PC 5: Appointments

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

I think the approach of our political system to this situation has been most interesting. On the one hand we have an opposition trying to act, to legislate to stop a burning injustice, and to do so in a multi-lateral and cross-party basis. On the other hand we have a Government which has the power to act but does not. In place of action we have had members of Her Majesty's Government describe the Leader of the Opposition as a cowboy, a liar, and an ass which begs the question of why they are doing this instead of acting in good faith? When one side picks action to tackle injustice, and the other picks inaction and just so happens to benefit from that inaction, one must question the motives of the inactive Government. I hope that they will prove these suspicions wrong in favour of cross-party discussion.

[John Baker]

The Labour party has decided that the appointments system is infact broken, however we should leave it broken until an inquiry is finished. I'm glad that gives them plenty of time to spend the next few years giving appointments to their friends and cronies. The New Labour's knack for double standards is quite nice, we can have amendments, but the Conservative party's bills are shoddy if they need amendments. We can have cronies up until the last minute and then we'll recognize that there's a problem we've been exploiting. This Labour party is going to have to be dragged to admitting that the system needs immediate fixing. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have done great work with this bill and if Labour comes out with a strong whip to prevent the Socialist Campaign Group from forcing them to adopt reasonable change, then so be it. Though I do wonder if that happens will Mandelson be on his fourth or fifth appointed job. Labour continues to govern like Blair, you have to wonder if they even really had a leadership election.

[Sir James McCrimmon]

When two Tories disagreed on how best to approach this issue, a Lib Dem stepped in and found a way forward. I alluded to this in the House, I'll say it here: if the Government wishes to participate constructively in getting the best bill we can passed, all they have to do is let me know, and I would be more than willing to work with them to find a path forward. In a political system that prefers the clear outcomes of winning and losing, the Liberal Democrats have another goal - getting the right outcome for this country.

[Ege]

Frankly I find Labour frontbench's astonishing opposition to the appointments bill rather baffling. It is based on nonsense excuses of it's been amended, it is badly written without showing any examples of it, with exception of course Amelia Lockhart's obsession with the impeachment, and they have not provided any sort of useful feedback after Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded the Opposition to provide something serious. All of this frankly indicates one thing to me, they are not opposed to this bill because of all the nonsense they are sprouting. They are opposed to this bill because they benefit from this system of corruption and cronyism and they do not want to change it. That is why they won't do anything about it, of course they won't tell you that because admitting that would be admitting Labour's past was, present is and future will be corruption. For as long as they are in charge.

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

That's more like it from the Tories. They (by which I mean we) scored a victory in the pre-round and now they're pressing the advantage. Are they pressing it as hard and efficiently as they could? No. But I'll take what I can get. The entire premise, that appointments should be overseen by someone other than the Prime Minister, is good. The idea that a Commissioner should exist is good. Introducing legislation only to amend it is not as good and it does appear to be somewhat a stumbling block that gives Labour the chance to dogpile and come away without quite so much egg on their faces.

Speaking of preventing egg-face, Jack Anderson's early and consistent intervention in this debate was positive and helped the government defend against what was, otherwise, a clear defeat. He does so in two distinct ways: first, pointing out that the bill is far from perfect; then, he points out that the bill is so far from perfect that the opposition have seen fit to amend it within hours of introducing it. Now, this is a strong enough position to take, and it bears out in parliamentary debate as well. But it isn't a defense of the Government's position, which the Tories and Liberal Democrats unite to attack.

Here is the central lesson from all of this: don't rush your legislation out without making sure it is exactly what you want to put out or else you will lessen the impact of your one-two punch. But if you do rush your legislation out, and it is imperfect, then make sure you bring out the cavalry to save your bacon. The Tories did that and have gained a good, but blunted, victory.

Conservatives gain +1 momentum; Croft gains +1 XP and MacMillan gains +2 XP for their defense (and, in MacMillan's case, once again setting the Conservative Party's agenda from the background). Anderson gains +1 XP for his stalwart defense.