As I make my way toward Portcullis House, I spot three armed guards standing outside a revolving door that isn’t revolving. There’s a door to the left and I walk through it, unloading my bag and everything in my pockets onto a plastic tray before walking through a security gate.

In complete contrast to everything happening around me, looking pretty much like a scene from the ‘The Thick of It’, a man walks to the final security door, beaming. His name is Andy Burnham and he’s standing as a candidate for the Labour Leadership.

We shook hands, we greeted each other and instead of going into a stuffy office, he took me to a nearby table outside a cafe, where his press secretary and aides were sitting. His hair was brushed to the side, he was clean shaven and he seemed relaxed, if not understandably tired. After a few minutes of light conversation, it turned to politics and I asked him a pretty unusual question. ‘I’ve heard a lot of people asking how are you are different from the other candidates but what I want to know is what strengths do you all have in common?’ I’m not sure if he expected it but he replied quickly. ‘Experience’. It struck me as obvious but he went on and said that they are ‘all people motivated from the same kind of ideas and the society [they] want to see’.

So I sat there and wondered what could be different. To me, it was pretty clear that it was his personality. There was no doubt that Andy Burnham was a decent person. Perhaps he was too nice to be a leader. In 2009, the swine flu pandemic hit the country and although it worked out as less dangerous than first thought, it was probably due to the man in ‘the hot seat’ that it turned out that way. He has had to make some tough decisions in the post he’s held but later I found myself thinking about whether that could transfer into huge decisions that a Prime Minister has to face on a day to basis.

On the train over to Westminster, thick, moving globules of flesh were pasted everywhere and George Osborne’s face was on them, delivering a budget he himself seemed terrified of. Was it the same for Andy Burnham? If I’m honest, when I asked how the budget affected him personally, he seemed to waver. He wasn’t entirely sure about how it did but I suppose he was just finding his feet because he took real issue with what they were doing to the schools, especially considering he is a father to three children. He ‘went to secondary school under the Conservatives and it wasn’t a particularly enjoyable experience. And [he's] worried now that going to secondary schools under the Tories and schools are going to be very badly hit by this budget.’

So we speak fluidly for a while and then I think about what he says about his children before I ask another question. It’s got to be hard for both sides of a family to be away from one another for such a long period of time. I thought it’d be better to put down exactly what he said to that.

‘Yes. In a word, yeah. That’s the hardest side of my job. Um.. You know, when I pick up the phone to my kids at seven o’ clock.. You know, it’s just.. quite hard. And my son’s ten, you know, he really misses me now.. And um.. particularly with the World Cup on now as well, you know.. you kind of.. want to watch it together and um.. You know, that all is quite hard actually and if I go further up, it’ll get harder as well. I am quite disciplined about making sure that I do get home and I do have family time. Politics.. Politics and family life are not a good mix. It’s always a cliché that minister resigns to spend more time with him family but.. There is actually something in that. You’re in politics and living in Westminster can often keep you away from you family for long, long days on end.’

I wasn’t sure on what to ask after that. I thought about it for a while and then considered that I was going to be voting, come the next election. So I asked, without any inhibition or tactic, why I should vote for Labour if the coalition do a fine job. His answer, admittedly, wasn’t immediate but it was pretty good when it came. The question for him was really ‘IF they’ve done a good job’. Already, he said, Labour is proving ‘to be a more effective opposition’ but that’s not to say that they should rest on their laurels and, in a responsible air, Andy Burnham admits it. ‘So Labour needs to be careful that it doesn’t just assume that it’s all going to fall apart – it might not… we need to look like.. Not like we’re in denial, you know, kind of like, opposing everything and so.. Labour’s got to be quite careful to pick its fights. So, where things are going too far or, you know, where things are unacceptable, then speaking up for that but not opposing everything.’ It was a good answer and I liked the way we finished up.

Andy Burnham, a name not very well known to me beforehand, for me, had demonstrated and answered that perpetual question asked continually and monotonously over and over again by jouranlists and reporters desperate for a grilling. ‘How are you different from the other candidates?’

We shook hands, we said goodbye to each other and as I went outside, I glanced sideways to three armed guards standing outside a revolving door that wasn’t revolving.

Have Britain and America fallen out ‘big time’?

The fact that one of our largest companies, BP, has covered America’s beaches and nature reserves in oil has apparently driven a rift between the two countries the size of the Atlantic Ocean.

The turmoil began on the 20^th April, when BP’s ‘Deepwater Horizon’ oil rig blew up, killing 11 crew member. The US Government are angry because the rig did not have proper measures installed, and had malfunctioning equipment that was not repaired, so  thousands of barrels per day have since leaked from the snapped pipe beneath the destroyed oil rig. What the USA are also annoyed about is the fact that the rig did not have a cut off valve on the pipe, so that when the pipe to the rig snapped, oil was free to pump out into the Gulf of Mexico, even though US law does not say that such equipment is necessary, which is the case in all European oil drilling nations. The two nations, which for the past century have been about as separable, in the immortal words of Edward Blackadder, as “a Frenchman living next to a brothel”, have fallen out hugely over the disaster. It seems that somehow, us giving America a ‘thousand barrels per day’ of black gold, is wrong! I suppose it is quite like a homeless man throwing an oil drum full of pound coins at Bill Gates!

Barack Obama, saviour of the world, has even likened the spill to 9/11. Okay America, so why don’t you invade France over their “weapons of mass destruction” , steal their oil, and then come after us when Tony Hayward, the ‘most hated man in America’ has already gone to hide in some cave in Scotland.

Having said all that, I don’t even dislike America.

Some of their ideas, such as the cheeseburger, Television dramas, and Sarah Palin are not all bad.

But still, can Obama not see that torturing BP is really not doing any good for anyone? BP, as David Cameron so valiantly praised it, is the provider of millions of British pensions. At a time when the world is only just emerging from the largest recession for 70 years, is it really a good thing to prod one of the most fragile and major economies in the world? It is very irresponsible of America. If anything, they should be to blame, for the lack of legislation in their laws that states that oil rigs must have a ‘Blowout Preventer’, as the laws of nearly every other major drilling nation says there must be. BP didn’t really do anything wrong, they did not go against US law any more than any of the US oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. A US public servant hired to look at the rest of the oil rigs in the bay said that every single other company was not prepared for if such a horrific event happened on any of their rigs. All of them had just the same faults as BP did, and any such accidents on any other rig would result in the same catastrophe as is currently happening.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the Gulf of Mexico spill is a horrific incident, and the company involved should have to pay, but it is the fault of not just BP, but of the US government, of all of the companies drilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and especially of human nature. So BP shouldn’t be the only one to pay. One thing is for certain, America should get out their buckets and scoop up the oil floating around in their bay, ‘cause BP certainly aren’t going to give them any more.

The Oil Slick

For most Gazans, any type of food, water or basic hygiene is considered a great luxury and struggling through life, watching family members, neighbours and friends being murdered or blown to pieces is just a regular, every day occurrence for those who live on the Gaza Strip.

This, I suppose, you already know. But it isn’t only the same old, day to day killing and bombing which affects Gazans. Thanks to the walls on either side of the Gaza Strip, on Egypt’s and Israel’s borders, the Israeli-Egyptian alliance has effectively managed to choke off the economic flow for the Gazans and also in the West Bank, where a similar barrier is used. The result of this is essentially a lack of jobs and raw materials; something that’s vital to live any kind of meaningful life.

I suppose the Israelis and the Egyptians have got a point. After all, stopping cocoa powder from entering into Gaza has got to be a smart move. Who knows what kind of weapons of mass destruction Hamas will create from a huge supply of cocoa powder?

But wait. Didn’t all the Islamic countries in the Middle East promise to help Palestinians in their struggle for independence? That includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt. So why does it follow that Egypt would also support a blockade to encircle the very people they pledged to defend?  It’s a place that’s very difficult for the Egyptian government, admittedly. One the one hand, they’re affiliated with the U.S. cause, in support of Israel’s right to a country, but on the other, they have an obligation as members of the Arab League to defend fellow Muslims such as the Palestinians. So perhaps the wall around Gaza is a move to satisfy those Western and Israeli powers. Then what’s the compromise for Gazans?

There is a break in the Egyptian blockade known as the Rafah crossing, or simply Rafah. From there a whole network of tunnels burrow underneath Egypt and surface in Gaza so that Palestinians can be supplied with some sort of food and supplies to just about live. It’s something that would make you think that maybe the Egyptian government is actively fulfilling its promise to the Palestinian people.

You’re wrong. First of all, these tunnels aren’t funded by the Egyptian government, they’re owned by wealthy families in Rafah. The Egyptian government haven’t and probably won’t act for or against the building of the tunnels. And why would they? Because, instead of these families simply allowing Gazans to use the tunnels as and how they wish, they charge a rental service. And when your tunnel is going to be used by pretty desperate people to transport things that are a a luxury commodity in their own country, charging high rent isn’t really going to be something for Hamas leaders to negotiate on. Of course, with more money on the Egyptian family’s part, there’s either greater spending or higher taxes. Well, both of those outcomes are going to lead to money being fed back into the Egyptian economy which doesn’t give the Egyptian government much incentive to stop anything from going on.

It’s a little short sighted of the Egyptians, and the Israelis, to not understand then that, if there’s trade with only a fraction of the borders open, surely it would increase dramatically if they were completely removed? I’m sure the 36% of Gazans who are currently unemployed would be excited at the prospect of working again, even in Israel. In the 1980s, the Gaza Strip struggled to have unemployment rates reach 5% when the borders were open for Palestinians to freely move. Now, with an increasing fertility rate and a lack of people working, violence and tension rises in the Gaza Strip and it’s pretty simple to see why, in the summer of 2010, a fleet of ships headed for the blockade surrounding this tiny stretch of land to deliver building and medical supplies.

Now, in 2010, it is expected that a new fleet of vessels, sponsored by Iranian activists is to enter the Gaza Strip through the notorious Suez Canal. Already, any possibility of the flotilla breaking through is being strongly opposed by Egyptian authorities. Of course, if you’re making a tonne of money by charging people for basic food and medicine, it isn’t exactly going to turn a great profit if you allow charitable organisations to do it for free, so what incentive have the Egyptians got to let it through?

There was once another wall, similar to the one surrounding Gaza. In 1989, activists and citizens from both sides marched to meet it. And they tore it down.

Links :

-Interview between Navtej Dhillon, Director of the Middle East Youth Initiative and Edward Sayre, the co-author of a forthcoming Middle East Youth Initiative working paper on demographics and the economy in the West Bank and Gaza, and currently a member of the board of directors for the Middle East Economic Association.

-Article from Bloomberg about the tensions arising between Arab states on their allegiances to Israel and the Palestinian people

-Leak from the CRS report on ‘The Egypt-Gaza Border and its Effect on Israeli-Egyptian Relations’

3^rd of December, 1984 : On the night of December the 3^rd, 1984, the people of Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh were probably just about ready to get to bed. That was, however, apart from those few men working at the United Carbide gas plant simply going about the standard water cleaning of the tanks which held the gas that United Carbide sold around the world. What they didn’t know was that at the time, that water was slowly seeping into tank 610; something that would cause the gas to steadily leak out of the tank it was held in. By 11.30 in the evening, people in the city began to experience the effects of the gas leak. As men, women and children lay in their beds, they began to suffocate, cough violently and some even began vomiting. And yet, despite the fact that people fell unbelievably ill, and despite the fact that over 8000 people were said to have immediately died as a result, and despite the fact that this gas leak was almost entirely the fault of the company involved, it took two days for UNIL (United Carbide India Limited) to decide to offer ‘immediate’ assistance.

20th of April 2010 : 36 years later, an ocean oil rig caught fire. By the 19^th of May, the oil washed up on mainland Louisiana. The oil managed to collect on the shore and killed off, to some extent, the large fishing industry on which many of the people of Louisiana depend on for a living. This time, the pressure to take action on the company involved – BP – took barely any time at all and there was voracious criticism all round. Within a week, 7 million gallons of oil had already spilled into the sea, killing wildlife by the thousands and choking off the income supply of farmers who lived around the area.

UNIL, an American owned company, some 3 and a half decades after the Bhopal chemical disaster has still left around 400 tonnes of toxic waste which now pollutes the groundwater of the area. It’s a fact which means that, like the farmers of Florida and Louisiana, people have been too scared to farm or use the water in the area. And all UNIL offered in compensation to the widows of those dedicated United Carbide workers? 200 Rs. per month. That amounts to about four dollars and twenty-five cents.

In total, Union Carbide offered the sum of $470 million in compensation and in a recent film, ‘Twenty Years Without Justice: The Bhopal Chemical Disaster’, it doesn’t seem to have made much visible difference. On June the 16^th, President Obama said that he would ‘make BP pay for the damage their company has cost’, despite ignoring his own country’s damage caused to places like Bhopal  and also the fact that the United States consumes oil more than any other place in the world. The compensation figure was cited to be around $20 billion; a number BP agreed to. Undoubtedly, the people of the American states affected are going to find themselves a lot better off than their Indian counterparts. It’s unfortunate that, at the time of the Union Carbide disaster, India wasn’t on the world stage. Perhaps then, like America, they could have claimed tens of billions of dollars in compensation.

So, at the end of it all, if anything hopeful and optimistic came out of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and all the disasters that have been ignored before it, it’s perhaps that America will see the dangers of environmental exploitation and the value of corporate responsibility .There have been a lot of lives lost, ignored and destroyed. Because this happened on the Sheriff’s doorstep, maybe some progress will be made.

by Harish

Links : Timeline on the events of the Bhopal Disaster

Report studying the economic conditions of people living in India

Blog article written by Norman Tebbit describing President Obama’s rhetoric

Twenty Years Without Justice: The Bhopal Chemical Disaster

BP Agrees to Put $20 Billion in Escrow Account for People Affected by Oil Spill, White House Says

Deepwater Horizon Rig Disaster — Timeline

I’m probably going to be hunted down by MI5′s tame ninja for breaking this news to you, but David Cameron is not the man who runs our country… it’s Andrew Marr. Have you ever noticed how every political interview that anyone, apart from the person being interviewed (is a politician a person?),that is actually paid attention to, is a snippet from his show! Every Sunday night on BBC news there is a section about how some minister muddled his words during his interview on ‘The Andrew Marr show’ that morning. It shows a great deal about the state of our country’s leadership that a BBC interviewer could openly mock our ex-prime minister straight to his face, on national television!

During the 15 minutes that make up his main interview, Andrew Marr has more power to change some of our leading politician’s reputation than a bigoted women. Marr has the power to make even Stephen Hawking kick himself for the way he put something. On Sunday, our new Chancellor of the Exchequer somehow managed to say that the Conservative party would handle the economy ‘irresponsibly after 13 years of irresponsibility’, Marr was quick to point out that he must have meant ‘responsibly’. This just shows the level to which the people who rule us are being mocked by incredibly high brow chat show hosts, so high-brow that it’s above his non-existent hair line! Seriously, what would have happened to him in Soviet Russia?

All thoughts of an impaled man with a terrible comb-over aside, he actually holds real power. He is the most senior political interviewer in this country. An interview with him must be the biggest lie-filled event in a politicians calendar. It’s make or break time for them. I doubt that anyone not from Norfolk could count on one hand how many time Gordon Brown was humiliated time and time again on Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning show. Not content with controlling just today’s politics, Marr has branched out into controlling our history as well. with his recently published book, ‘a History of Modern Britain’ he can alter our political and cultural past, bending it to his will and feelings.

To be honest though, I’m personally happy to let him rule our country. Politicians have had their turn to steer Great Britain for the past 300 years and look where that got us. We should give the chat show hosts a turn. I also genuinely like the guy, he lies a lot less than politicians (is it possible to lie when answer questions?). He actually has a persona and human emotions unlike the rest. Sorry gotta go now … a red dot seems to have appeared on my forehead.

Marr's television studio

These words have been bandied about recently by members of parties from all sides. Labour in particular has taken up the torch, pushing truly to warn against the damage the austerity package could do. They simply refer to the looming threat of a second period in which the economy recedes.

The evidence that this is not likely to take place lies in a spread of areas: firstly, both the conservatives and liberal democrats believe that this will not be the outcome, secondly, the aftershocks of the recession, such as the bailout of a regional bank in Spain (CajaSur), are simply that, aftershocks. A third point of discussion argues that there is no likelihood of us ever defaulting, and so simply no need for the markets to go into freefall. Others might argue that as the market is a prediction device, rather than a reactor to current events these things will not affect it.

Political forces like Vince Cable, and similarly trusted politicians, may however, be able to encourage people to spend regardless and at least not to worry, though how effective this may be remains to be seen. It is difficult to evaluate the worth of this side of the argument, as the state of our economy is so precarious, and the papers do little to advocate the worth of such measures.

However the evidence for the contrary is perhaps more persuasive. It rests on a number of factors ; The recent bailout of the aforementioned Spanish bank, which comes amidst rising turbulence in the European Union, which includes Angela Merkel’s weakening support in Germany, France’s threat to leave the Euro (which would have truly catastrophic affects for everyone), and the Greek bailout. Not to mention that new worries have been extended on the subject of Spain’s economic situation by the IMF. All of these weaken their respective exchange rate, and as members of the European Union ourselves are likely to lead to bigger payments from us, and certainly a decline in investor confidence here and abroad. Combine this with escalating tensions in North Korea, as they sever ties from South Korea, which has destroyed investor confidence in both countries, as fear of a war looms.

Accompanying this, the sheer scale of debt : 893 billion pounds in Britain alone, and over 10 trillion in America, is horrifying.

Couple this with forthcoming austerity measures from George Osbourne which are likely to induce people to save money out of fear for their jobs and further cuts which may lead to them needing to say transfer their child to private school, or not go on holiday all of which remove money from the economy. He, disliked by many, will find it difficult to sell his cuts, particularly as the 6 billion only just announced have cut money from almost every budget and still found only that sum.

Unfortunately, it is exactly words like austerity that encourage people to save rather than to spend, and considering the pathetic growth rate of the United Kingdom’s economy, 0.3% in Q10, it would be only too easy to return to recession.

What do you think? Comment Below

1982: Thatcher is in power, Brezhnev is about to die, and nuclear disarmament talks between the two world superpowers have broken down because of what the USA (ironically) views as an illegal war in Afghanistan. Students protest against nuclear weapons, and are not listened to. People are scared: there seems a very real chance that, at any moment, the world could be blown to pieces by the Russians, who seem to be a lot stronger, more powerful and richer than they actually are. People talk about “Mutually Assured Destruction”: the USA and the USSR combined have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and over and over again. And Britain’s nuclear weapons system, Polaris, is about to need decommissioning.

So, Thatcher commissions Trident, a system of four submarines each carrying sixteen nuclear missiles, which in turn carry three nuclear warheads which can be deployed separately, once the missile is in space. These are intercontinental ballistic missiles: they’re basically top of the range, and we’re told that we need them – as a deterrent. They offer a good return on the investment, as they are expected to last thirty years and prevent nuclear war, we are told.

However, they come to fruition only in 1994, when the USSR has collapsed, and the great threat appears to have vanished. The Cold War has ended, because one side has crumpled, and the USA is not going to “nuke” Britain any time soon.

So, why do we need them?

That question is highly relevant today, as a great debate is taking place as to whether the Trident system should be re-commissioned or replaced. The new government seems a little confused, as do most of the population. The cost of a replacement for Trident, at present, is estimated at £97bn over its thirty year life time – when the current system won’t have to be decommissioned until at least 2024, if it lives out its lifespan. With a deficit the size of ours, I would argue that it would make a lot more sense not to replace them at all. Think about the cuts the government is currently having to decide upon; and then think how many fewer they’d have to commit to when they didn’t have the immediate need for £25bn to kick-start the process.

But if only it were simply the cost that people object to :  the morality of a nuclear deterrent at all is debatable. While some will argue that if it stops someone bombing us it’s worth it, many others point to the events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to the 1980s fear of a nuclear winter, where the whole planet could be wiped out.

Does it really make sense to have these just to stop someone else using them against us? Or is it just MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)?  Resulting in all the other nuclear powers in the world priming to fight for their allies, with the destruction of the northern hemisphere at the very least, as portrayed in Nevil Shute’s 1950s classic ‘On The Beach’, utterly assured. And, with comparatively few nations with known nuclear weapons, does it really make sense to try to deter them? Especially when the majority (the NATO share, France, the USA, Israel) are our allies?

Yet, one of the opposing arguments is that North Korea and Iran are working on uranium enrichment and testing, with Iran having just agreed a deal to send their uranium off to Turkey and Brazil to be enriched and stored, and with North Korea stepping up their efforts by testing different types of missiles.

However there is also the legal argument : many suggest that under international law, nuclear weapons are actually not allowed. They’re in breach of the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, back in 1970, the UK signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, legally obliging us to pursue nuclear disarmament.

There is no simple answer to the nuclear weapons question: both sides of the argument hold a good deal of truth, and, especially with North Korea and Iran testing weapons as we speak, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea of a nuclear deterrent – but, the Cold War is over. All that remains to ask, in my opinion, is, is an outdated, expensive, and potentially illegal system really still necessary?

by Amy Claire Thompson

“The press and politicians would have you think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s arrival at 10 Downing Street means the big questions of how we do politics have been settled. No more rallies, no more protests, no more calls for fair votes now.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

There will be a referendum on changing the voting system – and you helped make this happen. AV may be a small step in the right direction, but it’s not a fair, proportional system. The politicians need to understand that we demand more. We want fair votes. And on Saturday they’ll hear us. Our voices still matter. We still have time, and we still have the power, to send a deafening message to the new government demanding a fair electoral system.” – Pam Giddy, Take Back Parliament.

Current estimates suggest that AV would result in only around one in every 75 seats switching hands, which is only around 8. It has become abundantly clear that our own system FPTP no longer works, with AV now the consensus option. But it’s far from reform. It doesn’t even attempt to ensure that everyone’s views are represented, just that the MPs elected are okay with a majority of the votership in each seat. That leaves us with at least 40% of votes uncounted in that seat, and of the 50% many in marginal constituencies may still be reasonably unhappy with that vote despite having ‘OKed’ it.

In a few months, perhaps a few years, we will be able to judge the success of this coalition government. But the clear message now is that it can be done, and that we will be able to do it again. All the problems that once arose from Proportional Representation have now been dismissed, and with AV +, the MP remains responsible to his constituents, whilst a proper and fair system of proportional representation is still in place.

If you’re interested in protesting, or would just like to sign the petition head on over to Take Back Parliament. Also comment below and/or follow us on twitter!

David Cameron (CON) is the man in charge as Prime Minister and to his right will be Nick Clegg (LIB) in his role as Deputy Prime Minister with the added dispensation to clean up politics and reform the system.

As Foreign Secretary, William Hague (CON) retains the position he earned in the shadow cabinet, and will also be Chairman of the Northern Board of the party, fighting to reshape the perception of the party in the north of England. The next top job falls to George Osbourne (CON), in an appointment some may consider a surprise, having become Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Theresa May (CON) become Home Secretary, and gains the remit of being the Minister for Woman and Equality as Harriet Harman was in the last parliament. Dr Liam Fox (CON) has become Defence Secretary, despite being shadow health secretary under both William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.

Lord Ken Clarke (CON), seen as a thatcherite by many for his hard-line right views and his years of service in the Major and Thatcher government’s, leading Britain out of its previous recession, has become Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State For Justice. Andrew Lansley (CON) is now Health Secretary, whilst Michael Gove (CON) is Education Secretary. Vince Cable (LIB), once toted as a possible chancellor, and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats has fallen to Business Secretary but will be part of several committees linked with taxation and banking. Iain Duncan Smith (CON) takes over Work and Pensions and Chris Huhne (LIB) will now be Energy and Climate Change Secretary. David Laws (LIB) seen by many as on the liberal side of the Liberal Democrats economical policies will become Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Danny Alexander (LIB) will be Scottish Secretary. Patrick McLoughlin (CON) will remain Chief Whip. Eric Pickles (CON) becomes Communities and Local Government Secretary. Dominic Grieve (CON) becomes Attorney General. For Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt (CON) will take up the mantle. Baroness Warsi (CON) will become Conservative Party Chairman.

Caroline Spelman (CON) is environment secretary; Philip Hammond (CON) is transport secretary; Cheryl Gillan (CON) is Welsh Secretary; Owen Paterson (CON) is Northern Ireland secretary; Lord Strathclyde (CON)  is leader of the Lords. Details of the new Policies can be found on the BBC.

LATEST : David Cameron has just left Buckingham Palace and is now Prime Minister, having formally signed the agreement with the Queen. He has arrived at 10 Downing Street, place of dreams.

ON THE SPEECH : There are “Deep pressing problems”,but Cameron has decided to form a “proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats” and “put aside party differences”, “to take difficult decision”  and form a “strong government, to “rebuild trust in our political system”, reforming parliament and ensuring that politicians are always “their servants and not their masters.” He asks us to be responsible to our country, and to have a sense of duty, and that “those who can should” and that “we will always provide for those who cannot.” He wants to build a society of “freedom, fairness, and responsibility,” by rebuilding our communities.

It has finally happened. At this very moment Gordon Brown is on his way to speak to the Queen, only minutes away from handing over power to a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition, which David Cameron will lead. It remains to be seen what the terms of the agreed deal are, and the Liberal Democrats federal executive committee still does not meet until 9.30pm and he requires a 75% majority, but it has become evident that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have agreed some sort of a deal. He has spent a while with the Queen, explaining the process to the Queen, and how he will form a majority.

Gordon Brown’s departing words where “I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future. Only those who have held the office of prime minister can understand the full weight of its responsibilities and its great capacity for good. I have been privileged to learn much about the very best in human nature and a fair amount too about its frailties – including my own.” He made a gracious exit, with his two sons and wife with him, and has quickly been greeted with good wishes from members of the press and MPs.

The deal still has to be ratified tonight at 9.30pm, and Simon Hughes, a senior member of the Liberal Democrats, stated that “I will use my head rather than my heart, and if it’s something I believe will deliver the sort of more liberal and more democratic future that I’ve fought for for 30 years or more then I’d be prepared to support it.” But the question still remains as to the nature of the deal, despite many Conservatives being highly optimistic about it. The draft agreement included a fixed-term parliament of three years or more and an agreement by the Liberal Democrats not to vote against them while they are in power. There is also said to be no tax now on the first £10,000 one earns according to Lord Carlile. Whether this is in the final agreement remains to be seen.

Labour will begin its search for a new leader over the coming months, but it is expected to take until July.  Harriet Harman will now be Acting Leader of the Labour Party. Already the spin has begun from Labour, as Peter Mandelson excused the loss, saying Labour had had”a good, long innings”, whilst Ed Balls pointed to their losing the election as a fault of Gordon Brown supporting the country rather than focusing on politics often.

The question now to be asked is what to expect from the new leader. We’ll be reviewing key points of the manifesto shortly when the deal is announced. Comment below or follow us on twitter.