Here are a few articles which have caught my eye from the Sunday papers.
In the Observer, Andrew Rawnsley looks at various Tory measures which weaken our democracy, from one-sided restrictions on party funding to curbing the power of the House of Lords.
The one thing I will pull him up on is this:
He (Cameron) went along with an attempt to reform the Lords during the coalition because the Lib Dems insisted upon it, but he didn’t fight all that hard to prevent it from being sabotaged by Tory MPs and peers. His election manifesto dismissed Lords reform as “not a priority”.
He seems to have forgotten that it’s Labour’s refusal to support the programme motion in the Commons that actually derailed the process. We could have an 80% elected chamber by now if Labour had just supported a bill which, although not everything either party would have wanted, was much better than the situation we have now.
Now, an interesting insight insight into the priorities of the SNP Government in Scotland. They are incensed, apparently, and demanding an enquiry, according to the Herald, into the reprehensible conduct of English Police forces whose undercover officers infiltrated left wing organisations. That’s all well and good, but the Police force they are in charge of has been spying on journalists illegally and they don’t seem to be so incensed about that.
A Sunday Times article (£) suggests that MPs who need to be absent from Parliament should be able to register their vote in certain circumstances. It’s a pity it focuses almost exclusively on women on maternity leave, mentioning as an afterthought almost that the measures would also apply to men on parental leave or anyone with caring responsibilities. If your parents are ill, for example, and a vote comes up which affects your constituency, there should be some mechanism for allowing you to vote.
I have known many people who home-educate their children, and do so very successfully. Not one of them has been any sort of threat to society. In fact, they have to a person imbued their children with creativity, and values of tolerance and responsibility for the future of our planet. The Tories seem to be trying to make out home education is all about extremism. Actually, it might be about giving your kids the best possible education for them. The Independent writes about Nicky Morgan’s review of home schooling. , the conclusions of which she seems to have already made.
There’s an interesting article in the Independent about the Spanish election and young people’s influence on the vote. With more than half still to make up their mind, they may well have a big say in the eventual outcome. The article suggests that it’s the new politics of our liberal partner Ciudadanos that is attracting many of those who have made up their minds.
What worries me most is that the Spanish voters will flinch at the last minute and go back to the old parties, a bit like they did here. Mariano Rajoy, the right wing Partido Popular PM, has been doing the “long term economic plan” and “don’t jeopardise the recovery” scare stuff. The Observer’s article certainly suggests that this is the case in rural areas.
That’s my selection. What’s grabbed your attention?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Tom Reeve
David
Jana
Peter Martin
12 Comments
Caron Lindsay | Sun 20th December 2015 – 11:34 am The payroll vote, including the MP for Tunbridge Wells, did what David Cameron told them to do, else he would sack them. He did sack one junior minister. Rebel Tory MPs with careers in the past were incoherently angry. One or two of the younger ones had parents in the Lords and said so.
Some Tory MPs suddenly found that they supported David Steel’s bill to enact the art of the possible, some of which has since been enacted, such as voluntary resignations, but not including ending by-elections for hereditary peerages.
Labour MPs were united around a policy of wanting to shaft the coalition, despite their own manifesto committments and the stepping stones that had been laid by Labour in government on the specific policy of Lords’ reform.
There was therefore a large overall majority for the principle, coupled with a desire by Labour to consume all available parliamentary time. This irresponsibility was led by Labour’s current candidate for London Mayor.
The Sunday newspapers have also been reviewed on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show. A Labour peer opposed a simple age limit for removing peers, preferring other criteria, such as whether they turn up, whether they do anything and whether they are any good. If her ideas were accepted there could be a repeat of the elections in Lords which happened after after the 1997 general election, except they would be confined to hereditary peers, but would affect all the political groups and the independent (crossbench) members.
except they would NOT be confined to hereditary peers, but would affect all the political groups and the independent (crossbench) members.
What about the Peter Hyman article in The Observer about the possible break up of Labour? As someone famously said; “It’s déjà vu again “.
“He seems to have forgotten that it’s Labour’s refusal to support the programme motion in the Commons that actually derailed the process.”
How so, when the Lib Dem and Tory coalition had a sizeable majority? Whereas Labour and the Lib Dems combined were in a minority? Perhaps you should go back and read all the LDV articles from the time – not to mention your own blog – all of which put most of the blame squarely on the Tories, as did Nick Clegg’s own statement announcing the reforms were dead.
Actually the real reason the HoL reforms were scuppered had more to do with Lib Dem incompetence during the coalition negotiations. Despite Clegg’s claims in the aforementioned statement that “an elected House of Lords was part of the Coalition Agreement”, said Agreement in fact only promised to “establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber”. That was all. When these promised proposals eventually materialised, Tory backbenchers realised to their glee that the Coalition Agreement didn’t actually commit them to voting for anything.
Stuart 20th Dec ’15 – 4:40pm It is correct to say that the committments in the manifestoes of the three parties were all slightly different and it was generally true that the Tories did not want to allow the Liberal Democrats to get public credit for anything. Neverthe less Labour MPs overriding priority was to break up the coalition, disregarding the Labour manifesto, Labour’s recent history, improvements to democracy during a period when Labour was not in government and the national interest in better government.
What the papers didn’t say :
BBC NEWS tonight
“At least 43 people have been killed in a series of air strikes believed to have been carried out by Russian planes in the Syrian city of Idlib, according to activists and residents.
A marketplace, homes and official buildings were all hit, reports say. Bodies were still being pulled from the rubble, a civil defence worker said.”
The six Lib Dem MP’s who voted for Britain to bomb Syria will have a lot to answer for if and when our own precision bombs do the same…..
@ David Raw,
When I last checked, it was being reported that British planes had not been bombing Syria since the 6th December, ( for the previous 10 day period ), instead, it was reported that they are concentrating their efforts in Iraq.
@ John Marriott,
Peter Hymen is clearly an amazingly committed teacher with a passion for education, but if the Blair years were such a golden age why didn’t people defect to the party pre- the Iraq war? Or did they?
Were Liberal Democrats supportive of his version of politics, rather than as now , (f one can gauge Liberal Democrat views from this website), almost wholly critical of the Party even when some of Jeremy Corbyn’s values and policies seem close to those I ( obviously incorrectly), thought were to be found in the Liberal Democrats?
I am very much in tune with the view of Mary Beard and the members of the Question Time audience on the programme on which she appeared. They did not fit the stereotype of Corbyn supporters that the press portrays.
I am fast losing sympathy with the Blairites. As Peter Hymen states, the Blairite candidate got only 4% of the vote in the leadership election. Would anyone wish to join their new party, or feel that their own party would be enhanced if they joined it?
But surely it is true that Cameron did not support Lords Reform and did not manage his backbenchers ?
Thank you in supporting myself and my daughter with your kind comments regarding Home Education.
If only the coalition continued so the Liberal Democrats could stop the #nastyparty Tories from accusing genuine Home Educators of such an allegation. I am happy to lead this for Home Educators but only if it is done through our Party.
“What’s grabbed your attention?”
Not from the Sunday papers but this one from Owen Jones in Tuesday’s Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/22/george-osborne-uk-personal-debt-failed-economic-model
And this one on the same theme from the Independent ‘s Nigel Morris:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fears-of-new-economic-crash-as-british-families-run-40bn-deficit-a6782221.html
There is a very real danger of an economic crash as Owen Jones argues although he doesn’t have quite the right explanation. Simply if the UK wants to run a 5% of GDP deficit in its Current Account Balance of Payments, someone has to fund that by borrowing. Usually it is government which has assumed that role but increasingly the burden is being shifted onto the Private Domestic sector.
It may work in the short term but soon the private sector will be unable to raise the loans especially if there is a fear of higher interest rates.
The government has been concentrating on the wrong deficit.
On Labour, Corbynites, and Blairites:
The problem with Corbyn (as Peter Hyman said) is that he doesn’t want to win an election,he just wants to win an argument within his party.
The problem with Blair and his acolytes, however, was that they only wanted to win an election. They didn’t want to win any arguments, or make any real change, other than to replace old money (“the forces of conservatism”) with a nouveau riche – “the modern meritocrats of New Labour”.
We need a new force which will seek genuine change, and a real attack on inequality, but in a way that will work. Not by adopting marginalist positions like republicanism, pacifism and nineteenth-century labourism, but through consensus, by seeking to unite all of the 99% against the 1%, and by making national economic prosperity an equal goal alongside reducing our gross level of social inequality.
Can the Lib Dems be part of that force?