It’s been a “day of drama” at Westminster much-beloved by the Village, with the Coalition Government deciding in the end to shelve a vote on its programme day motion to introduce House of Lords reform in the face of concerted opposition from rebel Tory MPs and the Labour party.
It’s the first time the Government has backed down in implementing one of its own Coalition Agreement policies. So does that mean Lords reform is lost? Not necessarily, as Unlock Democracy’s Peter Facey makes clear here. However, the repercussions of the Conservative party’s decision to renege on their last three manifesto commitments as well as the Coalition Agreement are likely to reverberate for some time to come. The Coalition will survive, but it’s hobbling now.
Here’s some of my tweeted reaction to the news in the last couple of hours…
Labour could have made up for 13 years’ inaction on #LordsReform. Chose s-t partisanship win over l-t progressive victory. I’m unsurprised.
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) July 10, 2012
Simple truth about Lords reform: Tory/Lab MPs want cosy retirement sinecure… and not enough of the public cares. A shame, in both senses.
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) July 10, 2012
Coalition with Tories was right in 2010 & is right now too. LibDems can’t afford to let Tories con public that pluralism won’t ever work.
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) July 10, 2012
Who does Nick Clegg blame for lords reform U turn? His spokesman says “A plague on both their houses”
— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) July 10, 2012
.@dlknowles It would be bad government but good politics for LDs to lose boundary changes: single biggest threat to party in 2015/whenever.
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) July 10, 2012
ComRes/ITV News poll: 53% say if HoL reformed it should be FULLY elected 20% disagree ht.ly/c8Vbq
— Andrew Hawkins (@Andrew_ComRes) July 10, 2012
Bad news for Clegg: Coalition now a lot more unpopular with party. Good news for Clegg: party reminded why LibDems different from Con/Lab.
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) July 10, 2012
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
37 Comments
The Tories shafted us on AV, now shafted on Lords.
Exactly why do we bother supporting lame tory bills on NHS, police commissioners, free schools etc when their adherence to the CA is so tentative
This was not a good bill, and not worth going to the sword for but we look more and more amateurish in our relationship with the Tories.
Vince looks like the only competent MP we have and so many more are frankly embarrassing on tv
It’s sad but not unexpected. Adversarial politics got in the way. Labour and disgruntled Tories could just smell blood in the water. But I don’t think it’s dead,
At least the damaging boundary change proposal.s might be ditched.
You mention pluralism yet on the single point of the referendum the party are unwilling to compromise. Clegg needs to look in the mirror. Handing Labour a small victory would have given a huge one to the Lib Dems. Makes you wonder whether he really wants this at all…..
“Exactly why do we bother supporting lame tory bills on NHS, police commissioners, free schools etc when their adherence to the CA is so tentative”
I imagine that this is what many members of the public are thinking as well, and they may well be wondering where exactly the ‘line in the sand’ exists, and the Party will say ‘enough is enough’?
Redndead – I quite agree. It wasn’t a good Bill, but losing the timetable motion has now made the LibDems look incompetent in the eyes of their coalition partners. The look of pity some Tory loyalists have been giving our MPs in the House says it all. Vince really does seem like our only competent MP at the moment.
I suspect in hindsight that the Bill never had a chance. Neither Labour nor the Tories have any interest in making the LibDems look good as a party, which they would have done if this bill became law.
This episode has been a watershed for me. Not because House of Lords reform features high in my list of priorities, but that the tribalism and duplicity of the Conservatives has been unambiguously confirmed to me today.
I am still, just about, for the Coalition. But, if I’m honest, I think the probability of this thing going the distance has been at least halved in my estimation. You cannot have a coalition with a partner party that doesn’t want it too. I suspect many Tories are trying to, de facto, undo the Coalition from the backbenches.
It would appear that some Tories think Police Commissioners, who uphold the law, must be elected, but legislators of the second chamber, who make the law, should not be.
mpg
I think that has been clear for a long time
Also for those of you criticizing Labour as opportunistic I just ask you to step back a minute and think back to opposition.
Due to this shambles Labour have been handed control of a Government policy! The programme motion or guillotine can only be passed with their support, unless you want an attritional war with the backbenchers.
Miliband can now use this as leverage to get a referendum or other concessions. Did you really expect him to hand this back just because he is criticized by your leadership or because he wants to be part of a ‘progressive alliance’?
It would probably have helped your cause if your party leadership had not been so keen to follow the Tory lead in blaming Labour for everything. Even tonight I saw Menzies trotting out the same story – what goes around comes around.
Remember your biggest ideological and political enemies are sitting next to you on the Government benches and Tories have been shown before to be ruthless – the sooner the leadership realizes this and plays hard ball the better for your chances in 2015
The LibDems put their very existence on the line when they supported the Tories’ NHS bill, they (the LIbDems) now discover just how the Tory party behaves. And it is the Tory party who you should be blaming; the idea that Labour should have backed the LibDems as part of a ‘progressive alliance;’ is now nonsense. What ‘progressive’ credentials do the Liberal Democrats now have? The Cuts that hurt the poor most? Commercialising the NHS? Abolishing EMA? Tripling HE Fees? Supporting (in effect) a very dodgy Jeremy Hunt? Supporting the economics of Osborne? and so on. Milliband is not the villain here, for that look to your Conservative partners.
Ok so not many of the Great British Public were ever interested in Lords reform.
But many of those who were banded together over the last three or four decades, and eventually, through sheer hard work, helped persuade enough of that Public to vote Lib Dem that we built the Lib Dems into a party capable of denying either of the two main parties an overall majority.
Those people still exist. Not all are still Lib Dems. Many who ARE still Lib Dems, like me, are not sure yet whether we can continue to be after the next election. But we still exist, however much the Tories deny there is a demand for this (as if their postbags are representative! Note to Tory MPs – we don’t write to you because we know you’ll oppose an elected Lords tooth and nail. What is the point?).
We will regroup, and we will overcome you. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not as Lib Dems. You may have outwitted us, and some of our so-called leaders may have connived in that.
But we WILL have a fairly elected Parliament, one day. History is on our side.
This is the usual Labour rubbish, say one thing and do the opposite. They’d be just as untrustworthy as Tories as coalition partners. As for the Tories, hopefully they were told to deliver this or the kitten gets it. Plenty of Tory kittens we can kill off over the next few months as we focus back on the economy.
alistair
Why should they compromise on what they want to do? Your party has hardly looked to build relationships with them since 2010.
Your party has been used by Blair in 97 and by Cameron since 2010 – the Tories are really crushing you into the ground though
Bazzasc – you tell me if Labour support reform or not? Its a simple question.
Alistair
I do not speak for them but I imagine yes – they have been fiddling around with it for years
What they also have the right to do is make life difficult for the Coalition (based on also the LD behaviour towards them) and use the current situation as a negotiating tool. They did vote for second reading
Offer a referendum and put the ball back in their court
If the LD, in opposition, had the same potential power then I imagine they would do the same
A referendum on this is nuts, reform was in all the manifestos.
As a Conservative I’m embarrassed that idiots on our own backbenches are trying their best to kill reform, and I’m embarrassed by the sophistic, semantic arguments they are making to get round our own clear manifesto and Coalition agreements.
I can only claim in our defence that perhaps 80 Conservative MP’s were planning to rebel, that’s about 25% of our party. The vast majority, 75%, of MP’s including all our ministers were committed to voting for the programme motion and passing the Bill prepared by Nick Clegg.
Almost 100% of Labour MP’s were happy to claim they were for Lords Reform but vote with the hard right dinosaurs to try to kill the Bill. Conservative MP’s voted for a referendum on electoral reform, and most of them have now voted for House of Lords Reform. Labour have repeatedly failed to deliver on constitutional reform.
I think the Conservatives have proved themselves to be very untrustworthy as partners.
Labour would have never been quite so cynical in the manipulation and destruction of their coalition partners. Asked so much and given so little.
It is better not to rush important legislation. I work in a health centre. We have to work with the Mental Capacity Act. A very important piece of legislation that clearly establishes practise and procedure for considering decisions for those with cognitive or physical impairment and who may lack capacity to make decisions.
It was thoroughly worked out, thought about and carefully consulted, considered and piloted. It is a beautiful piece of legislation that provides an excellent framework for professionals to ensure that a person’s wishes are considered and their best interests met.
Labour was right to point out that good legislation needed time and should not be forced through. The country will support electoral consititutional reform but it needs to be progressive and extend democracy. It should not be hurried and the proposed alternative reform did not convince the electorate that it was an improvement on what was already in place for a revising chamber.
Progressive constitutional reform is never going to happen with the Conservatives. The core of the Conservative party are opposed. The only reforms that the Conservatives support is one which entrenches their position or changes the rules to make it easier for them to win or maintain power.
Perhaps the experience of this coalition will serve some salutory lessons about not compromising on core issues in any future coalition agreements and the need to hold out for reform that the electorate and party can support.
It remains to be seen that the Liberal Democrats will be able to provide a balance with the 19 to 25 MPs that are likely to be left (after the boundary review) and progressive voters can be persuaded to vote LD after propping a radical right wing Conservative party in this parliament.
I would like to say that a major change to the constitutional arrangements needs the support of the population. I want a say. I will support reform, if it is proved to me that the arrangements are an improvement. Consideration of this change must not be rushed through in parliament.
I would actually prefer an elected second chamber that could provide a break on governments pushing through legislation that was not explicitly spelled out in a parties manifesto mandated at an election. The US balance is actually something to look towards.
A second chamber that will even more likely divide on party lines, that has no teeth, doesn’t seen to be much good at all.
@alistair
“A referendum on this is nuts, reform was in all the manifestos” – Are your really suggesting that when a party gets elected to office – its supporters approve of each and every item in their manifesto? Far more want to come out of the EU or halt immigration than want Lords reform. Parties that don’t offer these policies still get elected because the economy is nearly always the electorates primary concern – so they vote based on who they think will manage this the best.
@Alistair: “A referendum on this is nuts, reform was in all the manifestos.”
Labour actually called for a referendum on Lords reform in their manifesto.
The poor old Lib Dems have slavishly supported the Conservatives on all the unpopular polices that the public did not support like the health service reform. What have they got in return? These policies would never have got through without the Lib Dems ignoring the electorate and voting with the Conservatives. They have treated Labour like something nasty on their shoe. They have never supported Labour on any vote, i.e., Hunt, a judge led public enquiry on the banks. Why then should Labour support the Lib Dems? The lesson is, one should not put all ones eggs in one basket, and there is a need to cultivate friends in politics. It is clear that the Conservatives are now tired of the Lib Dems and have no loyalty to them, at the earliest opportunity they will be dispensed with like turkeys at Christmas. And what about the public? Well unfortunately the Lib Dems have totally ignored the voter’s views, seemingly blinded by the novelty of power. Lesson number two, it is the electorate who made them MPs and what is given and also be taken away.
So:
We didn’t stand up for the young, when it came to tuition fees.
We didn’t stand up for the sick, when it came to NHS privatisation.
We didn’t stand up for the disabled, when it came to benefit cuts.
We didn’t stand up for the poor, when it came to an increase in VAT.
But we did stand up stoutly in support of our own interests, when it came to setting up an elected House – in which we could expect to maintain a permanent stranglehold on the balance of power.
Unless, of course, too many of our former supporters have abandoned us in disgust.
I was a firm supporter of the coalition at the start. I knew we would have to make sacrifices, but I also actually believed we’d keep the Tories in check. Sadly that has not been the case and ever since the tuition fees fiasco, I’ve been telling anyone who would listen that they (our Tory “friends”) are simply using us. And those in the cabal at the top of our party (Clegg, Alexander, Laws, etc.) either became blinded by power or actually agreed with the Tories on most of their plans, many of which were not properly put to the electorate). We as a party have simply been used by them to push through their regressive, illiberal policies which hit the most vulnerable the hardest. The Tories, by and large, will never be in favour of proper reform. They never have been. They are the establishment personified. As for Labour, while often acting with sheer opportunity, have actually been reasonable on Lords reform. I think they’re doing what we would be doing had we still been in opposition. I see nothing wrong with not setting a time limit on debate for an issue as important as major constitutional change. There are very few arguments to be had against allowing the public a referendum on the issue and by being consistent with their manifesto call for a referendum on Lords Reform, we have no right to attack Labour for their continued desire to hold one.
If we want to make this work, we will have to negotiate with Labour and if a public vote is a requirement, then so be it. We are democrats; we should never be afraid of putting such an important issue before the electorate.
Look: we’ve lost public trust and millions of votes because of tuition fees. Because we went against public, not to mention the majority of party opinion on the unwanted NHS bill. We’ve shafted the disabled, presided over a double-dip recession and sat on the fence when forced to take a stand on alleged Tory corruption (the Hunt vote). If the Tories completely derail Lords reform, then every day we stay in this coalition is an inch further into our political graves. We lost AV. We’ve lost so many voters. If we lost Lords Reform, then we’ve pretty much received nothing out of this coalition.
I fear there will be books written in the future on how not to work coalition government. And, sadly, this will probably be what the Lib Dems 2010-2015 will be most remembered for.
The Lib Dems do need to realise that, as Stephen W says, about a quarter of Tory MP’s are “hard right”, a parliamentary faction larger than the Lib Dems. The coalition is far more complicated than an agreement between Cameron & Clegg. There are basically UKIP MPs in the commons. Plenty of Conservative MPs would be happier with UKIP’s manifesto than Cameron’s, let alone the Coalition agreement.
This faction wasn’t included in the coalition negotiations, didn’t sign the final agreement in their own capacity, and they didn’t get ministerial roles in return for their cooperation. All for the perfectly good reason that they were signed up Conservatives, but its still the reason why the Coalitions is having problems with Tory rebels. It’s a whole nother party in the coalition, and one that Cameron has always struggled to deal with. It extends down to the Conservative supporters and voters where its not an uncommon view that Cameron is a traitor willingly leading a social democratic government (the mirror of those on the Left who say Clegg is a traitor willingly supporting a Thatcherite government).
Lib Dems disillusioned with the Coalition need to look at the other side and see that many Conservatives feel exactly the same way. Both sides claim that the other is dominating the government, breaking the coalition agreement, and that they’ve got nothing, or next to nothing, out of the coalition.
Retirement sinecure? Easy cure: cut daily rate from three hundred sovs to a tenner. The retired lardy arses will soon be looking for other, more rewarding, leather upholstery to polish.
@David Allen
“We didn’t stand up for the young, when it came to tuition fees.”
I can’t let this one go. First of all. Tuition fees (and scholarships for some) have existed since universities began. For a period (approx 1960-1998), UK citizens attending full time university had their fees paid for by the public purse. Labour in 1998 introduced the principle that the student , in England & Wales should be responsible for paying £1000 per annum. The choice of paying upfront or adding it to a student loan (if they could) was left to the student (and his/her parents).
For the many who add it to the student loan, its not paid by or for the young, its paid by adults with what the state sees as adequate means. In that respect, it is similar to funding individual university costs from general taxation (as done for the worse off until about 1990), or from loans (since 1990).
So student fees in their present form were a Labour invention; tripling them to £3000 was also a Labour invention. Tripling them again by the Coalition was following Labour precedents and was Conservative policy, accepted by the Junior partners a force majeur. Liberal Democrat policy was and is to abolish the direct financial commitment to fees and to put them on general taxation, hoping that general taxation by then will bear more on the very rich than it does now. We can’t have that until the LibDems are, at least, the senior partner in a coalition.
Did any of you see David Law’s performance on Newsnight last night – for a supposed star I thought he was very poor
I particularly liked the way that he demanded that Khan tell him what Labour’s position was on the Programme Motion – tell me again when he became your party’s representative on Constitutional Reform. Quite a strange approach for a simple (and cheating) backbencher
@Ian Sanderson (RM3)
“Tripling them again by the Coalition was following Labour precedents ”
Ah, that’s alright then.
I’m sorry, but the tuition fee debate is about two subjects. The first is scale: (a) how much do graduates need to contribute beyond the extra fees and taxes they pay to subsidise all other taxpayers? The second is (b) the distribution of contributions across the graduate income scales.
Tripling something does not have moral equivalence to another group that have already tripled the same thing. A much more accurate description is that the coalition are happy with fees at 9 times the pre-2006 level, whereas Labour increased them to 3 times the pre-2006 level. You are three times as bad as Labour, not the same.
@bazzasc
“Did any of you see David Law’s performance on Newsnight last night – for a supposed star I thought he was very poor”
To my mind, Laws’s vast intellect is one of the mysteries of the universe. I’ve yet to see evidence of it, but I keep hearing about it. There are plenty of right-wingers who I appreciate and have time for even if I don’t always agree with them – I can understand where they’re coming from and appreciate their motivation and their logic. I’ve never heard Laws say anything particularly insightful or original though. I presume all the people that proclaim his greatness are doing so simply on the basis that he is (a) prominent in the Lib Dems and (b) he shares the same ideology as they do.
Coalitions are supposed to be about give and take; to deploy a cliche, we give, they take. Forget it, this is not an honest bargain nor are we being dealt with fairly. Coalition government is a great and noble idea, but we have very little indication that the Tories understand the discipline it requires. Time to head for the exit.
Like most of you, I woke up this morning to an email in my inbox from Nick Clegg. It was on the subject of “Reforming the House Of Lords”. I got as far as “a great triumph for our party” and lost the will to live – or at least to continue reading.
@Paul – I entirely agree. This is a load of nonsense. It would be like Napoleon claiming that Waterloo was a tremendous victory because he lived through the battle and St. Helens isn’t a bad place, really.
Pardon me, St. Helena.
St. Helens certainly is a bad place! 😉
If Cameron can’t deliver his MPs, the Tories should pick a leader who can.
The Tories picked a leader who can deliver our MPs. The question is, who will be the first to tell Nick his plan has failed and it’s time to head for the exit.