HoLords reform hits the skids

[Lateralthinking1]

It is funny how there is often talk in the media about whether the Coalition Government will survive until 2015.

In the Coalition Agreement, they are committed to introducing fixed term Parliaments of five years and to setting in law a date for the next election of no sooner than May 2015.

[Serial_Apologist]

It is funny how there is often talk in the media about whether the Coalition Government will survive until 2015.

In the Coalition Agreement, they are committed to introducing fixed term Parliaments of five years and to setting in law a date for the next election of no sooner than May 2015.

This doesn't mean a government couldn't fall within that 5-year period. A vote of no confidence could clinch it at any time.

[Flosshilde]

Quite, & there's been narry a squeek from Conservatives or Liberals (as far as I'm aware) about a bill to enact fixed-term parliaments.

[Flosshilde]

It does look like the Lords reform is coming unravelled -


"The coalition has dropped plans for a crucial vote [the programming vote] on its plans to reform the House of Lords after it faced likely defeat over the issue."

The tories were blaming Labour - Commons leader Sir George Young ... blamed Labour for the climbdown, saying it was "clear" that the opposition was not prepared to support the government in Tuesday's vote despite supporting the idea of changes to the Lords. "It needs those that support reform to vote for reform," - carefully ignoring the substantial rebellion in Tory ranks, that's seen a ministerial aide resigning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18778639

[Lateralthinking1]

This doesn't mean a government couldn't fall within that 5-year period. A vote of no confidence could clinch it at any time.

Fair enough - but Nick Clegg originally wanted a no confidence vote to be irrelevant and made a U-turn under pressure.

How is the work going to introduce a requirement that disgraced MPs call a by-election?

It was in the Coalition Agreement.

Or have they ditched that too?

[Lateralthinking1]

'We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk'.

Coalition Agreement, May 2010

Have they ditched this one or will it need to be imposed by the EU who 'may' do it? -

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-12/eu-lawmakers-may-seek-ban-on-bank-bonuses-that-top-salary

[Lateralthinking1]

We will have localism whether we like it or not.

But will it be with essential reforms via a local government finance review as promised in the Coalition Agreement?

'Nick Clegg is at loggerheads with Eric Pickles over the introduction of a basket of new local taxes and charges as the deputy prime minister battles to stamp his party’s own brand of localism on to the coalition government.'

19 January 2011

[french frank]

As far as no 3) was concerned, that was known well before the election by all parties.

That wasn't my point (that they didn't know about it): I meant that the LibDems would have preferred not to be harnessed with the Tories, faced with an economic situation like that and Osborne waving his axe in the air.

I think in that scenario the Libdems might have been reluctant to enter a pact with Labour a) because of Clegg's reluctance to work with Brown and b) because it would have looked like propping up a discredited government.

He said he would first go to the party which had the most seats.

So the Libdems ought really to have seriously considered the possibility that they would be entering a coalition with the Tories.

I'm sure they did (albeit with 100+ MPs) as the campaign progressed. But policies have to be worked out much in advance in order to be able to draw up the manifesto (which, of course, did not include any reference to not voting for a rise in tuition fees). I think the NUS leadership of the time realised they'd done a 'Daily Telegraph' on the party that was most sympathetic towards students (and had delivered, along with the SNP, in Scotland).

The fatal mistake was signing the pledge in the first place. They would have done better to have boycotted it, like the other parties. They thought the concessions they'd wrung out of the Tories on help for poorer students was enough to get them off the hook - but it wasn't.

But arguably for most people who voted for the Libdems, electoral reform would have been less important to them as an issue than tuition fees (as a great many people with children would be affected by the change in policy).

The fact that most people weren't interested in electoral reform wouldn't have been a reason for not putting it near the top of the list in terms of priorities. I'm not surprised that the Tories weren't having any. [On which point: Blair had a manifesto pledge to introduce electoral reform; even got as far as getting the Jenkins Report. Then it was shelved. So that's Labour out too in the trustworthy stakes. Who does that leave?]

But I agree that it was a PR disaster. On the situation of the students (as a result of the coalition botch-up) I'm indifferent since the next time one of the big parties got a working majority, the fees would have been going up anyway. If Labour had stuck with the Browne report recommendations they'd have gone up to £12,000p.a.

There is one possible consolation for the Libdems though, that although they will undoubtedly do worse at the next election, the Tories are unlikely to benefit greatly as the economy is likely to be in the doldrums for years yet.

C'est la vie. People must vote how they see things. They'll even have two protest vote parties to choose from - luxury !

[Lateralthinking1]

- The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

- A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

- The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

- Further regulation of CCTV.

- A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

Coalition Agreement, May 2010

Any news on these at all?

(The outgoing Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell thinks freedom of information has gone too far in eroding a confidential "safe space" for ministerial policy discussions - December 2011.)

[french frank]

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
Any news on these at all?

Passed as the Protection of Freedoms Act.

[Lateralthinking1]

Passed as the Protection of Freedoms Act.

Thanks frenchfrank. I suppose that's something although I didn't hear any trumpets. Perhaps the Lib Dems need to talk about it more and advise us about their inputs.

I am starting to wonder though if Clegg has another agenda. Let us say for the sake of argument that there is only so much liberalising that anyone can do. What do you think? A full two Parliaments worth? At the point at which nothing more can be sensibly liberalised, what then for Liberals or even people like him?

If he can stretch it all out a bit in the hope that he might hold the balance again, that's useful to him. It means that LDs don't have to be very clear about the position of their party on the economy.

I genuinely don't know what in an ideal world the Lib Dem position is now on the economy - Social Democratic or Friedman Max? - although I get the impression it is the latter. I think there is an argument for saying that's a deliberate electoral ploy. Otherwise, there's a loss of half the votes irrespective of the Coalition and failed promises!

[Lateralthinking1]

...........Perhaps Shirley Williams and three other leading lights could form a new party and call it the SDP.

[JohnSkelton]

Apologies if I misunderstand, but the proposal is another election from candidates put up by (effectively the same as in the HOC) political parties, but for a 15 year term? Is that a very good idea? (I can see it's a very good idea if you've got a guaranteed safe job for 15 years, unless the Revolution comes of course).

Isn't Andrew Dobson's suggestion of 'sortition' here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nate-democracy a much better idea? I can understand why democratic politicians wouldn't like it, but isn't that something else in its favour?

[aeolium]

C'est la vie. People must vote how they see things. They'll even have two protest vote parties to choose from - luxury

One other legacy from the coalition is that the Libdems' ability to appeal to two quite different sets of voters (Labour disaffected predominantly in the north, Tory disaffected predominantly in the south) will probably have gone for a generation. They will inevitably be seen as part of a government that has enacted and will enact mainly Tory policies, from welfare 'reform' to NHS reorganisation to the policies around cutting the deficit. That means that the Libdems will be seen as an essentially Tory-leaning party and will lose the votes of those former refugees from Labour disenchanted with foreign policy, illiberalism and policies like PFI. The idea that they can meaningfully split off from the coalition a few months before the election to campaign on separate policies seems hardly credible to me. On so much of what the government has done they have been at one with what the Tories have been saying, especially on the (false) narrative that Labour's excessive spending in government was responsible for the huge scale of public debt, not the insolvency of large banks and the need to step in to rescue a collapsing financial system. The Libdems will of course retain their core loyalist vote even in the north but many who voted for them in 2010 will switch to Labour, the Greens, perhaps SNP in Scotland, or that large and growing element 'none of the above'.

One sad aspect of this is that there is I think a large constituency of people who have been abandoned by the major parties since the 1980s, as the ideas of monetarism, belief in the free market, "private-good, public-bad", privatisation (and its bastard child PFI), increasing private involvement in health and education have held sway - and still hold sway even though they have led to widespread and increasing inequality. We have over 5 million families in poverty here, as well as unemployment rising towards 3 million and the poor, the unemployed and disabled are being punished for the excesses of the financial sector, which remains unreformed. No-one seems to speak up for them.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, I thought the IPSOS Mori June poll was quite interesting. Conservatives 31%. That appears to be their worst performance since September 2007 and was down two on the previous month.

Labour 40 which is down three on the previous month. Lib Dem 10 which is up one but then the previous month's figure was their equal worst since the election.

Everyone else 20 which is double their number compared with last December - UKIP 6, Green 5, SNP/PC 5, BNP 2, Other 2. I fully accept that the total adds up to 101 but there is probably a logical reason.