Over at the Guardian, former Lib Dem chief executive Lord (Chris) Rennard has argued that the fall of Lords reform would be a blow to Lib Dems, but that it was not the key aspect of the coalition agreement to voters:
Failure to deliver on the most important aspects of constitutional reform would, of course, be a bitter blow to Liberal Democrats. But the party will also recognise that the constitutional package within the coalition agreement was not the most important aspect of it to the voters, nor was it nearly as important as the state of the economy as a reason for the decision to provide the country with a stable government.
The constitutional package within the coalition agreement can probably be seen as a discrete part of it and failure to deliver on any or all of it will not threaten the coalition. But if the Lords is not to be given more legitimacy, then the case for reducing the number of MPs (and increasing the proportion of the payroll vote in the Commons) will also be weakened. Perhaps this is what some of the Conservative rebels are hoping for.
You can read Chris’s piece in full here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A polling advantage for the Lib Dems (LDN#213)
Happy 20th birthday to Liberal Democrat Voice
Burnham's betrayal on political funding
Sorry seems to be the hardest word
A day out at the football...
Denis Loretto
theakes
Anthony Acton
Neil Sandison
Carl Pierce
3 Comments
“But if the Lords is not to be given more legitimacy, then the case for reducing the number of MPs (and increasing the proportion of the payroll vote in the Commons) will also be weakened.”
Please could someone explain exactly how the absence of Lords reform weakens the case for reducing the number of MPs (or for equalising constituencies, for that matter)?
An elected element in the Lords would increase the legitimacy of the House and lead to more challenges to Government legislation (within the constraints of the Parliament Acts) and this would be a good thing as Parliament overall is relatively weak in providing ‘checks and balances’ to constrain the power of Government. This would mitigate to some degree the problems that would result from reducing the number of MPs to 600 (which means only 300 required for a majority and with 120/130 on the ‘payroll vote’ the Government would have more control over Parliament when it should be the other way round). When I argued with a Conservative Minister about the way in which the boundary review was to be carried out (not disputing the principle of roughly equal electorates in each seat), his response that allowance should be made for the Conservative acceptance that the Lords would be elected in future and by using STV elections. Chris
Mr. Rennard – I read your article on the Graun website, and I’m afraid that Mr. Cobley has it in one.
What are the LIbDems actually getting out of this coalition, aside from a loss of membership (very apparent where I live) and repeated kickings from the electorate? Many an unfair and destructive bill has been passed since 2010 which your party could have stopped in their tracks – to the applause of the vast majority of people.
I think you would find a better reception for your party if you *did* threaten to pull the plug on the coalition. Bear in mind that Cameron couldn’t have passed absurdities like the NHS ‘reforms’ without the 57 LibDem MPs. It’s time to man up and put an end to this appalling government, before yet more damage comes to pass.