Nick Clegg, Party Politics, and oh yes, Lord's Reform

[brucewarren]

We all know Lord's reform is a thorny issue, but Mr Clegg seems to be
surpassing himself these days.

What with telling the other parties their history and getting it wrong to
being ticked off for quoting Churchill by the man's grandson, he seems
to be making a bigger donkeys breakfast than usual.

My favourite was when asked about a referendum, he said "Oh but all
three parties agree, so we don't need one." Odd that on Europe his
view is precisely the opposite, that we need one to give the people a
choice. Politics eh, gotta love it. Not!

Anyway, actual reform issues aside, why is he so deternined to get this
one through? it's probably Hyperbole but some commentators are saying
this one could break the coalition.

According to this he might have some difficulties.

[esd]

I used to be all for an elected upper-house, but larely I've come to realise that their lack of political risk (ie, needing to win elections) means they can act more in the interest of people and country, than government.

Also if you look at the mix of expertise in the HOL, you'll find a lot that simply wouldn't be there were they elected.

It's odd, in principle I should be for reform, but in practise? No...

As for Clegg... what's in it for him? Answer that, and we find out why he's so keen.

[pjknibbs]

[esd]

[brucewarren]

Update

I haven't read it yet, so I have yet to figure out what it means.

EDIT: Now read article. I still don't understand whether the idea is
actually dead or just postponed.

[Rapier]

It means that, although al the parties agree on the issue, they can't agree on how long they need to argue over it. Frankly they should all resign.

[greypanther]

I heard a Conservative MP today suggesting that they, ( the tory party, ) should just ditch the coalition because it is not working anyway and run with a Conservative minority government! Cannot remember who it was.

Three things spring to mind.
1) Would they in fact be allowed to do that? I mean it would be a government without a real mandate, wouldn't it?
2) I would say that it could well be a disaster, if they did!
3) I would also say that the Liberal party is finnished for the next twenty or thirty years or so. ( Hopefully. )

[brucewarren]

a) Why not? The do that in Scotland. Every bill has to be individually
negotiated but it can be done. As the largest party they would still have
a mandate.
b) Perhaps, but without the human shield of the Lib Dems to hide behind
they would have no excuses if a policy went wrong. And of course it would
be possible to have a confidence vote. The 55% stitch up would break.
c) Yeah, now we're talking

[greypanther]

You know, I have yet to meet anyone since the general election, who remains a proud supporter of the liberals.

[brucewarren]

There are those who believe that if the lib/lab pact of 1978 had not been
formed to keep a failing and unpopular government in power, the winter of
discontent would never have happened and history would be very different.

The irony of all this is that three years ago the BBC were leading the refrain
"We want a hung parliament, what do we want ..." then we got one and
now we never want to see one again.

I suggest that if an election were called now it would be a straight fight
between conservative and labour with no other party getting a look in. Under
those circumstances the first past the post system would be sufficient to
ensure that one or other party had a real mandate. It's designed for two
parties IMO. It's only the presence of a third that screws it all up.

[greypanther]

First past the post is unfair though. So many, myself included, are completely unrepresented in Parliament.

[brucewarren]

Possibly true, but then no system is going be wholly fair. We just have to
do the best we can. I've seen a version of STV that was a major stitch up
in which the party with the least primary votes could get into office based
on the secondary votes

It can also lead to absurd claims "We got 75% of the vote" "So did we"
"We got 90%" As soon as you have more than 1 vote per person it can
get very silly.

I'm not saying there isn't a better way, but no party is going to propose any
system that favours the other guy, so if a truly fair system is ever invented
it'll never get put forward.

[greypanther]

Its not helped by the fact that there is in fact not a very great deal of differance between the main three. ( Soon two. ) At least from my point of view.

Worse still, what was the turnout at the last general election? Nuff said on that!

Even worse, my vote is completely irrelevant, because I live in a very safe seat.

Out of curiousity, how many people actually voted for the Conservatives last time? Was it 20% or so of those elligible to vote? If so what mandate?

[brucewarren]

A seat is only safe as long as enough people allow it to be. Screw up badly
enough and there will be no safe seats in the country. Admittedly given what
some voters will put up with that takes some doing

Technical mandate. If only 1 person bothers to vote and the guy gets 100%
of the votes cast, that's a mandate. It might not mean much, but it's legal.

As to turnout. That's actually our fault (not us personally - I mean the electorate.)
Governments can faff about with postal votes, mandatory votes, voting age
etc. till the cows come home, but if people can't be bothered to get their
backside down the voting booth, that's one thing we can't blame on the politicians.

I do sympathize about the safe seat though. It's pretty much the same where
I stay, but I still vote. There's always the chance it could swing it.

[Rapier]