No doubt this is at least in part coincidence, but compare my comments on what party emails should be more like with the latest from Tim Farron and you’d think someone has been reading this site…
As you read this email Labour peers are using every trick in the book to try and block a referendum on fairer votes.
In the Liberal Democrats we believe that the New Politics should be embraced by all parties. That is why I’m asking you to join me today in bringing pressure to bear on Ed Milliband and his Labour peers to live up to all the talk we heard at the weekend about new politics.
As I’m sure you know, in the 2010 Labour party manifesto, written by Ed Miliband himself, the Labour party promised to hold a referendum on voting reform. And indeed since then he has been talking the talk on working with Liberal Democrats on issues like constitutional reform. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be having much success in getting his party to follow him.
Conservative MPs and peers have put party differences to one side to give people a chance to vote on electoral reform. But sadly Labour dinosaurs in the House of Lords are using every arcane trick in the parliamentary book to block the referendum. So far Ed Miliband has failed to speak out against their attempt to stop the referendum.
I’m all in favour of proper debate but Labour is cynically using the old politics of the worst sort to stop people have their say. Labour peers claim to be offering scrutiny, but that argument vanishes as soon as you examine their behaviour in the debate.
So please join me in helping Ed Miliband to get his party to follow him. If you live in a constituency with a Labour MP please write to them here asking them to disown the Labour dinosaurs in the House of Lords. And if you live in a constituency with an MP from another party why not write to a Labour peer direct here asking them to let the people have their say. And please encourage everyone you know to do the same.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
32 Comments
Oh For Goodness Sake. While I’m sure that it’s taking longer than it could do, this kind of attack ignores the fact that large amounts of the debate are nothing to do with AV, but are to do with the constituency changes.
It’s blatant nonsense to claim that the bill is being held up because the Lords don’t want AV.
You would have thought that the LibDems would learn by now not to twist things.
I got Tim F’s email and acted on it straightaway, although one small point – I think the links shld have pointed to writetothem.com, not theyworkforyou.com, but I still got there in the end, emailing a Labour peer about giving the bill a fair wind.
Total nonsense, though. Labour is opposing the boundary changes. It’s not opposing the referendum. The sad thing, Mark, is that you’re an intelligent man and you know this.
– The boundary changes do not need to be rushed through, and have not been properly scrutinised. Everyone should be opposing them as they stand, even if in the long term they want to see boundary changes.
– The referendum does need to be rushed through in order to meet the May 5 deadline, but isn’t a problem in itself (not that anyone should care that much about the date of the referendum – if it doesn’t happen in May, it can happen later, there’s no obstacle to having it during this Parliament).
But it’s impossible to support one without supporting the other, unless the Government splits the Bill. The Government refuses to split the Bill. This is not Labour’s fault, so Labour is perfectly within its rights to demand delay.
Andrew,
With respect, the entire intention of Labour Peers is to use the constituency element of the bill to hold the AV referendum hostage, knowing that the deadline for organising said referendum is getting closer. For pity’s sake, moving an amendment, talking about it for three and three-quarter hours and then withdrawing it, is a filibuster, plain and simple.
I wonder if, late last night, one sleepwalking peer wandered in and removed the word ‘disingenuous’ from Tim Farron’s dictionary.
The Labour Party’s objection to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is well known and clear: it is that (a) lumping two disconnected issues in one Bill is inappopriate; (b) the constituency review provisions are ill thought through and damaging; and (c) such a major constitutional change on constituency boundaries ought to be carried out after pre-legislative consultation and preferably with all party agreement.
If proper scrutiny of those sections of the Bill takes a long time in the House of Lords, that is because they are major proposals requiring detailed scrutiny.
The Labour Lords are not really debating either the reduction in number of MPs nor the holding of a referendum on voting reform. Listening to them on Radio 4 this morning, it was more than clear. They’re just talking to fill time to delay the bill. They are fillibustering. If they were discussing the salient issues raised in the bill, then it would be acceptable to delay the bill’s passage through Parliament. They’re not.
If Mr Farron is keen to see the referendum go ahead on the 5 May perhaps he should use his own greater influence with his cronies to split the Bill into its two parts. I support AV and the referendum but I’m getting increasingly worried by some of the company I’m having to keep.
Yet more LibDem deceit and sophistry. It has been stated on numerous occasions that Labour are opposed to one, and only one, section of the two part bill. That being the boundary changes part of it. Split the bill, and present the Lords with just the AV referendum part, and then, and only then, can you be in a position to say whether the Labour Peers are being hypocritical by not supporting the Labour leadership, and the election manifesto.
If this really was the ‘new politics’ and politicians were putting party differences to one side, then why then add a contentious piece of legislation onto the bill, when agreement could have been reached quite easily on a single AV referendum bill?
Where did the coalition agreement say that these two issues had to be addressed in a single bill. But then I suppose it is a Tory led governement rather than a coalition – perhaps the Labour Chair should send an email to Labour members telling them to email LibDems enocouraging them to stand up to their coalition partners?
@Mark “….in the 2010 Labour party manifesto, written by Ed Miliband himself, the Labour party promised to hold a referendum on voting reform……” In their manifesto before the last election, the Liberal Democrats promised an awful lot of sensible measures that I enthusiastically voted for….and then Mr Clegg and the New Politics kicked in. People in Glass Houses……
Looks as though Mr Farron is worried that his time as standard-bearer for the LibDem might be limited if there is closer co-operation with Labour.
Let’s look at the facts here in a semi-objective way and not be blinded by political dogma.
The Bill being discussed in The Lords is a shamefully cobbled-together piece of constitutional legislation which is being rammed-through Parliament without any attempt to have created a cross -party consensus.
There is no electoral mandate for it – it is a product of the discredited Coalition Beast.
I can find no explanation of the 600 cap – and neither can anyone in the Lords including the coalition spokespeople.
I would remind Mr Farron that Mr Milliband to date appears to show more respect for his party’s policies and structures than that shown by Clegg.
Labour in the Lords have made it quite clear the AV Bill can go through on the date wanted as long as the other section is broken away and discussed further in view of the serious constitutional issues. Government is about choices – so what do the LibDems want – do they want the referendum or to support Cameron’s rag-bag attack on the constitution and Labour.
And curiously while the coalition cuts numbers in the Commons it has already added 117 new Peers since coming to office with dozens more still to take their seat and I think the ibDems are doing better than the Tories in this gravy-train.
Trying to twist the facts to suit your political ends Mr Farron really is unworthy of you.
I’m guessing none of the Labour posters on here have bothered listening to or watching any of the live Lords coverage? We’ve more or less done with the ‘my favourite colour’ and ‘last book I read’ sections, I think this afternoon it’s ‘reading from the phone directory’…
Re my last post I should have said “election manifestoes” rather than the “coalition agreement” which does of course put the two items in a single bill – although there is no elctoral mandate for doing so.
Andrew Tennant
You talk as though LibDems have never worked within the rules to try and achieve their political ends – of course some like Andrew Stunnell are even prepared to work outside the rules.
I really don’t understand Labours attitude on this. If the 2 bills WERE delinked, I reckon there is a good chance the AV vote could be lost, but the constituency changes passed, so labour could still lose out. At least as one bill if the AV referendum falls then so do the constituency changes
@toryboyblahblah
How quickly Labour posters have moved on from ‘valid and proper objections, proper scrutiny’ to ‘yeah, we’re being selfish, what of it’…
Everything above is ‘Politician Speak’ by those who understand the Parliamentary process.
How will the public see these proposals.
1) Less MPs (hooray)
2) A fairer voting system (hooray)
3) Parliamentary constituencies to be roughly the same size (zzzzzzz – but seems fair)
@Redndead
Not so. The boundary changes would be enacted whether the AV referendum result is Yes or NO. It would have made more sense to include it as a separate question, but part of the AV referendum, if they were so insistent on combining the two pieces of legislation.
I have not received Tim’s email; have I been excommunicated, or should i have inserted “yet” after “not”?
I agree with toryboysetc, Jayu, Ecojohn, and others who have made siimilar points. If Clegg had wanted the enabling legislation on AV to go through quickly, he should have separated it from the far more contentious provisions for boundary changes. He chose not to do so; perhaps he wanted to provoke the currrent shenanigins in the Lords?
Labour peers filibustering to frustrate a Tory-led (sorry, Coaltion) government? How dreadful!!!
Filibuster over gerrymandering.
ps Stop with the ludicrious new speak . I dont think you actually believe a word of the above.
Labour don’t like it up ’em
@Cheltenham Robin
How will the public see these proposals.
…….
3) Parliamentary constituencies to be roughly the same size (zzzzzzz – but seems fair
You may be falling asleep – but this is a critical issue – how should the boundaries be drawn – and how should size be measured – by registered elctorate or by those entitled to vote including those not currently registered. Given there are 4m unregistered voters and their incidence is unlikley to be uniform these matters could well be the difference between a fair system and gerrymandering.
It’s somewhat strange that Libdems after many years of obsessing about fair electoral systems now seem to be falling asleep on the job.
Tim’s email inspired me to write to my local Lib Dem MP (Lorely Burt) asking her to disown her Tory partners who are cynically insisting on pairing the AV Referendum with partisan boundary changes. If the Coalition were to split the Bill into two parts, then I would expect Labour peers to swiftly pass the AV part of the referendum – and if they didn’t, then I would criticise them. As it is, they are perfectly right to block the Tories’ attempt to rig the electoral map to their advantage, with changes which would mean the Lib Dems lose 12% of our current tally of MPs while the Tories would lose just 3%. A dirty policy calls for dirty tricks.
@Andrew Tennant
Andrew – you really will have to stop making assumptions about people that you know nothing about.
I watched the Lords coverage till 2.30am and then from 6.00am till around 2.00pm. I’m watching the other place at the moment. Does that mean I have passed some kind of test in your book? Even if I hadn’t watched a minute I would have known exactly what was going on as I have watched all political parties do the same.
I was watching to see a lot of old pals that I haven’t had the chance to hear in debate for a long-time and they ain’t all in the LP btw.
Oh in between I’m preparing a couple of books for publication next month in case you are worried that I’m turning into a political anorak.
However, if positions were reversed and the LibDems were doing what the LP is doing then I’m sure you would be eagerly supporting them. And I will again observe that while the LibDems are happy to cuts seats in the Commons and Clegg’s main justification in the House today is that he saves a few million.
Why is he then flooding the Lords with new Peers – 117 at today’s count since the GE with apparently dozens still to come – how much is that going to cost?
You have to try and find a bit of balance and objectivity or you’ll never break-free and find political understanding.and a deep enough vision to see beyond narrow partisan politics.
@Redndead
You appear to have got things totally wrong – if the AV referendum fails because the public vote against – which some would argue is a victory and not a failure – then it doesn’t have any affect on the rest of the proposals in the bill if they pass into law as currently proposed.
The reason for delinking is to try and have the issues looked at on a more independent basis through say a Speaker’s Commission and the Boundaries Commission. That would halt the progress temporarily but wouldn’t stop it being in place for the next GE although it might be in a different form depending on debate or cross-party discussion.
The problem about allowing the government of the day to set the number of MPs without using a process independent of party political gerrymandering is that the next government can then change the number to whatever it wants – the precedent is established.
Labour aren’t alone in being worried about what is happening in constitutional terms and it would be enlightening for you to listen to the Tory backbenchers arguing against the Fixed Term Parliament Bill in the Commons currently.
@oryboysnevergrowup
I’m not falling asleep I was merely pointing out the level of interest from the general public who are unlikely to post on here.
We may all get excited by constitutional reform and boundary changes but it doesn’t do much for Joe and Joanna Public.
Looks like some kind of compromise in on the cards….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12221155
It would still have helped if Farron had pointed out that Labour peers had offered to allow the referendum vote to progress if the other issues (those he neglected to mention) were split from it..
I fear the Lib dems are fast adopting Labours attitude to facts…
Never let them spoil a good press release, letter, email etc etc…
People, myself included, still hate Labour for their spin and misinformation please don’t follow that road.
Cheltenham Robin – I’m glad you are not asleep, but please remember that the price of democracy is eternal vigilence, athough I shouldn’t have to tell liberals that.
I (and most people who post here) am a member of the general public as well, although I do live under a bridge and like to scare goats from time to time.
I hope Tim Farron is reading the site because I am watching EMA debate and it seems that LibDem MPs don’t seem to have much interest in the debate – still I reckon they’ll troop through the lobbies with their Tory pals to carry out another savage attack on young people trying to get a decent education.
I live in a Labour constituency. I have never voted Labour and I am not keen on my Blair-ite MP. However, I will not be writing to him about this issue. It is plain to me that the delays in the House Of Lords are less to do with the AV referendum but to do with controversial boundary changes that are being imposed in constituencies with no thought as to the needs or views of those constituents. The changes will increase the power of the executive and decrease the power of the legislature. I heard Neil Kinnock speak superbly on this issue last night. Here was I thinking that Neil Kinnock was a has-been who was of no relevance. It brought back memories of his superb “Don’t grow old, don’t be poor…” speech. Now it feels like I am back in 1987 and I wish now I had voted Labour at that election rather than for the predecessors of the LibDems.
Tim Farron’s e-mail serves as a chilling reminder of why the LibDems have to be a spent force in British politics; you are actually starting to believe the lies you’re obliged to spout by virtue of your (very) junior position in the coalition.
Very scary; and very sad…