Clegg humiliated..again!

[HeadingNorth]

Pull the other one! Smarmy Dave ordered the Boundary Comission review

 

But he can't influence its findings. Constituency sizes will be made the same across the country, give or take; they will not favour any one party over any other.

[I1L2T3]

Clegg must be biting back on his anger, AV and now the Lords lost. He has no choice but to hang on and hope he can get the lords sorted later. In reality, although a Labour supporter, they acted poorly and should have backed up Clegg. First because lords reform is right and secondly so they could show, for future reference that they are the natural partners of the Lib Dems since the next election is likely to throw up an inconclusive result.

 

Let's get the facts straight. The government could not get enough votes to support its own policy. In that situation why should Labour bail them out? The Labour objection is not to the substance of the bill but rather the attempt to railroad it through with limited debate, especially given a clear lack of consensus on the bill and a lack of appetite in the country for it. And the LibDems attempt to now invoke the idea of a progressive coalition to get this though looks stupid given LibDem support for, and rejection of Labour opposition to, other bills that are clearly not progressive. The LibDems can't pick and choose - either they are genuinely progressive or they're not.

 

At the end of the day if Cameron had been able to control his party this would have been voted through tonight.

[I1L2T3]

But he can't influence its findings. Constituency sizes will be made the same across the country, give or take; they will not favour any one party over any other.

 

Very true.

[Mr Prime]

Let's get the facts straight. The government could not get enough votes to support its own policy. In that situation why should Labour bail them out? The Labour objection is not to the substance of the bill but rather the attempt to railroad it through with limited debate, especially given a clear lack of consensus on the bill and a lack of appetite in the country for it. And the LibDems attempt to now invoke the idea of a progressive coalition to get this though looks stupid given LibDem support for, and rejection of Labour opposition to, other bills that are clearly not progressive. The LibDems can't pick and choose - either they are genuinely progressive or they're not.

 

At the end of the day if Cameron had been able to control his party this would have been voted through tonight.

 

I agree, I suppose I was looking at it in simplistic terms. Although you know the fine detail a lot of people in the country may see Labour as just being awkward for the hell of it. How much debate does it need in parliament since MP's must be clear about the implications already?

[hard2miss]

 

At the end of the day if Cameron had been able to control his party this would have been voted through tonight.

He obviously is not. Quite a few in the Conservative party are furious that our position in Europe should be forefront and I imagine are pretty peeved that this Lib Dem run reform (in order to give them some legitimacy amongst there own members and voters) is getting the lime light instead of a referendum on Europe which they see as strengthening our democracy far more than this.

 

Its no surprise to me that behind the scenes they are willing to humiliate (if they had gone ahead and lost) their own PM on this if all he is going to do for them is to, in some time in the future, offer them some sort of watered down referendum that does not show a back door on Europe.

He is saying at the moment that we will 'try' and get some powers back and put that to the vote rather than the 'in or out' that they no will result in the out vote.

[Obelix]

Let's get the facts straight. The government could not get enough votes to support its own policy. In that situation why should Labour bail them out? The Labour objection is not to the substance of the bill but rather the attempt to railroad it through with limited debate, especially given a clear lack of consensus on the bill and a lack of appetite in the country for it. And the LibDems attempt to now invoke the idea of a progressive coalition to get this though looks stupid given LibDem support for, and rejection of Labour opposition to, other bills that are clearly not progressive. The LibDems can't pick and choose - either they are genuinely progressive or they're not.

 

At the end of the day if Cameron had been able to control his party this would have been voted through tonight.

 

Labour being her Majesties Loyal Opposition should support any legislation that is clearly in the countries interest, but they have a perfect remit to question and advise the actions of the Govt of the day.

 

They have questions, and so do many Conservative MP's about the LD desire to reform the HoL. In this case they are perfectly right to be obstructive and we should get the unlimited debate we need for this important change which is effectivly a constitutional change in the way parliment runs.

[MrSmith]

A year ago he lost the referendum on the Lib Dems 'flagship' policy of electoral reform, now he has been defeated by 100 or so members of the Lib Dems coalition 'partners', threatening to vote with the opposition on House of Lords reform.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/10/lords-reform-disarray-timetable-motion-withdrawn

 

Will he ever realise he's been had!

 

I was under the impression labour wanted Lords reform, any idea why they changed their mind.

[MrSmith]

Let's get the facts straight. The government could not get enough votes to support its own policy. In that situation why should Labour bail them out? The Labour objection is not to the substance of the bill but rather the attempt to railroad it through with limited debate, especially given a clear lack of consensus on the bill and a lack of appetite in the country for it. And the LibDems attempt to now invoke the idea of a progressive coalition to get this though looks stupid given LibDem support for, and rejection of Labour opposition to, other bills that are clearly not progressive. The LibDems can't pick and choose - either they are genuinely progressive or they're not.

 

At the end of the day if Cameron had been able to control his party this would have been voted through tonight.

 

 

But isn't a government full of independent thinkers better than a government full of yes men that follow the leader.

[I1L2T3]

But isn't a government full of independent thinkers better than a government full of yes men that follow the leader.

 

It's a nice idea but at the end of the day part of the government's job is to get legislation through. If the government's MPs cannot be whipped to support key policies then the government is in trouble.

 

The house of lords currently performs more of the 'free thinker' role than the commons with its bishops, cross-benchers etc... Moving to a partially elected lords dilutes that and that is where we have to be careful to get it right. That is why it is correct to have the full debate, not a limited one.

[I1L2T3]

I was under the impression labour wanted Lords reform, any idea why they changed their mind.

 

They haven't. They just want it done properly and not railroaded through.

 

If I was cynical I'd say that LibDems holding 15 year seats in the lords gives them some potential hooks on power that they might not have in the commons in coming years. Especially after their numbers in the commons are severely restricted after the next election.