DOCSLIB.ORG

Liberals in Coalition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Liberals in Coalition For the study of Liberal, SDP and Issue 72 / Autumn 2011 / £10.00 Liberal Democrat history Journal of LiberalHI ST O R Y Liberals in coalition Vernon Bogdanor Riding the tiger The Liberal experience of coalition government Ian Cawood A ‘distinction without a difference’? Liberal Unionists and Conservatives Kenneth O. Morgan Liberals in coalition, 1916–1922 David Dutton Liberalism and the National Government, 1931–1940 Matt Cole ‘Be careful what you wish for’ Lessons of the Lib–Lab Pact Liberal Democrat History Group 2 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 new book from tHe History Group for details, see back page Journal of Liberal History issue 72: Autumn 2011 The Journal of Liberal History is published quarterly by the Liberal Democrat History Group. ISSN 1479-9642 Riding the tiger: the Liberal experience of 4 Editor: Duncan Brack coalition government Deputy Editor: Tom Kiehl Assistant Editor: Siobhan Vitelli Vernon Bogdanor introduces this special issue of the Journal Biographies Editor: Robert Ingham Reviews Editor: Dr Eugenio Biagini Coalition before 1886 10 Contributing Editors: Graham Lippiatt, Tony Little, York Membery Whigs, Peelites and Liberals: Angus Hawkins examines coalitions before 1886 Patrons A ‘distinction without a difference’? 14 Dr Eugenio Biagini; Professor Michael Freeden; Ian Cawood analyses how the Liberal Unionists maintained a distinctive Professor John Vincent identity from their Conservative allies, until coalition in 1895 Editorial Board The coalition of 1915–1916 26 Dr Malcolm Baines; Dr Roy Douglas; Dr Barry Doyle; Prelude to disaster: Ian Packer examines the Asquith coalition of 1915–16, Dr David Dutton; Prof. David Gowland; Prof. Richard which brought to an end the last solely Liberal government Grayson; Dr Michael Hart; Peter Hellyer; Dr J. Graham Jones; Dr Tudor Jones; Tony Little; Prof. Ian Machin; Dr Mark Pack; Dr Ian Packer; Dr John Powell; Ed Randall; Liberals in coalition, 1916–1922 32 Jaime Reynolds; Dr Andrew Russell; Dr Iain Sharpe Kenneth O. Morgan analyses the history of the last Liberal–Conservative coalition government Editorial/Correspondence Contributions to the Journal – letters, articles, and Liberalism and the National Government, 1931–40 38 book reviews – are invited. The Journal is a refereed David Dutton examines the impact of the National Government on the Liberal publication; all articles submitted will be reviewed. Contributions should be sent to: Party Duncan Brack (Editor) 54 Midmoor Road, London SW12 0EN Crisis, coalition and cuts 44 email: [email protected] Peter Sloman draws parallels between the formation of the coalition governments in 1931 and 2010 All articles copyright © Journal of Liberal History. Advertisements Coalition in the archives 52 Full page £100; half page £60; quarter page £35. Nick White uses the papers of Liberal activist Frances Josephy to examine the Discounts available for repeat ads or offers to readers attitudes of ordinary Liberals to coalitions in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g. discounted book prices). To place ads, please contact the Editor. ‘Be careful what you wish for’ 58 The lessons of the Lib–Lab Pact for the Lib–Con coalition; by Matt Cole Subscriptions/Membership An annual subscription to the Journal of Liberal History costs £20.00 (£12.50 unwaged rate). This includes The history of the ‘triple lock’ 64 membership of the History Group unless you inform Where it came from, how it worked and its future; by Mark Pack us otherwise. Non-UK subscribers should add £5.00. The institutional rate is £50.00, which includes online Reviews 69 access. As well as printed copies, online subscribers Donoughue, Downing Street Diaries Volume Two: with James Callaghan in are able to access online copies of current and all past Number 10, reviewed by Archy Kirkwood; Bogdanor, The Coalition and the Journals. Online subscriptions are also available to Constitution, reviewed by Julie Smith Group individuals at £40.00. Cheques (payable to ‘Liberal Democrat History Group’) should be sent to: Patrick Mitchell 6 Palfrey Place, London SW8 1PA; History email: [email protected] e Payment is also possible via our website, Liberal Democrat History Group www.liberalhistory.org.uk. H The Liberal Democrat History Group promotes the discussion and research of topics relating to the histories of the Liberal Democrats, Liberal Party, and SDP, and of Liberalism. The Cover design concept: Lynne Featherstone Group organises discussion meetings and produces the Journal of Liberal History and other Published by the Liberal Democrat History Group, occasional publications. c/o 54 Midmoor Road, London SW12 0EN For more information, including historical commentaries, details of publications, back issues Printed by Kall-Kwik, of the Journal, and archive and other research sources, see our website at: 18 Colville Road, London W3 8BL www.liberalhistory.org.uk. September 2011 Chair: Tony Little Honorary President: Lord Wallace of Saltaire new bookfor fromdetails, t see back page Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 3 riDinG tHe tiGer tHe Liberal experience of coalition Government ‘There was a young lady of Riga Who smiled as she rode on a tiger; They returned from the ride With the lady inside, And the smile on the face of the tiger.’ Coalitions between unequal partners can end up like the relationship between the tiger and the young lady of Riga. In March 2011 the Liberal Democrat History Group and British Liberal Political he story begins with Britain] does not love coalitions.’ Studies Group organised Disraeli’s famous com- But whether England or Britain ment in the House does or does not love coalitions, two seminars to learn of Commons on 16 we have had three peacetime from the Liberal December 1852, in the coalitions in the last 120 years: Tmidst of a thunderstorm, in which the 1895 coalition between the experience of coalition he said this: Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists; the Lloyd George coali- The combination may be success- governments. Vernon tion between the Conservatives and ful, a coalition has before this been one wing of the Liberal Party; and successful, but coalitions, though Bogdanor introduces the National Government of 1931. successful, have always found All have been coalitions between this special issue, this – that their triumph has been Conservatives and Liberals, or brief. containing papers from between Conservatives and one ‘This, too, I know,’ he concluded, wing of the Liberal Party. In the the seminars. ‘that England [he meant, I suppose, case of the Lloyd George coalition 4 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 riDinG tHe tiGer tHe Liberal experience of coalition Government and the National Government, and the past three: the 2010 coali- In the current, coalition, if the there were also other small par- tion is the only one that occurred Liberal Democrats were to decide ties involved. But there have been after a hung parliament. After the to leave the government, there does no coalitions between the Liberals 1895, 1918 and 1931 elections, the not, admittedly, in consequence of and the Labour Party, although the Conservatives, had they wished to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, Liberals have supported Labour do so, could have governed with- have to be a general election. But governments from the outside – in out the support of any other party. there would be a different sort of what would now be called a confi- Clearly, after 2010, that could not government – either a Conservative dence and supply agreement – in the have been the case. But, after previ- minority government or, possibly, a 1929 Labour government and, with ous hung parliaments, including the coalition of the left. That, of course, the Lib–Lab pact of 1977–78, the next most recent, in February 1974, makes it easier for the Liberal Callaghan government. the outcome was not coalition but Democrats to leave the coalition. There is, however, a fundamen- minority government. The fact that If the three previous coalitions tal difference between the three the 2010 coalition was, as it were, did not owe their existence to a previous peacetime coalitions and a coalition of necessity, alters its hung parliament, to what did they the present one. It is that the past dynamics very considerably. In pre- owe their existence? If one had to three coalitions were formed before vious coalitions the non-Conserv- grossly oversimplify and answer general elections and endorsed by ative elements were expendable. In in one word, that word would be the electorate in those general elec- 1918, Bonar Law, the Conservative ‘fear’. In 1895, the fear was of Irish tions – by landslide majorities, in leader, told his followers: home rule, which many otherwise fact. They were not, as the current intelligent people felt would mean by our own action we have made coalition has been, formed after a the disintegration of the United Mr Lloyd George the flag-bearer general election. In 1895, 1918 and Kingdom, and a surrender to ter- of the very principles on which 1931, governments went to the rorism and violence. The 1895 coa- we should appeal to the country. It country as coalitions and electors lition was founded on a negative is not his Liberal friends, it is the knew that they were voting for a proposition concerning home rule; Unionist Party which has made coalition. In 2010, the voters did not as soon as the coalition had to con- him prime minister and made it vote for a coalition and had to guess sider a positive policy, tariff reform, possible for him to do the great what coalition might ensue in the it began to disintegrate. work that has been done by this event of a hung parliament. Many In 1918, there was a positive government.1 guessed wrong, including The element as well as a negative – to Guardian, which advocated a vote But, if the Conservatives could create a new world after the First for the Liberal Democrats to create make Mr Lloyd George, they could World War, with a new alignment a progressive coalition of the left.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Happens After an Indecisive Election Result?
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07163, 9 June 2017 What happens after an By Lucinda Maer indecisive election result? Gail Bartlett Inside: 1. Forming a government after a hung parliament 2. “Caretaker” administrations 3. The meeting of a new Parliament 4. The Queen’s Speech 5. An investiture vote? www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07163, 9 June 2017 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Forming a government after a hung parliament 5 1.1 What kind of government can form? 5 1.2 Historical precedents 6 1.3 When should an incumbent Prime Minister resign? 7 1.4 How long does government formation take? 9 1.5 Internal party consultation 9 1.6 Role of the House of Commons 10 1.7 Effects of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 10 2. “Caretaker” administrations 12 2.1 What is a “caretaker” administration? 12 2.2 The nature of the restrictions on government action 12 2.3 When do the restrictions end? 13 3. The meeting of a new Parliament 15 3.1 When does a Parliament return? 15 4. The Queen’s Speech 17 4.1 When does the Queen’s Speech take place? 17 4.2 The debate on the Address 17 5. An investiture vote? 19 Cover page image copyright UK Parliament 3 What happens after an indecisive election result? Summary Following the 2017 general election, held on 8 June 2017, the Conservative Party was returned as the largest party, but did not have an overall majority in the House of Commons.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Plan with Activities: Political
    LESSON PLAN POLITICAL PARTIES Recommended for Grade 10 Duration: Approximately 60 minutes BACKGROUND INFORMATION Parliamentary Roles: www.ola.org/en/visit-learn/about-ontarios-parliament/ parliamentary-roles LEARNING GOALS This lesson plan is designed to engage students in the political process through participatory activities and a discussion about the various political parties. Students will learn the differences between the major parties of Ontario and how they connect with voters, and gain an understanding of the important elements of partisan politics. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION (10 minutes) Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. Ask students which country our system of government is based on. Canada’s parliamentary system stems from the British, or “Westminster,” tradition. Since Canada is a federal state, responsibility for lawmaking is shared among one federal, ten provincial and three territorial governments. Canada shares the same parliamentary system and similar roles as other parliaments in the Commonwealth – countries with historic links to Britain. In our parliament, the Chamber is where our laws are debated and created. There are some important figures who help with this process. Some are partisan and some are non-partisan. What does it mean to be partisan/non-partisan? Who would be voicing their opinions in the Chamber? A helpful analogy is to imagine the Chamber as a game of hockey, where the political parties are the teams playing and the non-partisan roles as the people who make sure the game can happen (ex. referees, announcers, score keepers, etc.) LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO POLITICAL PARTIES 01 EXPLANATION (5 minutes) Political Parties: • A political party is a group of people who share the same political beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Greaves
    TONY GREAVES An Appreciation Liberal History Group by Michael Meadowcroft Tony Greaves never seemed to age. He had a firm belief that politics was capable of transforming society, and his consistent advocacy of local campaigning, community politics and the necessity for both to be anchored in a radical Liberalism had hardly changed from his Young Liberal days. His election to the Lancashire County Council, in 1973, disqualified him legally from his job teaching geography and from then on to his sudden death almost fifty years later he became one of that committed band of Liberals who put the cause before comfort and struggled to find a succession of jobs that would enable him to keep politics as his first priority. His life before politics captured him was that of a scholarship boy separated from his background by intelligence and an ability to pass exams. Born in Bradford into a family with no direct political involvement, he passed the extremely competitive examination for the direct-grant Bradford Grammar School, but an employment move by his police driving- instructor father took him instead to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School in Wakefield. His successes at ‘O’, ‘A’ and ‘S’ levels enabled him to go to Hertford College, Oxford, and to gain a BA in geography. He followed this with a Diploma in Economic Development at Manchester University. By this time, he had discovered a passion for politics and particularly for political debate. By personality – and influenced by the non-statist radicalism of the then party leader, Jo Grimond – Greaves naturally gravitated to the Liberal cause.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Conflict Through Cultural Dialogue
    CPA UK Lunchtime Lecture Series Preventing Conflict through Cultural Dialogue Mr Adrian Sanders MP, Culture, Media and Sport Committee Adrian Sanders was born in Paignton in 1959 and attended schools in Paignton and Torquay. He was elected to Torbay Council as a Liberal Democrat in 1984. He worked for party leader Paddy Ashdown in the early 1990s, standing unsuccessfully for the Torbay parliamentary constituency in 1992. Standing again in 1997, Mr Sanders won the seat with a majority of 12 and continues to serve as MP for Torbay to this day, currently with a majority of 4,078. He has been Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Diabetes since 1998 and serves on the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport. From 2006 to 2010 he was Liberal Democrat Deputy Whip and is currently Vice-Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. www.adriansanders.org Mr Samuel Jones, Demos Associate and co-author of ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ Sam's primary interests are culture, the arts and international and intercultural communication. He is a co-author of ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ and has developed work on the international activity of cultural organisations, the subject of an article 'Diplomacy and Skills for the Cultural Age'. Prior to this, Sam contributed to the Demos collection, Production Values, which features his piece on 'The New Cultural Professionals', and also co-wrote Knowledge and Inspiration, which looked at the contribution of museums, libraries and archives to the cultural and social life of the UK. He has also written on Global English and conservation and the material world, the UK Film sector and the role of conversation in the public realm.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Party Registration Decisions-English Version
    2018 Party registration decisions Decisions by the Commission to approve or reject applied for party names, descriptions and emblems in date order You can find the current registration details of the applicants by clicking on their name An overview of the rules on registering a political party names, descriptions and emblems can be found here Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which part decision rejection applied of the UK? for 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party All of Great Approve Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Scotland for Both Unions: All of Great Approve UK Europe Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Together we are all All of Great Reject Does not meet the requirements of strongest Britain a description 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Emblem All of Great Reject Confusingly similar to another Britain already registered party 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party of Northern Approve Northern Ireland Ireland 10.12.18 Ein Gwlad Name Ein Gwlad Wales Reject Application incomplete 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description Future Shepton – Working England Approve together for Shepton 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description A fresh approach with Future England Approve Shepton 1 Decisions on party registration applications made in 2018 Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which
    [Show full text]
  • 30/Spring 2001
    Peelites Tony Little examines the part played by the renegade Conservatives – the Peelites – in the creation of the Liberal Party. ‘‘HisHis FriendsFriends SatSat onon thethe BenchesBenches Opposite’Opposite’ In the Journal’s special issue on defectors (Journal of Although Lord Palmerston had been a part of the Liberal Democrat History , winter –), one Aberdeen coalition, his semi-detached position and group significant to the development of the modern pugnacious character made him the inevitable war Liberal Party was omitted – the Peelites. Here, by leader and he was the prime beneficiary of the pe- way of a review of Professor Angus Hawkins’ book, tering out of the war shortly after he had acceded to Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain, – the premiership. However, Palmerston had only (Macmillan, ), I aim to show the part played been able to form his government by treading on by these renegade Conservatives in the creation of the toes of oversensitive Peelites such as Gladstone, the modern Liberal Party. and without resolving a long-running quarrel with The formation of the Liberal Party is often dated Lord John Russell. to the meeting in Willis’s Rooms on June . It is at this point that Hawkins takes up the story. This meeting brought together Whigs, Liberals, The problem he poses is that, while, in Kitson’s Radicals and Peelites to defeat Lord Derby. It ush- words, it is not ‘very easy to say what specific opin- ered in a Liberal government under Lord ions were uniquely organised in the middle of the Palmerston which served until Palmerston’s death in century by the Conservative Party’, the forces that and paved the way for Gladstone’s great re- came together to oppose Derby suffered from a su- forming government of –.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Responsibility of Ministers: an Outline of the Issues
    The Individual Responsibility of Ministers: An Outline of the Issues Research Paper 96/27 21 February 1996 The individual responsibility of ministers is a vital aspect of accountable and democratic Parliamentary government, yet it is a 'convention' which is difficult to define with certainty and which, to a large degree, depends on the circumstances of each individual case. This Paper seeks to explore, in general terms, the subject as a whole and several interesting examples from the era of Crichel Down in 1954 onwards to illustrate the issue. It does not seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of ministerial responsibility (including collective responsibility) or Parliamentary accountability. Barry K Winetrobe Janet Seaton Home Affairs Section Reference and Reader Services Section House of Commons Library Summary Individual ministerial responsibility is an important if complex constitutional issue. It is often described as a constitutional convention, and this Paper examines its nature in that context, and in relation to collective responsibility and in the light of developments such as the growth of select committees, the development of Next Steps agencies and quangos, and the publication in 1992 of Questions of procedure for Ministers. The nature of individual responsibility in action is described briefly, including aspects short of a ministerial resignation or dismissal. The interesting, if short, debate on ministerial responsibility on 12 February 1996 is considered. A number of modern examples of situations where individual responsibility could be said to have arisen are examined, purely to illustrate various aspects of the 'convention'. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list. It covers significant episodes such as Crichel Down in 1954 (in which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe set out what is often regarded as the classic statement of the traditional doctrine), the Falklands (1982) and Westland (1986), and includes instances where resignation demands were successfully restricted such as Court Line (1975) and the Maze Prison escape (1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy
    Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy’s fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today’s new and old democracies under siege. Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University where he is also a resident fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also currently Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute. His first book, Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (2006) received several prizes from the American Political Science Association. He has written extensively on the emergence of democracy in European political history, publishing in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Economic History, and World Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Thecoalition
    The Coalition Voters, Parties and Institutions Welcome to this interactive pdf version of The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Please note that in order to view this pdf as intended and to take full advantage of the interactive functions, we strongly recommend you open this document in Adobe Acrobat. Adobe Acrobat Reader is free to download and you can do so from the Adobe website (click to open webpage). Navigation • Each page includes a navigation bar with buttons to view the previous and next pages, along with a button to return to the contents page at any time • You can click on any of the titles on the contents page to take you directly to each article Figures • To examine any of the figures in more detail, you can click on the + button beside each figure to open a magnified view. You can also click on the diagram itself. To return to the full page view, click on the - button Weblinks and email addresses • All web links and email addresses are live links - you can click on them to open a website or new email <>contents The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Edited by: Hussein Kassim Charles Clarke Catherine Haddon <>contents Published 2012 Commissioned by School of Political, Social and International Studies University of East Anglia Norwich Design by Woolf Designs (www.woolfdesigns.co.uk) <>contents Introduction 03 The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Introduction The formation of the Conservative-Liberal In his opening paper, Bob Worcester discusses Democratic administration in May 2010 was a public opinion and support for the parties in major political event.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets
    Non-Executive Report of the: COUNCIL 21 March 2018 Report of: Asmat Hussain, Corporate Director, Classification: Governance and Monitoring Officer Unrestricted Motion for debate submitted by the Administration Originating Officer(s) Matthew Mannion, Committee Services Manager, Democratic Services. Wards affected All wards SUMMARY 1. Council Procedure Rule 11 allows for time at each Ordinary Council meeting for the discussion of one specific Motion submitted by the Administration. The debate will follow the rules of debate at Council Procedure Rule 13 and will last no more than 30 minutes. 2. The motion submitted is listed overleaf. The Administration Motion is submitted by the Labour Group. 3. Motions must be about matters for which the Council or its partners has a direct responsibility. A motion may not be moved which is substantially the same as a motion which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the previous six months; or which proposes that a decision of the Council taken in the previous six months be rescinded; unless notice of the motion is given signed by at least twenty Members. 4. Notice of any proposed amendments to the Motions must be given to the Monitoring Officer by Noon the day before the meeting. MOTION Set out overleaf is the motion that has been submitted. 7 – Administration Motion regarding the future of Tower Hamlets Council Proposer: Mayor John Biggs Seconder: Councillor Sirajul Islam This Council notes that: 1. Tower Hamlets Council has emerged from a period of turbulence and chaos which was created by the previous mayor Lutfur Rahman and his administration, many of whom still serve as councillors.
    [Show full text]
  • Lord Cecil Parkinson 1
    Lord Cecil Parkinson 1 Trade minister in Margaret Thatcher's first government in 1979, Cecil Parkinson went on to become Conservative Party chairman. He was instrumental in privatizing Britain's state-owned enterprises, particularly electricity. In this interview, Parkinson discusses the rethink of the British Conservative Party in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher's leadership in the Falklands War, the coal miners' strike, and the privatization of state-owned industries. Rethinking the Conservative Party, and the Role of Keith Joseph INTERVIEWER: Let's talk about Margaret Thatcher during the '70s. After the defeat of [Prime Minister Ted] Heath, Margaret Thatcher almost goes back to school. She and Keith Joseph go to Ralph Harris [at the Institute for Economic Affairs] and say, "Give us a reading list." What's going on here? What's Margaret really doing? LORD CECIL PARKINSON: I think Margaret was very happy with the Heath manifesto. If you look at the Heath manifesto, it was almost a mirror image of her 1979 manifesto. All the things—cutting back the role of the state, getting rid of the nationalized industries, curbing the train unions, cutting of taxes, controlling public expenditure—it's all there. It's a very, very good manifesto. And I've heard her recently compliment him on the 1970 manifesto, which was a slightly sort of backhanded compliment, really. What troubled her was that we could be bounced out of it. We could be moved from doing the things which we knew were right and doing things which we secretly knew were wrong because of circumstances, and I think instinctively she felt this was wrong, but she didn't have the sort of intellectual backup, she felt, to back up her instincts.
    [Show full text]