Party failed us (except Sarah Teather et. al)

Sarah Teather stood against the BUB

Last night the headsman's axe fell missed the target and hacked at the body rather than a clean slice through the neck. This Government has taken a step to far in freezing benefit rise.

Don't get me wrong, there are elements of this bill that I think are just and fair. For example drawing a line where income exceeds a certain point and then scaling back child allowance, tax credits etc.

Boris Johnson was quoted as saying that he could have spent his child allowance etc on expensive holidays and champagne and estimated that his wife had received around £50k over the years for their children. Although a flippant remark, it is illustrative of the point that certain incomes don't require assistance. The level the government have is using is £50k PA which seems a fair amount to begin scaling back but it is also arbitrary in the fact that if ONE parent is earning 50K then they are eligible but two parents earning £49K each are not eligible - this is madness!

Although I do not subscribe to the scroungers vs. Strivers point that Iain Duncan Smith has put out on the whole, I do agree that such a "Scrounger" culture exists - just not in the scale that the Government and especially the DWP are suggesting. Moreover I think that the Government should go through an extended process of reform and legislation to combat this culture, the minority of people, and get them in work. Instead of cutting out the tumour with careful incisions they have attacked the whole damn system like Leather face in Texas Chainsaw massacre and everyone has been hit.

It seemed fair to us to distribute some of the pain in a more equitable way.

I agree, I also agree that the welfare bill cannot be insulated and should not be insulated. The problem is the way this bill seems to go about it.

Statutory Paternity/Maternity pay, Sick pay, Jobseeker's allowance, income support, family tax credits, adoption leave pay, couple and loan parent allowances - all frozen at a 1% rate in line with the public sector pay freeze of 1%.

Sounds fair... it isn't.

Inflation is still higher than 1% a year which means, before you get out of the blocks you are already losing when prices go up by inflation. You are then penalised if enterprising companies decide to make a little extra ON TOP of inflation. Look at train fare rise for example at RPI +1 or Sophie's nursery bill which went up by 5% and yet my pay stays at going up by 1% a year and now, the Child tax credits that low income families like mine rely on to help pay the way are also getting frozen at a 1% PA.

According to the IFS if the groups were sorted all of the groups were equal in size the averages work out thusly:
The lowest earning 10% will see 1.6% of their income lost,
Those on £9k a year will lose 1.67% (£150s a year)
The richest 10% will only see 0.03% of their income lost --> This percentage isn't entirely clear as the richest 10%, the Rio Ferdinand and Boris Johnson's of the UK earn so much that they aren't always eligible for certain benefits like income support and earn so much that the 0.03% is lost in a sea of other income.

Low income families are dependent on these little wavers of help from the government - it gives freedom to live and do things, spend money on other goods that generate VAT like days out, more expensive food stuff, alcohol or Cigarettes, electronics etc. The Government need the people to spend money to help the economy. Our family put the child tax credits straight into the nursery fund which alleviates the pressure from our wages and gives us financial freedom to take the children out, buy things for their education like books and educational toys, or to treat ourselves and for both of us to WORK. I don't remember the last time Sam and I went out to dinner, just the two of us because we simply can't afford it.

Those at the bottom are getting crushed by those who do not know what it is like to live at the bottom, £150s a year doesn't sound like much but that extra £10 is a lot when you don't have it. People are going to find themselves priced out of simple things and the only winners will be budget supermarkets and charity shops as people tighten their belts even further into a Warlike rationing or Victorian lifestyle of wage slavery, working under the lash of our betters until we fall into the dust.
It also further gets up my nose that some MPs are still working the expenses system (Helen Grant is an example) and getting away Scot free yet those of us who go to work and have always worked are getting screwed over by having our much needed support held back.

I'm also further disappointed that my party didn't stand up on this, other than Sarah Teather,(Read her comments as to why here) Julian Huppert, John Leech and David Ward with abstentions from Andrew George, Charles Kennedy and Adrian Saunders. We are supposed to be the listening party and this time the pleas of countless people across the UK and in communities such as Gillingham and Chatham where the average wage is well below £20K people are getting forgotten and ignored. Hard workers have been whitewashed as "Scroungers." In a very Victorian discipline;

The Innocent will suffer with the guilty.

When you can't run you walk, when you can't walk you limp and when you can't do that you need someone to carry you and that is where the Welfare system should come and help - those who can't keep up (though not those who won't).

Nick Clegg's speech on Europe 1-11-12

This autumn, the great debate on Britain's role in Europe has, as ever, generated a lot of heat yet little light.

We want to be in, we want to be out. We want to repatriate powers, use our veto, keep our pint, save our pound, protect our strongest export market.

Be critical of Germany, not end up like Greece, feel proud of our role in creating peace in Europe, yet cynical about an acronym winning the Nobel Prize.

And just last night, in a House of Commons debate on the European Budget, we saw Europe turned into a political football as political opportunists sought to score a political point.

But when it comes down to it, there is a serious debate to be had, and we do have some serious decisions to make.

In Europe today, there are effectively three places you can be. They fit together like rings around a circle.

There’s the core: where the Eurozone countries are now pulling together more closely, integrating further to shore up the single currency.

Then there is the ring around that – the inner circle: the states who aren’t in the euro, but are members of the EU.

And the outer circle: where you find the accession countries, EEA countries, Norway, Switzerland, and so on.

The UK is in the inner circle – but the terrain is shifting. The core is tightening – to what degree we don’t yet know.

Some states on the outside are seeking, over time, to head further in. And, as a different Europe emerges, over the coming years, we have to decide where the UK fits within it. What role will we play in our new neighbourhood?

Very few people are now suggesting we move into the centre. Joining the Euro will not be in our interests anytime soon – certainly not in my political lifetime.

But there are forces who want to pull us towards the edge, towards the outer circle. Reducing the extent to which we cooperate on the continent. Happy for the Channel to widen. Hoping, even, that it becomes a gulf.

Today I want to explain why that is a very dangerous position, leaving the UK isolated and marginalised, and I want to offer a more compelling alternative: a strong UK, influential in Europe and so more influential in the world. Working with our allies on the issues that matter to our prosperity and security. Driven by pragmatism, as opposed to dogma, in these debates. Unambiguously in the inner circle.

That will require an approach that is engaged and balanced, so not accepting every request or regulation sent from Brussels, but equally, cooperating constructively where it is in our national interest to do so.

In our immediate future, that means three things:

One: a tough EU Budget settlement.

Two: defending and deepening the Single Market – and our place in it – for the sake of growth and jobs.

Three: taking the decisions on law and order cooperation that will keep British citizens safe.

The Europe debate will continue to run and run, as the Eurozone integrates further – that is certain. And in the UK we will find ourselves talking about it, thinking about it, arguing about it frequently over the coming years.

But right here, right now the UK’s priorities can be easily summed up: tough on the money, more jobs, more criminals behind bars.

Before I turn to those, I want to focus on the proposal doing the rounds that the best way to improve the UK’s position in Europe is to renegotiate the terms of our relationship with the rest of the EU.  We should opt out of the bad bits, stay opted in to the good bits, and the way to do that is a repatriation of British powers.

That seems very reasonable; in fact, it’s a pretty seductive offer – who would disagree with that?

But, look a little closer, because a grand, unilateral repatriation of powers might sound appealing but in reality, it is a false promise, wrapped in a Union Jack.

Let me explain why.

I am all for reducing frivolous and expensive European rules. At the weekend we heard stories about proposals to regulate the shoes and jewellery British hairdressers wear. That kind of thing is clearly too much. Having worked at the heart of the EU, I can certainly give you some more examples.

And, more profoundly, we need to refocus the EU, so it does more where it adds value, and less where it doesn’t.

I’m very proud of this Government’s track record in working with our European partners to do that, whether that’s reducing EU red tape for small business, or securing agreement on a European Patent after 23 years of negotiation, or getting long overdue agreement to devolve powers over fisheries policies.

But there is a lot more we need to do to get Europe focused on the policies that create economic growth and make it more competitive, and I want the UK leading that.

So I do not think the EU is perfect by any stretch and I’m a big advocate of EU reform. But this idea that we should – or could – extract ourselves from the bulk of EU obligations is nonsensical.

It is wishful thinking to suggest we could effectively give ourselves a free pass to undercut the Single Market, only to then renegotiate our way back in to the laws that suit us. The rest of Europe simply wouldn’t have it.

What kind of club gives you a full pass, with all the perks, but doesn’t expect you to pay the full membership fee or abide by all the rules?

If anyone else tried to do it, if the French tried to duck out of the rules on the environment or consumer protection, if the Germans tried to opt out of their obligations on competition and the single market, we would stop them – and rightly so.

And let’s be honest: many of the people who advocate repatriation are the same people who want us out of Europe – full stop.

For them, no rebalancing of powers will ever be enough, and so there is no hard border between repatriation and exit because, for these people, repatriation is pulling at a thread – and they want to unravel the whole thing.

Just look at the last few weeks. As soon as we start talking about repatriation, we descend into the in-versus-out debate.

And heading to the exit would be the surest way to diminish the UK. Because what then? Become the next Norway or Switzerland?

Advocates of repatriation point to these nations and say they have the best of both worlds: success to Europe’s markets without an assault on their sovereignty.

But these countries sit and wait for bills and directives from Brussels, duly paying their bit, changing their laws, but with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules. No political representation, no national voting rights, no voice at all.

They work by fax democracy: you find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU.

Norway has had to implement three quarters of all EU legislation, including the Working Time Directive.

They pay into the EU Budget: for the specific programmes they participate in and for development grants to new member states.

Switzerland has no guaranteed access to the Single Market, they have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis, and right now they are having to match – even surpass – rigorous EU banking regulations just to protect business between Swiss and European banks.

To go down that route would be a catastrophic loss of sovereignty for this nation. I want better for the UK, and our other allies want better for us too.

It’s long been the case that the UK stands tall in Washington because we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

There is a great deal to our enduring special relationship but, for the Americans, the UK’s leverage on the continent has always been part of our appeal. That will remain the case no matter who’s in the White House after next week.

And while it is, of course, important that we form new alliances in the world -  in Asia, India, Latin America - the idea that we can float off into the mid-Atlantic, bobbing around in a new network of relationships without a strong anchor in Europe while countries around the world, incidentally, are working more and more in regional blocks, is clearly not a sound strategy in a fast-moving, fluid and insecure world.

Those who advocate turning our back on our neighbours seem to think we have a ready-made web of alternative alliances, a set of international agreements with other countries that could readily sustain us. But that isn’t how it works.

The Commission has just confirmed, for example, that if the UK suddenly left the EU, we would instantly lose access to every EU trade agreement with a third party.

Agreements with 46 countries are in place, and agreements with a further 78 are under negotiation. Our membership of the EU gives us access to all of them, and that includes almost every Commonwealth country.

The EU is looking at opening negotiations with nine more countries, two of which, Japan and the USA, would be very significant.

Do we really want to leave the EU, lose these free trade arrangements for UK exporters, which go above and beyond WTO rules, and potentially have to negotiate that all from scratch?

The UK government would spend a decade doing that and nothing else.

And can anyone seriously suggest that Japan, or South Korea, or Brazil would cut us a better deal as an island of 60m people than as a continent of 500 million?

Ironically, the people who do understand this strength-in-numbers argument are the Scottish Nationalists.

They may be trying to pull away from the UK, but they’re going around saying an independent Scotland would have automatic entry into the EU – an assertion that has no basis in fact - precisely because they see how important it is to Scottish prosperity.

And they know a separate Scotland, seeking re-entry into the EU, would lose the extra benefits it gains from being part of a big member state.



They don’t want to face what might happen to Scotland’s influence on fishing quotas, or agricultural policy, or the regulation of the banks.

They don’t want reality to bite. So they’ve gone into denial, preferring political assertion to legal advice. 
The best - and most realistic - choice for the United Kingdom is to stand tall in our European hinterland, for the sake of our security, our prosperity and our place in the world.

Standing tall means asserting ourselves when we need to protect the nation’s interests, but also cooperating with our neighbours when it is for the good of the British people.

In the coming weeks and months, that will mean three things.

First, taking a tough line on the EU Budget ahead of a special European Council meeting at the end of the month.

The Coalition Government’s position remains the same: we will not accept an increase, above inflation, to the EU Budget. That is a real terms freeze. And we will protect the British rebate in full.

That is the toughest position of any European country. At a time of deep fiscal tightening in the UK, with British taxpayers seriously feeling the pinch, we cannot support a real increase in EU spend.

Labour has now taken a different position – as we saw last night – having had a change of heart. Ed Balls knows only too well, from bitter experience, that there is absolutely no prospect of securing a real terms cut to the EU budget. But at the eleventh hour, and having stayed silent on this issue for months, Labour now proclaims that, actually, this is what they’ve wanted all along. And they can wave a magic wand over the Council negotiations and convince 26 other countries to agree.

Yet it was Labour who agreed to the last long-term EU budget settlement, which saw a major jump in EU spending and lost part of the UK’s rebate in exchange for virtually no real EU spending reforms. And British taxpayers have suffered the consequences ever since, with our net contributions going from less than €3bn in 2008 to more than €7bn in 2011.

Who were two of the Labour MPs to vote for it? Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.
Who was the Europe Minister? Douglas Alexander.

Their change of heart is dishonest, it’s hypocritical. And worst of all, Labour’s plan would cost the taxpayer more, not less. Because in pushing a completely unrealistic position on the EU budget - one that is miles away from any other country’s position - Labour would have absolutely no hope of getting a budget deal agreed – driving the annual EU bill up instead, over which we would have no veto power at all.

We’ve been waiting for years for the Labour party to announce how they would cut spending. Now they have finally come out in favour of cuts. But in a way they know is undeliverable; and in a way that would hurt British taxpayers. And it turns out even their cuts cost money. I’ve heard people describe it as clever opposition politics – and I suppose it is. But it’s not the behaviour of a party serious about government.

Yes, the British Government’s position is tough.

Yes, it is going to be difficult to negotiate.
But we are working for a deal because that is the best way to protect British interests.

The Prime Minister and I may have our differences on Europe but, on this, we are absolutely united.

To one side we have opponents of the Government pretending we can give less, on the other side, there are some in Europe demanding we give more.

But it’s our job to make realistic, responsible and hard-headed decisions on behalf of the British people. 

This is a deal that can be done – that’s the message I’m pushing with my European counterparts.

With governments across Europe having to get the most out of every pound, euro or zloty they spend, a real terms freeze is a good offer.

It’s in the EU’s own interests to be seen to be showing real restraint.

Second, we need to be actively protecting and advancing the single market – and our place in it – for the sake of British jobs.

Around one in every ten jobs in Britain relies on British trade within the Single Market. Around half of all our trade goes to other European states – exports from around 100,000 firms. But as Europe evolves, we cannot take the integrity of the Single Market for granted.

That’s already been made clear during negotiations on the new Eurozone banking union, which we’re having to ensure doesn’t undermine the single market in financial services – prejudicing the City.

And we can expect more of this kind of thing, as the Eurozone integrates further.

And not only will we need to defend the Single Market – we also need to deepen it.

Removing trade barriers in services and digital industries would be worth around £3,400 a year to the average household, money we need as we return our economy to health. But it won’t happen without leadership from the UK.

We were among the Single Market’s architects: Lord Cockfield – a British Commissioner – helped design it. Margaret Thatcher played a critical role in pushing it through. And today – as the most open, liberal economy in the EU – we will need to help finish what was started twenty years ago.

And that’s how we send the right signal to foreign investors too.

One of the reasons big multinationals come here is because we offer a launching pad to the world’s largest borderless marketplace.

Think of the big employers who’ve set up operations here: Samsung, Tata, Siemens.

The automotive giants helping drive the renaissance in the UK’s car industry:
Nissan, Honda, BMW, Toyota.

Firms who currently pay no import tariffs on the vehicles they send from here to the continent but who would be faced with levies of up to 22% if the UK suddenly left the EU.

These companies need to be reassured that we will continue to be the best bridgehead into the European market.

We cannot afford to give the impression that we are going to disengage.

We need to stay focused on driving trade between us and our neighbours.

That is the only way to protect British jobs. It’s a position that is pro-business and pro-Britain too.

Third, cooperation on law and order.

Before signing up to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the previous Government negotiated an opt out on a package of 130 crime and policing measures, which pre-dated the Treaty.

The Coalition now has to decide whether to stay opted in to all of those measures or else pull out of the lot, before seeking to opt back in to individual instruments – depending on negotiations with the Commission and the Council.

A decision needs to be taken by 2014 and we will give Parliament a say.
But, clearly, we need to agree our starting position now, so we’re looking across the 130 measures.

The Government has said our current thinking is to opt out of them en masse, before seeking to rejoin some.

But I want to be absolutely clear: a final decision has not been taken, and I will only agree to doing that if I am 100% satisfied we can opt back in to the measures needed to protect British citizens, and if I am convinced we are not creating waste and duplication, incurring unnecessary costs.

We will be led by the evidence and the experts at all times. What matters is preventing crime and terrorism – this must not turn into an ideological scrap.

We are likely to find that some of the measures are defunct, like old measures to improve data collection in drug trafficking, or things like outdated skills directories for crime fighting professionals – old instruments that have now been superseded.

But there are others which have transformed the way our police operate, delivered justice for victims of crime where once there was none and put thousands of criminals behind bars.

It is my strong personal view that there is a great deal of value in Europol, for example, which pools intelligence to combat serious organized crime. Joint Investigation Teams and Eurojust, which enable cross-border operations like the ongoing investigation into the recent murder of a British family in Annecy in France.

Today, if a rapist, or paedophile or violent offender living in Britain has a foreign criminal record – we can receive it at virtually the click of a button.
When a forged British passport or driving licence turns up in Europe – we can find out about it straight away.

When a fugitive runs from the UK, we can use the European Arrest Warrant to bring them back – as we saw again recently in the case of teacher Jeremy Forrester. Yes, the Arrest Warrant needs reform so that it is used proportionately, but it is an important crime fighting tool. 

We’ve managed to set high standards for combating child pornography across the whole of Europe – something the UK pushed for.

Our police can call on the resources and intelligence of the entire European crime-fighting community to hunt down and arrest murderers and escaped convicts, to stop billions from being laundered out of the UK every year.

In the words of Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, “In the 21st Century, policing is international.”

And to anyone who says we don’t need these EU measures to fight crime and terrorism effectively, I say prove it.

Prove it to the police, the intelligence agencies, the lawyers, the victims of crime charities.

Prove it to the people who deal day in day out with the worst criminals imaginable.

Because my position is clear: I will not ask them to protect the British people with one hand tied behind their back.

The UK is part of the most advanced system for combating cross-border crime on the planet, and we have been at the forefront of building it.

Over the last fifteen years we’ve led the way on crime and policing cooperation in Europe. The Head of Europol is British. The last head of Eurojust was British. The EU’s police training centre is at Bramshill in Hampshire.

This package of 130 law and order measures has British fingerprints all over it and I want UK citizens continue to benefit – fully – from the system we built.

So, tough on the money, more jobs, more criminals behind bars.

That’s the deal we are going to deliver for the British people.

You cannot do any of those things from the edge.

You cannot deliver for British citizens when you’re halfway out the door.

Europe is changing – yes. But rather than go into retreat, now is the time to confront those changes head on.

We need to make a decision about who we will be in the new Europe, and I say we need to be strong, loud, present.

That’s the strategy that will leave the UK more prosperous, safer, strong.
Standing up for the people of Britain by standing tall in our own backyard.

Lords reform; A die has been cast

Well... They've done it... They've finally done it.

OK, we can put off Trident.

OK we can bite the bullet and raise Tuition fees IF we can make the application process and repayment system ultimately fairer.

OK we can agree to cuts as long as we can hit the Mansions and cut income tax for the poorest.

What is NON NEGOTIABLE tenets for the Libdems, indeed for me as well, was looking into House Of Lords reform.

But a handfull or rebels have suceeded in fudging up the Coalition agreement and Lords reform.

It was always going to be a steep mountain to climb for Nick Clegg to convince the Conservatives to swallow their pride and either abstain or grip the nettle and vote "Yes" as we have done.

Instead, the contract has been broken.

The vote that was lost pretty much cut the throat of the whole process and so rather than watch it bleed to death over the coming months Nick has called "time" and shelved it.

For Nick's official response click here.

But what does it mean for the Coalition?

Well, I fear that Tit-for-tat voting may become the norm, indeed the moves to stop boundary reform are considered to be the first step (also quoted by BBC Journalist Robin Brant "There is now a definite air of tit-for-tat around the coalition"). It is very important that both leaders stamp this out immediately... well after Boundary reforms (Why should we make it easy for them, right?)

It isn't good for the Country, economy or politics.

David Cameron needs to get his house in order and bang some heads. As I said before, those who voted against because they fundamentally didn't believe in it should be safe but there were rebels in the list whose names were far too familiar.

This Government was founded on an agreement. Whether individual MPs or Rebellious Covens agree with it or not is irrelevant - Your leadership signed up to it as did ours and we have to stick to it.

I'm trying not to be partisan about this but... Lords Reform, along with Electoral reform, is one of the cornerstones of my political beliefs. I'm really gutted by the climb down and really angered that a small group of rebels have, in my opinion, screwed over the whole country and democracy.

An agreement like this is more than just a "Piece of paper" it is something that we as a party have taken seriously and probably to our detriment and it turns out they don't even feel the same way.

I think our Leadership and indeed David Cameron especially, need to look at this and think long and hard. It may be even time to ask the un askable question;

Is it time for us to walk away from the Coalition? After all if, in a real marriage you found your Spouse was not honouring the vows you'd want to call time, or work through some SERIOUS issues?

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.

Quashing Tory Rebels

Rebellion has caused serious ruptures

Somehow, and I'm not sure how my 90 year old Grandfather told me, I am related to "Hanging" Judge Jefferies. As a quick potted history for those unaware of my ancestor's activities he served as King James II's lord chief justice and was fairly brutal in his execution of the law.

Indeed the act that he is remembered for the most was the Taunton Assizes in the wake of the Monmouth rebellion. Lord Jefferies went down in the wake of the King's army to deal with the rebels and what followed was serious oppression; 300 (144 sentenced in 2 days!) were executed (either hanged, hung-drawn and quartered, beheaded and even burnt to death) with their bodies put on display around the country as a reminder of what befalls traitors, another 900 odd were deported to the West Indies as a source of cheap labour and were ultimately doomed to die in transport or from yellow fever on arrival, and many more sentenced to gaol where a good many died of Typhus. It was one of the harshest revolt quashings in England since the War of the Roses and has gone down in infamy.

Needless to say, this is not how to deal with a rebellion.

A good leader needs to be able put down a revolt without causing mass casualties as it only breeds future resentment and enduring hatred. James II was forced to flee England and has never been well loved by her people nor by history, as for Judge Jefferies he died in the Tower of London from Kidney related illness and his name is still hated in the West Country.

David Cameron is in a similar boat following the Lords reform revolt by some 91 MPs. Having had a duly deeply vexed Nick Clegg telling him to get his house in order the Prime Minister has to look long and hard at the reasons for why such a revolt occurred.

In the first instance there are those who genuinely feel that the bill is wrong. They will be the harder ones to reach and it won't be until the bill gets hashed out in Parliament that these MPs may be brought into line in a Hearts and Minds style exercise. Ultimately if they do not agree still, then they don't agree and it is to be expected.

Then there are the others. Lets be honest, there are some Conservative MPs that rightly or wrongly dislike Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats and would happily severe the ties in the Coalition and go it alone - You know who you are...
 When added with trouble makers the whole situation gets exacerbated. These MPs are the ones that Cameron has to deal with strongly. It doesn't matter if they like Us or not they have to look at the Coalition agreement and honour it. If not there will be repercussions.

So far Cameron's handling has been a little reactionary. Some MPs, such as Penny Mordaunt of Portsmouth, who had been pipped for a ministerial position or aide duties have had those doors closed whether long or short term only time will tell. Other aides have either resigned or in the case of Angie Bray been sacked, their positions most likely going to more loyal MPs.

Then on Wednesday it was reported in the Evening Standard that Mr Cameron had an angry exchange with Jesse Norman MP (leader of the rebellion) which one witness described as Verbal Colonic irrigation. This has of course been played down by the PM's office as well as by friends of Mr Norman and the event was described as Mr Cameron being "Testy" rather than livid.

Later on though Mr Norman and Nadhim Zahawi MP were forced to drink up and leave the Commons bar before the chief whip  John Randall arrived. Apparently Mr Randall was effervescent with rage that the line had been defied so strongly even to the point of doing an Eric Joyce! According to the Standard a female MP stated; Jesse has just been bullied off the estate.

Although the rebellion needs to be dealt with for Coalition unity and to quash both sides devolving into a tit-for-tat battle of Well they didn't support us on... it needs to be done so properly and deftly. Throwing weight around a viciously putting down this rebellion will only breed contempt and further problems not only for the Government but also for David Cameron's leadership.