Video: Nick Clegg's statement on Dropping Lords reform

Nick Clegg's press release on the end of Lords reform, the Coalition and the Liberal Democrat party.

Clegg on Tory broken promises.

Here follows the release from the Deputy Prime Minister on Lords reform...

Reform of the House of Lords is a key commitment in the Coalition Agreement – the contract that keeps the coalition parties working together in the national interest.

The Liberal Democrats have held to that contract even when it meant voting for things that we found difficult.

The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, for the first time part of our contract has now been broken.

When part of a contract is broken, it is normal and necessary to amend that contract in order to then move on. So that is what we are doing.

I have told the Prime Minister that when Parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election Liberal Democrats in Parliament will oppose them.

Coalition is a two-way street. I cannot permit a situation where Conservative rebels can pick and choose the parts of the contract they like while Liberal Democrats are bound to the entire agreement.
The Liberal Democrats joined the Coalition, in good faith, in the national interest at a time of crisis.

We will continue to work in the national interest.

We will continue to focus on the central task that brought the Coalition together: Rescuing, repairing and rebalancing our economy.

And we will continue fighting for and delivering the things we believe in – making the tax system fairer; the Pupil Premium; green energy; and jobs and opportunities for our young people.

In my discussions with the Labour Party leadership, they have made it clear that while they continue to back Lords reform in principle, they are set on blocking it in practice. Supporting the ends, but – when push comes to shove – obstructing the means.

I invited Ed Miliband to propose the number of days that Labour believe is necessary for consideration of the Bill. He declined to do so.

Instead he confirmed Labour would only support individual closure motions – which could bog down Parliament for months.

Regrettably Labour is allowing short-term political opportunism to thwart long-term democratic change.

So Liberal Democrats will continue to pursue our values in government and we will continue to campaign for democratic renewal.

My hope is that in the next Parliament we will return to it emboldened by the overwhelming vote in favour of our Bill at second reading and that Lords Reform will eventually be a reality.

Lords reform; divides, threats and consequences

Clegg's Vision for Lords reform must go through

Over the next two days the House of Lords reform proposals, developed by the Cabinet Office and championed by Nick Clegg will be put before the Commons and already there are serious problems.

Not only are there due to be 70 odd Conservative MPs rebelling against the Government line of support but there is also 20 LIBDEM lords who are against the moves as well.

This could ultimately scupper the bill in the Commons and even beyond should the Peers gain more support for the campaign.

If that was not enough there is also the threat hanging over the Coalition of the Libdems not backing Boundary reform. Around 70 Conservative MPs have written an open letter to party Colleagues calling on them not to vote for bill. They argue over the semantics that the Coalition Agreement only says it will look into the Lords Reform and that they have looked - it says nothing about enacting them. According to the BBC at the time of writing, the rebels only need 40 MPs to scupper the whole thing. It is looking bleak for Clegg.

It has also been suggested, and I don't take much stock in this as it was only a summation by a BBC journalist, the Conservative Whips are making a big show of doing something but may actually not doing anything to get MPs to back the Bill.

There has been a mention of retaliation by the Libdems for failure for of the Conservatives to keep their end of the bargain. Richard Reeves, Nick Clegg's former special adviser said in an exclusive with Friday's I that;


It is a a very serious moment for the Government, the vote is hugely significant. It is the critical moment for Lords reform, a once-in-a-generation chance to secure it.

There would be broader consequences for the Government's programme, particularly around political and parliamentary reform. The idea that failure to deliver a government program on Lords reform would be consequence free is for the birds.


He went on to suggest that should they would either not back Boundary reform or should the reform be delayed so that it won't come into effect in 2015 then they will also move that Boundary reforms will not be applicable in 2015.

So?

Well, on rough figures, and I'm sure many opposition Politicos will disagree, the Conservatives would gain 20 extra MPs with the modification of the electoral boundaries. Locally it would mean that Mark Reckless (Rochester & Strood) was a lot safer, Tracey Crouch (Chatham & Aylesford) would be a lot safer having lost the Labour marginal ward of Luton & Wayfield and gaining Conservative Hempstead & Wigmore but Rehman Chishti (Gillingham & Rainham) would be on dicier ground having gained Luton & Wayfield.

Why is Lord's reform so important to the Libdems? Well as Lando Calrissian said in Return of the Jedi;
We won't get another shot at this Admiral.

It has been a Liberal aim for other a century and the party want to make the Lords more accountable to the people and electable - thus accountable. It was one of the key points of the Coalition Agreement that we got this chance but it looks dead before its got off the ground for innumerate reasons including whether it is more accountable, its messing with tradition, its the wrong time, they didn't back Jeremy Hunt...

However should it die I would suggest one of two options.

1. End the Coalition. Yep, that's what I said. Not in a selfish We're not getting our way style but if it is going to break up into tit for tat repercussions then the Clegg/Cameron Marriage has turned into one of those bitter divorces where you stay together for the kids (deficit) and no one will benefit from it so you might as well call it a day now.

2. Notch it up to experience, say We tried and blame the Conservatives come election time and hope that the next century flies by...


The angry Libdem within me is really tempted by 1: but I know the serious one thinks 2: is the only option. After all, paying off the deficit is as Nick once said;
What we have to do, before we can do what we want to do.


This is an issue I don't believe should be kicked into the long grass and should not definitely not become the target of tit-for-tat revenge style politics. More Democracy and greater Freedoms is what its all about isn't it?

I would urge (almost beg) any Conservative MPs to please - look at the merits, think of the good and democracy that is being proposed and vote with the Government. If you don't agree with it that's OK too, just please vote No for the right reasons and not for a dislike of Clegg, us, or to cause trouble only vote No because you disagree with it.


I don't want to sound all dramatic but I think the future of the Coalition and indeed the nature that it conducts its business is in the balance and will be decided by 10pm tomorrow and I really think we could be entering a new era.

Wrong time for House of Lords reform

A while ago Alan W. Collins stated that only Liberal Democrats and those interested in Constitutional reform are still pushing for House of Lords reform.

At the time I tried to think of a witty and clever response but fell silent as I realised that I fall into both of those categories.

Then last week Clegg grimaced in the house as David Cameron said that All parties are divided when it comes to Lords reform. Surely Liberal Democrats wouldn't be opposed to Lords reform?

erm...

Well, I'm not opposed to Lords reform, in fact I think that it is important to sweep away this anachronistic undemocratic wing of Parliament. It's time has passed and greater democracy should always be welcomed.

Lords reform has been a Liberal aim for over a century with Asquith's parliament of 1908 and Lloyd George's People's budget aimed at trying to change the Conservative dominated upper house that just blocked all of the positive reforms being put through. No other party has been so dogged in it's attempts to reform this and it was one of the first things that came up in the Coalition agreement and on the lips of Liberals everywhere after the Rose garden. When can we finally do this?

Is now the time though?

The  nation as a whole has lost faith in the Political process and politicians in general. The accusation is that they do not live in the real world, nor understand the problems of the real people especially as the problems of the banking crisis continue to resonate and hit average working people. As the average personal debt in the Medway towns (as reported by the CAB) stands at £43,000 and rising train fares, utilities, cost of living and wages freezing can Lords reform still be a priority?

This distrust and suspicion of politics is visible in the falling numbers of people voting and unfortunately I can see that the turnout for the elections for the Lords will be ridiculously low. Of course this shouldn't be the reason not to bring in greater fairness and democracy but the first maybe.

The Coalition needs to prioritise and as much as it pains me to say this guys - I really don't think now is the time. Yeah I know this is the moment we've waited for and I know that given the bad press and the Tuition fees thing we're probably going to have to wait another century before we can effect it again but we need to give the people something.

In 2015 if I knock on someone's door and say Ever think about voting Liberal Democrat?  I'll get asked what we have done and I'll say well we gave you a more democratic house of Lords. How many people are going to go for it? How many people will see it as a priority? How will it effect their lives?

The electorate, and I'm one of them, want our lives made better, our money to go further and unfortunately Lords reform doesn't appear on list.

Yeah I agree with Nick and with the need for Lords reform but I don't think this Coalition Government is the time with all of the other problems facing the nation.
People will be happier to vote for us  if we cut the deficit and dull the blades of Austerity rather than keep one of our major election pledges on a project that only we seem to care about.

European Referendum - My two cents.

Caroline and I

I remember the last time my friend Caroline and I had a serious disagreement. It was a bright sunny April Saturday afternoon and we were sat in the park outside work enjoying an ice cream.

We were discussing the upcoming election and the policies of our two parties. There were obviously some disagreements between Gold and Blue especially when discussing our proposed immigration amnesty.

We lapsed into silence for a moment and then she said in a slow testing voice;

Chris, please tell me... you don't think... we should be in the Euro do you?

I don't remember my answer but it was a flowery politicians one, the sort of answer Nick would be proud o that placated but did not answer the original question.

Chris. [It hadn't] Do you think we should be in the Euro?

My answer caught in my throat - deep down I knew she knew my answer.

Yes... I stammered.

I knew she was cross and that maybe I had disappointed her as she walked away trying to order her response which ran a long the lines of;

Chris, you work for a place that commemorates those who fell to keep this country separate from European rule and you are telling me that you want to hand the power over to a European parliament?

My counter argument at the time was weak and I won't share it here, needless to say that we had a healthy debate and have since decided that for the duration of the Coalition we will agree not to talk about politics that could be contentious.

Needless to say that Caroline, as always appears to have been right and I'm true to form and wrong!!!

 The point to this anecdote is that I understand constructive arguments to do with anti EU feeling and not just the not just the arguments that are put forward from the Daily Mail and popular misconceptions such as "The EU say our Banana's are the wrong shape" or "The EU want to ban Chocolate in the UK".

The Europe debate is clearly one that people feel passionate about, it is not like electoral reform which found vast swathes of the population disinterested. On Europe everyone has an opinion.

This opinion is not always founded in fact as sometimes fiction is more compelling. Also when it comes to dealing with out European cousins it is easy for the British people to slip into casual xenophobia. Stereotypes are easy to throw out and everyone seems to be overly obsessed with the past. How many times have you heard: "Two world wars and one World cup!" sung at the Germans? In fact Britain's obsession with the Second World War still paints the Germans as a vicious aggressor that has to be defeated (as they were before) and the French are not to be trusted... All of these are opinions and falsehoods that shouldn't be thought in these modern times.
After all when you talk about Germany people think Nazi, or picture the German war machine pouring across Europe, never great writers like Von Goethe or Schiller, the wine, the music, the culture or the beauty of the Rhineland.

It would be the former image that elements of the "No" campaign would clutch to.

However I do believe a referendum is necessary at some point. It is important that the British people get to decide on such a big issue like their fellow citizens in Europe who have voted especially on the subject of the Euro.With this growing crisis with the Eurozone, now may seem like the best time for a referendum as the UK is asked for more money to help bail out Greece. However an in/out referendum would be wrong at this time. The world economic crisis requires a global solution and a fractured Europe will not help this at all. For example should the French economy crash then Britain's economy will suffer a hit of $2-3 trillion dollars! [Figure quoted by Sharon Boles MEP at the Kent Liberal Democrat Conference 22/10/2011]
It would be irresponsible for us to pull out now and leave the whole continent to collapse financially and if Germany collapses then we're all in trouble. Like it or not we are one continent and despite the 22 miles of Sea between Dover and Calais we have to help each other and the best way to do that is through the EU and its parliament rather than soldiering out on our own, we don't have an Empire to back us up anymore.

As the party shy's away from the debate and people through out the tired line of;

Lib Dems U-turning on another pledge!

I'd like to remind you that the actual pledge was that we would have put forward a motion for a referendum IF the nature of the relationship with Europe was to change .
I don't think it is.

As for the Conservatives bringing this to the floor? Well theoretically they are honouring a pledge to debate the issues brought up in e-petitions that the public have sent in. However it also reminds me of the debates in parliament in my youth, I remember one of the factors that struck the Major Administration were splits over Europe that fractured the party, is this something they want to revisit?
Also is it not completely irresponsible to distract the nation at this crucial time, the hardest hit to our economy since the 1940's, with an superfulous debate on Europe? Dangle something juicier infront of the media and populous and they will forget all about the rise in inflation and the rising unemployment figures?

An EU referendum is an important debat to be had, but it has to be had sensibly and openly with none of the dirty tricks or fibs that were told during the AV campaign. Also now is not the time, it should be done IF our relationship with Europe was to change or in a more economically stable situation

But wait there's more.

The Conclusions on the failed AV campaign. It's Nick's fault (again!)

After four months James Gurling, the chair of the Party campaigns and communications commitee has come to conclusions about the failed AV referendum. Some of it can be guessed at, and were guessed at by those of us sat at counts across the country listening to the bad results roll in. Of course there are some things to think about but there is the part where Nick got it wrong too.

According to the report one of the major fault lies was the Deputy Prime Minister's  insistence that the referendum be held at the same time as the local elections. His thought being that there would be a higher turnout of voters for the referendum.

The downside was that the Libdem activists were busy working to preserve council seats or take new ones - a task made doubly hard by the parliamentary party's role in the Coalition and the tuition fee crisis. We in Medway, as I'm sure others across the country, were a tad pessimistic even a split on the AV question. Councillor Kearney was not a fan and wanted to concentrate on his work in helping people where as Councillor Juby was more inclined to talk about AV.

Another problem was that the AV referendum was inextricably linked to the Liberal Democrat party and other Pro AV factions in other parties were torn between loyalty for their party and electoral reform - especially within the Conservative party who as a rule were in the "No" camp and had to defend their governmental policies. Had the referendum taken place another time then the Yes campaign could have made more of a cross party support.

Nick Clegg himself became a target for the No Campaign and the opposition to Libdem candidates. Labour easily targeted Nick as a sell out who betrayed his pledge on tuition and to help middle Britain - co-signing the new austerity measures. Ed Miliband wouldn't share a platform with him to launch the "yes to AV" campaign as his image was so tainted. This was the same tactic used by the No campaign, who could forget the "President Clegg" leaflet or the line; "Only the Liberal Democrats will benefit from this system" knowing that public reaction would be to turn away.

The review also looks at the local election losses and says;

Many dedicated community activists lost their seats through no fault of their own, and in the face of exemplary records and personal service. The challenge now is to ensure that the activist base which supported them is not lost.

Also worth of mention is that the party's achievements in power aren't being trumpeted in the media - something Nick has moved to address and tough Liberalism is taking hold.

Another report for the Electoral reform Society has also been commissioned. They are responding to the comments from members in surveys and on forums. More time will be spent saying why FPTP is a broken system and campaigning so if another opportunity should present itself then a more active campaign will be carried out.

However the chances of a similar referendum coming up is very remote.

House of Lords reform.

                                                                House of Lords reform.

The House of Lords is in dire need of reforming. There is no two ways about it. This party began work on changing the upper house a century ago and now we must finish the job. I'm not denying that an upper house is necessary, if anything an upper house keeps an eye on the lower house and acts as a further brake, slowing the rapid reform or change and make sure that Bills have been properly regulated.

The make up of the house has changed over the years and moved away from hereditary lords who can veto at will any bill coming through the Commons at will to a more regulated body that can make amendments and not defer legislation indefinitely. Slowly reform has meant that they have to ultimately bow to the power of the lower, elected house. However, and the AV and Electoral reform bill is a prime example of this, they can delay and delay with the reviews of the bills and drag it on and on slowing actual reform and change that could be a massive benefit to the whole country.

In my opinion the future of the country should not be decided by someone who was Tony Blair's best mate, or someone who has donated 4 Million Pounds to the Conservative party or even someone who is descended from a feudal landlord or someone who was exceptionally brave at the battle of Marlborough. What gives any of these people the right to determine which policy goes through and doesn't? Who are they ultimately responsible to other than the Queen? Should, in the twenty-first century, a first world industrial power still rely on a totally unelected body in the capacity that it does?

My two pence worth is that why not open the house up to a PR vote?  Lets face it the Lords do not have to have constituencies, they don't represent anyone in particular so if we are going to have them elected then why not have a PR vote? If there was a PR elected house of lords they would represent a clear picture of the nations politics and have a clear mandate from the people, this coupled with an AV elected house of commons would give the people their constituency MPs also thus creating the fairest possible system available. After all this country needs its constituent MPs, it keeps politicians on the responsible to someone and they represent the needs of the people, if the government was PR it would be difficult to tie one politician to one area but the Lords... 

Also it would give a good foundation for a Republic should the nation ever decide to move away from Monarchy - Although it should be noted I'm not advocating that as a definite or positive move!