This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/apr/05/nick-clegg-referendum-trap-house-lords

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Forceful' Nick Clegg falls into referendum trap – again 'Forceful' Nick Clegg falls into referendum trap – again
(40 minutes later)
Andrew Lansley is in political hot water again this morning, accused of headline-grabbing efforts to divert public attention from his health reform bill by orderly a costly, time-consuming inspection of abortion clinics. Diversionary tactics! Whatever next. You wouldn't catch a wholesome chap like Nick Clegg doing that, would you? Andrew Lansley is in political hot water again this morning, accused of headline-grabbing efforts to divert public attention from his health reform bill by ordering a costly, time-consuming inspection of abortion clinics. Diversionary tactics! Whatever next. You wouldn't catch a wholesome chap like Nick Clegg doing that, would you?
Oh dear, perhaps you would. In the wake of his distinctly mixed attempt to take credit for the kinder bits of George Osborne's Tory budget, Clegg is noisily engaged with the coalition partners on several fronts. They include a row over Lords reform and two rows over civil liberties, one with Ken Clarke over the justice secretary's plans for "secret courts," the other with Teresa May for wanting to give the security services access to all our internet traffic, albeit not their contents. Oh dear, perhaps you would. In the wake of his distinctly mixed attempt to take credit for the kinder bits of George Osborne's Tory budget, Clegg is noisily engaged with the coalition partners on several fronts. They include a row over Lords reform and two rows over civil liberties, one with Ken Clarke over the justice secretary's plans for "secret courts," the other with Theresa May for wanting to give the security services access to all our internet traffic, albeit not their contents.
What can this mean ? Probably that local elections – and the London mayor vote, not to mention mayoral referendums in 10 major English cities – are looming on 3 May and the Liberal Democrats are braced for another pasting. Why shouldn't Clegg do his best to rally the activists and woo those voters who have drifted or dashed away from his party? Respect's Galloway-led revival in Bradford West simply extends the options for disaffected voters and raises the stakes.What can this mean ? Probably that local elections – and the London mayor vote, not to mention mayoral referendums in 10 major English cities – are looming on 3 May and the Liberal Democrats are braced for another pasting. Why shouldn't Clegg do his best to rally the activists and woo those voters who have drifted or dashed away from his party? Respect's Galloway-led revival in Bradford West simply extends the options for disaffected voters and raises the stakes.
At such times Mike Smythson's Political Betting website is always worth a look. In his latest post he thinks Ken Livingstone is looking tired in debates. Not surprising, he's nearly 67, though two days younger than Burma's newest MP, Aung Sun Suu Kyi. Others tell me Labour should gain 300 seats overall, in a ratio of 3:2 from Tories over Lib Dems. So Boris Johnson winning in London will matter to David Cameron, whatever private mixed feelings he may have about his self-appointed heir all too apparent. At such times Mike Smithson's Political Betting website is always worth a look. In his latest post he thinks Ken Livingstone is looking tired in debates. Not surprising, he's nearly 67, though two days younger than Burma's newest MP, Aung San Suu Kyi. Others tell me Labour should gain 300 seats overall, in a ratio of 3:2 from Tories over Lib Dems. So Boris Johnson winning in London will matter to David Cameron, whatever private mixed feelings he may have about his self-appointed heir all too apparent.
There's a lot of smallprint to absorb about both Clarke and May's plans, but I should report right away that Martin Kettle gives it a hard time – here – and that Thursday's Daily Mail praises Clegg for trying to curb the jovial justice secretary's green paper. As for Labour's demand that Clarke should be forced to drop it completely, the Mail's editorial states: "These are words you have not read often in this column: Ed Miliband is right." I'm still not sure we're heading for the Gulag yet. But Ed will be cracking open his Easter egg on Sunday with rare gusto!There's a lot of smallprint to absorb about both Clarke and May's plans, but I should report right away that Martin Kettle gives it a hard time – here – and that Thursday's Daily Mail praises Clegg for trying to curb the jovial justice secretary's green paper. As for Labour's demand that Clarke should be forced to drop it completely, the Mail's editorial states: "These are words you have not read often in this column: Ed Miliband is right." I'm still not sure we're heading for the Gulag yet. But Ed will be cracking open his Easter egg on Sunday with rare gusto!
But what of Clegg? Nick Watt's report of his Guardian interview describes the DPM as "burying the Rose Garden era" of matey intimacy with Cameron, replacing it with a more "forceful and remorseless" trumpeting of Lib Dem successes. These include the pupil premium, the budget's rise in personal tax allowances, an expansion of apprenticeships and the "earn or learn" youth contract. " I want us to stop apologising for being in government, stop apologising for the difficult things we are having to do," Clegg says. But what of Clegg? Nick Watt's report of his Guardian interview describes the DPM as "burying the Rose Garden era" of matey intimacy with Cameron, replacing it with a more "forceful and remorseless" trumpeting of Lib Dem successes. These include the pupil premium, the budget's rise in personal tax allowances, an expansion of apprenticeships and the "earn or learn" youth contract. "I want us to stop apologising for being in government, stop apologising for the difficult things we are having to do," Clegg says.
OK. I still can't see why or how the Lib Dems expected to benefit in the longer term from joining a formal coalition with the Tories after outflanking New Labour from the left for years. In the shaky circumstances of May 2010 I think it was the most stable option for the country after the voters had decided not to give any one party a majority: you all lost, they said. But I can sympathise with Clegg's dilemma – and perhaps you can too.OK. I still can't see why or how the Lib Dems expected to benefit in the longer term from joining a formal coalition with the Tories after outflanking New Labour from the left for years. In the shaky circumstances of May 2010 I think it was the most stable option for the country after the voters had decided not to give any one party a majority: you all lost, they said. But I can sympathise with Clegg's dilemma – and perhaps you can too.
That sympathy evaporates quite quickly, to be followed by cruel laughter, when I turn to another page of Thursday's Guardian and find Clegg still determined to use much of the coming session of parliament – unusually after a two-year session, the Queen's Speech is on 9 May 9, not on or around 5 November– trying to force through a flagship reform of the House of Lords, unfinished business for his party since the budget crisis of 1910. That sympathy evaporates quite quickly, to be followed by cruel laughter, when I turn to another page of Thursday's Guardian and find Clegg still determined to use much of the coming session of parliament – unusually after a two-year session, the Queen's Speech is on 9 May, not on or around 5 November – trying to force through reform of the House of Lords, unfinished business for his party since the budget crisis of 1910.
We can all have different but perfectly respectable views on how to proceed here. The government's 2011 draft bill (pdf)proposes a second chamber of 300 members, 240 elected by the single transferable vote (STV) system, 60 appointed from among the Great and Good, the elected members to sit for a single 15-year term (to make them independent of the party whips) and their powers to remain unchanged. For those who fret about these things, 12 Anglican bishops, a residue of medieval forms of governance, will retain seats. We can all have different but perfectly respectable views on how to proceed here. The government's 2011 draft bill (pdf) proposes a second chamber of 300 members, 240 elected by the single transferable vote (STV) system, 60 appointed from among the Great and Good, the elected members to sit for a single 15-year term (to make them independent of the party whips) and their powers to remain unchanged. For those who fret about these things, 12 Anglican bishops, a residue of medieval forms of governance, will retain seats.
As Wiki's brief history of Lords reform – read it here – reminds us, almost every word of the above paragraph could be the subject of fierce controversy between assorted experts and constitutional geeks like the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). A 15-year term, for example, makes peers (they will actually be called senators) independent of voters too, won't it? And won't becoming democratically legitimised by virtue of election – the only form of political legitimacy currently recognised, though not the only form – guarantee that the Lords/Senate will claim more power against the Commons?As Wiki's brief history of Lords reform – read it here – reminds us, almost every word of the above paragraph could be the subject of fierce controversy between assorted experts and constitutional geeks like the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). A 15-year term, for example, makes peers (they will actually be called senators) independent of voters too, won't it? And won't becoming democratically legitimised by virtue of election – the only form of political legitimacy currently recognised, though not the only form – guarantee that the Lords/Senate will claim more power against the Commons?
Of course it will. So it is to the credit of the joint committee of MPs and peers whose findings Clegg and co have promised to study before finalising their bill that it has asserted that the issue of relative and rival powers cannot be ignored: it must be codified over time.Of course it will. So it is to the credit of the joint committee of MPs and peers whose findings Clegg and co have promised to study before finalising their bill that it has asserted that the issue of relative and rival powers cannot be ignored: it must be codified over time.
Its report is not due to be officially published until after Easter, but clearly some ground-clearing is underway because the bombshell it contains is that the committee is proposing that Lords reform be subject to a referendum. Oh dear. Again. Clegg and Cameron don't want all that trouble. Their 2011 referendum on AV voting – the one in which Dave hammered Nick (and Ed) – caused so much bad will they are only now recovering (and not very well). Its report is not due to be officially published until after Easter, but clearly some ground-clearing is under way because the bombshell it contains is that the committee is proposing that Lords reform be subject to a referendum. Oh dear. Again. Clegg and Cameron don't want all that trouble. Their 2011 referendum on AV voting – the one in which Dave hammered Nick (and Ed) – caused so much bad will they are only now recovering (and not very well).
But Labour and Tory critics of the draft bill will insist that if AV voting for the Commons was worth the refo which Clegg demanded then surely STV voting for an elected Lords/Senate should be worth one too? They're part of the legislature too, aren't they? As for STV, which also arouses passion, the joint committee's preference for something called an "open preferential voting system" (don't ask) has annoyed the ERS which believes in STV like the pope believes in the Trinity.But Labour and Tory critics of the draft bill will insist that if AV voting for the Commons was worth the refo which Clegg demanded then surely STV voting for an elected Lords/Senate should be worth one too? They're part of the legislature too, aren't they? As for STV, which also arouses passion, the joint committee's preference for something called an "open preferential voting system" (don't ask) has annoyed the ERS which believes in STV like the pope believes in the Trinity.
Most people don't worry about such things, the details of constitutional theory and reform trouble them less than a sense that things are working – or not. The coalition's plans for elected mayors (subject to referendums) and elected police chiefs (not subject to referendums) still leave most voters so far as I have been able to tell. More elected officials? Is the talent pool big enough? Will it cost more? Will voters shrug and say no to it all?Most people don't worry about such things, the details of constitutional theory and reform trouble them less than a sense that things are working – or not. The coalition's plans for elected mayors (subject to referendums) and elected police chiefs (not subject to referendums) still leave most voters so far as I have been able to tell. More elected officials? Is the talent pool big enough? Will it cost more? Will voters shrug and say no to it all?
To my innocent eye the unpublished joint report smacks of cunning sabotage by hostile peers or MPs, poisoning the wells, mining a few bridges, to sustain the perfectly workable status quo by other means. But when I inspected the membership list (I now recall sitting in on one or two evidence sessions) I could spot only a couple of crafty operators whom I will not name here. The majority from all parties and none looks positively high-minded and wholesome.To my innocent eye the unpublished joint report smacks of cunning sabotage by hostile peers or MPs, poisoning the wells, mining a few bridges, to sustain the perfectly workable status quo by other means. But when I inspected the membership list (I now recall sitting in on one or two evidence sessions) I could spot only a couple of crafty operators whom I will not name here. The majority from all parties and none looks positively high-minded and wholesome.
So they may simply have stumbled into a minefield and dragged poor Cleggster with them. It is always enjoyable to see high-minded politicians hoist on their own high-minded petards. Referendums, a device despised as demagogic and deplorable by our parents and grandparents, have been a rich source of trouble on this score. So they may simply have stumbled into a minefield and dragged poor Cleggster with them. It is always enjoyable to see high-minded politicians hoist by their own high-minded petards. Referendums, a device despised as demagogic and deplorable by our parents and grandparents, have been a rich source of trouble on this score.
In opposition modern politicians quite like them, but in government they turn out to want them in the past and want them in the future, but not to want them now. David Cameron and Europe? Yes, I mean you. And crafty Alex Salmond, I haven't overlooked you either.In opposition modern politicians quite like them, but in government they turn out to want them in the past and want them in the future, but not to want them now. David Cameron and Europe? Yes, I mean you. And crafty Alex Salmond, I haven't overlooked you either.