verdict: Along with economy, greatest scope for a deal. Tories would face struggle to convince LibDems of merits of allowing parents to establish own 'free' schools. Clashes also likely on top-up fees, which Tories may even allow to increase. Outside of a coalition, LibDems could agree to back a Tory Education Bill.
The bulging in-tray facing the new government

The political horse-trading in the wake of the hung Parliament election result takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis, war and warnings of industrial strife.

Here the Daily Mail examines the groaning in-tray of urgent problems that will face the incoming government.
ECONOMY

Alistair Darling was thrust into talks yesterday that could see taxpayers forced to pump in billions to prop up the euro in the wake of the crisis in Greece.

Sterling and the stock market took a battering on Friday as it became clear that the election had produced a hung Parliament and could tumble further unless there are clear signs of a strong government emerging that is able to take the tough decisions needed to bring Britain's vast budget deficit under control.
EDUCATION

Tens of thousands of primary school children will miss key Sats tests today as teachers at more than 1,000 schools stage a boycott in protest at the content of the curriculum.
STRIKES

British Airways cabin crew have already indicated they may stage a summer of strikes after rejecting the latest peace deal from management.

But this is set to be dwarfed by disputes in the public sector as spending cuts designed to ease the budget crisis take hold.

Unions have already warned of a Greek-style 'fightback on a massive scale' over cuts that could affect jobs, pay and pensions in the public sector.
DEFENCE

More than 10,000 British troops are facing daily peril while fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Numerous key defence decisions on issues like the new aircraft carriers are also on hold pending the start of a strategic defence review promised by all three parties.
ENERGY

Key decisions on the construction of nuclear power stations and renewable energy facilities needed to prevent energy blackouts within a few years are on hold.
NORTHERN IRELAND

The new government will have to act quickly to steady potential instability in Ulster following the shock defeat of First Minister Peter Robinson in last week's election.

The defeat came against rising evidence of terrorist activity by dissident Republicans.

The State may rightly limit our freedom to prevent us from harming others, but not to prevent us from harming ourselves.

Source: timesonline. co.uk
By James Whyte

POLITICIANS DO NOT care for drugs. It is a topic like religion: since the established position is nonsense, established people do not like discussing it if they can avoid doing so. Alas, drugs are being pushed on to the establishment from within. First it was Kate Moss, then David Cameron, and then the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs with its report on the criminal classification of cannabis. That is the entire establishment covered: Hoi Poloicracy, Aristocracy and Bureaucracy. There is no hiding. It is time again for "the drugs debate". The drugs debate goes like this. Most participants think it right that the production, sale and consumption of recreational drugs, such as cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin, should be illegal. They point to the damage drugs do to their users' health: death, brain damage, lung cancer and so on. (All the other harm caused by the drugs trade is a consequence of its illegality and so not helpful to the case.) Those who think drugs should be legalised — "only the soft ones, of course, we're not crazy" — come over all John Stuart Mill. Consenting adults in a free country should be able to do to themselves whatever harm they choose. The State may rightly limit our freedom to prevent us from harming others, but not to prevent us from harming ourselves. Mill was probably right. But the argument is not entirely helpful because it tacitly accepts that people harm themselves by taking drugs. And we live in an age where welfare trumps liberty every time. Modern politicians like to say that it is their very difficult job to find the balance between welfare and liberty. But it is not the least bit difficult to predict on which side their scales will always fall. So, to win our liberty, we must get legislators to see that drugs are in fact good for their users.

Personal View: Safety not lifestyle is key to drug tests

This claim will surprise many readers. Has Whyte got his hands on some radical new research about the physiological and psychological effects of drugs? No. I've got my hands on a perfectly orthodox theory of welfare that is always forgotten in "the drugs debate". Something is good for you if its benefits exceed its costs. Otherwise it is bad for you. This simple principle means that you cannot properly recommend something by considering only its benefits, nor condemn it by considering only its costs. This latter mistake is the one favoured in the drugs debate. People go on endlessly — and often exaggeratedly — about the health risks of taking drugs, as if this were sufficient to show that drugs are bad for you. This is absurd. If you consider only the costs, then everything is bad for you. Eating has its costs, such as the price of food and the risk of choking. Should we conclude that eating is bad for you? The real question is not whether drug use has costs. Every activity has. The question is whether these costs exceed the benefits of drug use. It is easy to show that they do not, but we should first recognise what the main benefit is. This should be obvious but, for some reason, nobody involved in "the drugs debate" ever mentions it. The main benefit of taking drugs is that it is pleasurable. In fact, it can be incredibly pleasurable. That is why people do it. And also why it is good for them. Drug users are simply people for whom the pleasure outweighs the risk of death, illness, addiction and all the rest. In other words, they are people for whom the benefits of drug use exceed the costs. They wouldn't be drug users otherwise. The same is not true of everyone. Some value health more and pleasure less. For them, drug taking would deliver a net loss. Fine: these people would not take drugs even if they were legal. The point is not peculiar to drugs. Change the example. Is playing lawn bowls good for you? That depends on the how much you value the upside (the exercise, the company, the nice white outfits) and how much you (dis)value the downside (the exercise, the company, the nice white outfits). If your values make lawn bowls a net benefit, you will play. If not, you won't. Welfare and liberty are in perfect harmony. People voluntarily do only what is good for them. Provided, of course, that they are properly informed. If you underestimate the cost of some activity, you might do it even though its costs exceed its benefits. This possibility is sometimes used to justify the criminalisation of drugs. But underestimation cuts both ways. People might fail to do something that is good for them because they underestimate the benefits. Those who have never taken Ecstasy might not know how wonderful it feels. Should it be made compulsory to eliminate this risk? In 1990, 15 men who had voluntarily cut each others genitals for the sake of sexual gratification were convicted of assault. Why did their consent not stop this from being assault? If it did not, then why is rugby not assault? In the failed 1992 appeal, Lord Lane explained. Consent is a defence only if the physical damage is sustained for a worthwhile purpose. Rugby is a worthwhile purpose; sexual pleasure is not. I suspect that something similar makes legislators systematically discount the benefits of drugs. It is not enough that people value something. To count it as a benefit, our betters in Westminster must deem it worthwhile. And, as with kinky sexual gratification, they do not consider getting high to be worthwhile. It is not concern for our welfare that explains the illegality of drug use. It is bigotry.

Sent from my BlackBerry®powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

“Dari pada Mulyani lebih baik Marsinah”

Oleh Anto Sangaji di (IndoPROGRESS. blogspot. com)

Apa hubungannya dengan Mulyani? Marsinah adalah buruh, komoditi yang menjadi jantung pertumbuhan kapitalisme. Mulyani adalah ekonom borjuis yang mengesahkan sistem itu. Rumit, tetapi ringkasnya, 17 tahun setelah kematian Marsinah, 12 tahun kediktatoran Orde Baru yang mengeksekusinya sudah tumbang, tetapi sistem ekonomi kapitalis yang mengeksploitasinya bergerak semakin progresif. Krisis ekonomi 1997, resep-resep neoliberal penyelesaiannya, aneka macam konflik, dan ekspansi kapital secara besar-besaran telah melipatgandakan surplus tenaga kerja, yang dapat digunakan untuk re-ekspansi kapital secara tiba-tiba dan cepat. Itulah faktor-faktor yang melanggengkan penghisapan.Tentang Mulyani, berita tentangnya melimpah-ruah akhir-akhir ini. Dialah generasi baru ekonom pelanjut dan penganjur ekonomi kapitalis Orde Baru. Dia dibela mati-matian dalam menghadapi partai-partai politik oportunis di parlemen dalam kasus 'Bank Century'. Sebagai sosok yang digambarkan bersih dan sukses dalam reformasi birokrasi, Mulyani dibela pasar. Penunjukkannya sebagai salah satu direktur pelaksana Bank Dunia, mengundang reaksi negatif pasar di Jakarta. Di negeri, di mana korupsi, kolusi, dan nepotisme begitu merajalela – tercatat sebagai salah satu negeri terkorup di dunia – dukungan terhadap Mulyani bisa dipahami, kendati bukan di situ duduk perkaranya.

Sent from my BlackBerry®powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

Jangan dilarang, legalisasi akan membuat permasalahan sosial lebih mudah ditertibkan

Dimana2 kalo dianggap illegal, bikin orang makin memburu. Peraturan tetep penting ada, bukan asal ngelarang saklek, ga kan nyelesain prsoalan. obat keras, gamble, prostitution, dilarang pun, akan tetep ada. Namanya jg manusia, ga sempurna.aturan akn bantu
This is just my comment toward the criminalization of hemp , booze, recreational drugs, and prostitution
Sent from my BlackBerry®powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

Hey government, don't abuse my right! Ban smoking activities in public places, asap!

I wish these f***ing people who smoke in the public place are put on jail. I am so angry with these people . Fark! Sorry for using f words. I can't bear with this situation. My rights as a non-smoker has been abused. Government doesn't do anything. Hey government, what the heck have you done to protect my rights and other people who don't smoke. I do my duty as a citizen, and I deserve to get my rights fulfilled. Hey Government, you are really useless. Can you think that tobacco industry has killed many people, wasted national budget to be spent to cover the smokers healthcare. This is not fair. I don't want my money goes to smokers!!!
I am tired and emotionally tortured by the dumb government.
In this country, most things are weird. When we,as non-smokers, ask the smokers not to smoke in
public place, they're just mad. They're idiot! F***ing retarded! Again, sorry for the language. No offence.

Hopeless citizen

Sent from my BlackBerry®powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT