YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. It’s the first time YouGov have shown Labour pulling ahead of the Conservatives since just after the first big student protests in November (the one where the building containing Conservative party HQ was invaded).
I’m not sure if this is co-incidence or not – it could be the Labour leads both then and now are the effect of highlighting an unpopular government policy or unhappiness with the government. Alternatively today’s could just be an outlier. Even if it isn’t, there have been so many protests in recent weeks that whenever Labour went ahead there was bound to have been some sort of protest in the days leading up to it.
Meanwhile I’ve had a closer look at the Lib Dem polling from Lord Ashcroft. I am assuming that all this polling is from Populus, who usually do work for Lord Ashcroft, but annoying his report doesn’t seem to actually mention it.The tabs for Lord Ashcroft’s polling aren’t up on his site yet, since the most interesting things will probably be the cross-breaks for lost Lib Dems and retained Lib Dems and the comparison between them. Still looking what’s released so far…
Lord Ashcroft commissioned a poll of 2000 people who voted Liberal Democrat in May in Lib Dem seats – basically those that matter when it comes to defending Lib Dem seats come the next election.
Looking first at peoples reasons for voting Liberal Democrat, the poll asked people to say in their own words why they voted Liberal Democrat (clearly from the numbers people were able to give more than one reason). 34% said they supported Lib Dem policies or values, up to 57% (since people could have fallen into multiple candidates) said they voted for negative reasons – that they didn’t like Labour or the Tories or both, or it was time for a change from them, up to 32% said their local Lib Dem MP was good or there was strong Lib Dem support in their local area.
These answers have both positive and negative sides for the Lib Dems – the proportion who cite reasons like time for a change, not liking the Conservatives or not liking the main parties is very high, and lots of that support will be vulnerable (since the Lib Dems won’t be a change, and will have been in coalition with one of the main parties).
More positive is the high proportion of people who said the main reason for their vote is high regard for their local MP. These voters will presumably be less concerned about the Lib Dem party, though it’s important not to overegg this difference – at the end of the survey the poll asked how people thought they would vote come the 2015 election – while people who said they voted Lib Dem because of their local MP were most loyal to the party, still only 64% said they would vote Lib Dem, compared to 54% overall.
It’s also worth noting that if 46% of Lib Dem voters in Lib Dem seats are saying they are likely not to support the party in 2015, then it suggests that the Lib Dem vote in Lib Dems seats is not behaving drastically differently to elsewhere.
Turning to attitudes to the coalition, about half of 2010 Lib Dem voters who gave an opinion say the Liberal Democrats made the right decision to enter coalition, 21% say they should have gone with Labour with the rest saying they should have remained in opposition. 36% of Lib Dem voters say they wouldn’t have voted Lib Dem at the last election had they known the party was going to enter coalition with the Conservatives.
In most policy areas few 2010 Lib Dem voters thought the presence of the party in the coalition had made the government’s policies better. The highest scoring ones were welfare reform (where 37% thought they had improved policies) and the environment (where 32% thought they had made things better). On tuition fees only 11% thought the Lib Dems had made the policy better, and 49% thought they had made it worse (a bizarre finding. I expect this is actually people expressing their anger over the Liberal Democrat stance on tuition fees, rather than people who actually think the Conservatives on their own would have carried out some tuition fees policy that was closer to their preference).
amber
it seems that it is not nessesry to understand the system entirely to feel that the results are fair
that a party with less than 4% can end up with no representives is seen as fair because of the risk of politics being very fragmented
but the idea that it could be possible for the party with the most votes on a national basis could end up with less seats than other parties is seen as unbeliverble, you and i know that this would never happen in practice(we hope, but this is what clegg was aiming for in may, if the dems had got more votes than lab but less seats then PR would have been inevitable)but people here point to this flaw as soon as the FPTP system is explained
BTW how many people understand the formula that gives regions get more MP’s per head of pop
@Phil
You are correct, the bonus seats in Italy are attributed to the winning coalition (all parties that participate in GE have to be part of a coalition, otherwise they must garner at least 8% to enter the Camera [Parliament]). On the contrary, in Greece the bonus seats are attributed to the first party. If the winner is a coalition of parties, the bonus seats are not attributed, and pure PR is applied (Of course this never happens, because major parties do not form coalitions precisely because they do not want to lose the privilege of bonus seats. If a minor party wants to form a coalition with a major one, this takes place informally, the candidates of the minor party enter the lists of the major one as independents).
The article about unrest in the Tory party is here:
ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8196241/Tories-warn-Cameron-Listen-to-us-or-we-mutiny.html
@M – “[Alec] desperately *wants* it to be true and thats all that counts. I remember the days when he used to try to make out he was some sort of balanced commentator. It was good fun to see but he couldnt control himself and gave up totally about a year ago. Shame.”
Not quite sure where you get this from? I’ve never claimed to be balanced, if by balanced you mean neutral. I’ve never tried to claim to give the Tories and even hand and I’ve always been quite open about being radically left wing. I’ve been quite clear that I do support a party but that it isn’t Labour, and I’ve also been quite clear that a lot of what was said about Brown and Labour was, in my view, nonsense, although I’ve been equally clear on what I think Labour’s failings were (and are).
I have always resisted the urge to go with the prevailing flow, which is what many commentators seem to do these days, and I haven’t done too badly at spotting trends early and being criticised for it. If I say so myself, some people may recall that I predicted Cameron would struggle to get a majority two years before the election when everyone was assuming a Tory landslide. I also said then that his poor relationship with backbenchers would cause him problems in the future, so I’m also going to bask in the glow of that prediction for a few moments.
In terms of the current mess within Tory ranks, this isn’t coming from me. Just why did Tory whips have to threaten new MPs with deselection to get them to vote for a manifesto policy? Something is wrong in Tory parliamentary ranks and all is not well in coalition land.
@Virgilio
Many thanks for that. Although I like the general principle in both of a bonus top up combined with PR, the Italian approach seems better to me than the Greek one. That’s because, after the experience of the last 6 months, it’s apparent that parties need to be honest with the electorate before the election about the coalitions they intend to enter into and on what terms. In Britain we’ve just seen the process of coalition negotiation after the election being used as an excuse to renege on key election pledges. By binding the parties together beforehand, Italy seems to avoid that.
@ Amber Star at 3:17 pm
I think it’s a fair too generous comment
.
The situation is much worse for LibDems. I don’t say that they had much choice between breaking their neck or their head, but they did not manage to play it honourably – Anthony, this is not partisan, only stating that politically the LibDems had no honourable choice. As people they had and they did not choose it, which is OK.
It’s only Labour who can make mistakes that could help (it would take a really talented mistake-maker) the LibDems. No mistakes by the Tories could help, no break up or keeping together the coalition could help. It’s not red or blue corner, it’s the sad corner.
All this talk of the coalition collapsing is just that and wishful thinking for the left. The LibDems know that their seats will go so it just ain’t gonna happen. They also know that AV will more than likeley be in place at the next election. Also with the equalizing of the constituencies, that will make it even harder for Labour to get a majority. I very much doubt [Ed Miliband - AW] will be leading the party at the next election. I think the coalition will be here to stay probably beyond the next election with more Tory and less LibDem Mp’s.
In the Telegraph article that Alec and others have referenced, I’m slightly confused by the reference to the AV and Constituencies Bill, because that’s already at committee stage in the Lords and doesn’t seem to have any substantial changes. To correct Martyn slightly it needs to complete all stages by the end of January or thereabouts to have a chance of the AV referendum being in May, though I think there is an option of having it on another date.
The Telegraph article picked up one point I’d missed, which is that the massive constituency reorganisation required by this rather silly bill gives the Conservative (and other Parties’) central organisations massive potential power over current MPs in terms of finding seats in the chaos. This is of course in addition to the extra power given to the leaderships by its reducing the the number of backbenchers.
I’d always though that the Fixed-term Bill was meant to be passed pretty quickly after the coalition was formed, so I’m surprised it’s so slow going through, especially as it was introduced early. It’s now about to go to report stage in the Commons, so it will probably be passed long before the start of 2012 though. What will be interesting if either rebellious Tory backbenchers or the PM slow it down so they still have the option of doing a cut and run on the Lib Dems.
As far as the potential rebelliousness goes, the Telegraph has long harboured fantasies of the overthrow of the Cameroons and a reestablishment of “real” Tory values. Having said that I suspect that many of the new MPs in particular are restive, partly for personal reasons (those Lib Dems took lots of juicy government jobs that the “A-list” felt they deserved; the new expenses system combines maximum exposure with minimum efficiency) but also political. Many must feel that Cameron “lost” the election that was there for the taking and also that the dream of the “smaller state” is being modified by the influence of the Lib Dems. I suspect Ashcroft’s stirring is linked to similar feelings. Also, having bought the Party, he must feel that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants with it (it’s his toy!).
Attitudes to topics such as Europe, civil liberties and crime and punishment may also be involved; though I’m afraid such attitudes are usually so incoherent and emotional that there is rarely any agreement on what the actual, practical policy should be. Led by their politicians and the Press, a lot of the public have similar confusions (see the current ST poll), though they usual seem to make a bit more sense than their leaders.
@ Alec
“Something is wrong in Tory parliamentary ranks”
Yes and no. Strictly speaking the Conservative Party top is not party, but individuals who on certain main ideological lines agree with each other (and very often with the electors) – this creates many problems, because outside of the main lines the differences can be massive. For these people the similarities come from “nature”, the differences from politics, hence the difficulty for party officials to manage them.
It can be refreshing and can be really blood boiling, but that’s a different matter.
@Alec
” I’ve been quite clear that I do support a party but that it isn’t Labour,”
You intrigue me. What party do you support? I’m not sure you’ve been as clear as you may you think you have been on this because I’d assumed you to be a Labour supporter.
Of course, you’re under no obligation to reveal the party that you support, but most of us who post on here are fairly open about our affiliations and it would be fascinating to know what party a man of the “radical left” would support other than Labour. Also, and again no obligation to reveal more here, but you refer to all “the nonsense talked about Brown and Labour”, and I’d be interested to know what you think this nonsense may have been. Is this “nonsense” from within Labour ranks or are you referring to the “nonsense” from Brown and Labour’s obvious opponents?
It would appear I may have misread you.
Having ‘slept’ on the Ashcroft poll, I see that, once one has discounted the one third who are tactical voters for LD, one does indeed come across a somewhat woolly minded bunch, perhaps lost souls would be a better description..
I always assumed that LD voters would generally be more aware, but the 21% who, as I reported earlier, thought that LD could win outright, disproves that idea. Very depressing.
My concluding feeling was that we need PR soonest and a ‘PR party’ could be the way forward. It looks, from the poll, that such a non-party party for PR ( a movement -see for example the Fairer Votes campaign) could get immense support but I doubt that the news media is capable of embracing the concept. This is what drives the ‘party within a party’ campaign by the Telegraph. The press is wedded to splits as the only political event.
@ Roger
In the build up to the tuiution fees vote I was a little puzzled as to why the Govt were getting worried (timing of the vote etc.) 307 Tories + Lib Dem ministers were easily enough. The mystery was solved by the Tory rebellion which muddied the water. I don’t think for one minute David Davis et al were really opposed but they wanted to put a shot across the Govt bow and at this level I think that indicates serious unrest.
David
I don’t think it’s “wishful thinking by the left” that we’re discussing, but by the right. Because of the enfeeblement of the Lib Dems, many Conservatives feel that they could be guaranteed a freer hand by ditching the Lib Dems – and possibly Cameron. They could rule as a minority government because the Lib Dems would be afraid to trigger a new election in their current state. They feel even an election would give them a chance of an overall majority and couldn’t produce a Labour victory.
Whether this Conservative attitude is correct is irrelevant. It’s certainly plausible and will make the Party in the Commons more restive and less likely to be over-ruled.
If an election happens soon, it will also avoid the new boundaries. I suspect that many Conservative MPs are now realising that the “equalising” of constituencies may not bring much in the way of Party advantage – perhaps taking less than a dozen seats off Labour. For any individual MP however it may put his or her seat at risk, because most of them will have boundary changes. The possibility of re-selection battles (maybe against another sitting MP) and the almost certainty of a lot of extra work will be concentrating a lot of minds. And it’s now too late to do anything about it.
Some of us warned at the time that you should be careful of what you wished for, in case you got it. I suspect the desire to avoid the whole pointless process (which many went through in the last parliament as well), might make quite a few Tory MPs think wistfully of an early election to avoid it.
The Labour Party by the way does not really want an election now. Labour is not financially or organisationally prepared and Ed Miliband’s control over the Party, with many die-hard New Labourites still around, will need time to be established, if it ever can. Furthermore an awful lot of policy U-turns need to made – hence the policy reviews. While they would no doubt love to stop the coalition’s changes in their tracks, the practicalities are against it.
The only advantage that the Lib Dems have is that the unpopular policies have, to some extent, been tied personally to Clegg and a few others, so a leadership change might have some effect. It’s been interesting watching debate in forums such as Lib Dem Voice and Liberal Conspiracy. Some Labour supporters have been saying that Lib Dems should not repeat the mistake they did in leaving the Labour Party in the last decade (membership fell to a third of what it was). Lib Dems should not resign but stay to fight their corner. It’s worth remembering that it only takes motions from 75 Lib Dem constituency parties to trigger a leadership election.
GrahamBC
I was a bit surprised as well by how low the majority was. I think some of it was sincere – someone from a poor background like Davis might feel that such things matter – but a number were from the hard right of the Party. Many potential genuine Tory rebels may also have been mollified by the various concessions that the Lib Dems got, though there’s nothing in legislation with those in yet.
A lot of Conservatives may also be worrying about the “squeezed middle”. After all these are the people who Blair successfully pursued as Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman. If Labour gets a successful narrative going that the Tories are abandoning these people in favour of yet more for the super-rich, things could go very wrong indeed. University fees for their children are something that is going to worry these voters a lot.
One thing that the LD poll shewed was that we have a democratically based government on vote share basis (even when one subtracts the right wing of Con) given that the majority of LD voters were happy with the outcome and that it does represent the vast majority of voters as our correspondent Roland Haines has pointed out.
But it could be ‘cleaner’ in its formation under a different voting system is also clear.
@Phil
Of course the Italian bonus system is one of the best, and it could work very well everywhere, except from Italy itself. You see, after every GE there are so many MPs that switch allegiance, go from one party to the other or create new parties and groups, often among suspicions of “compravendita” (selling and buying of votes), that one loses count. Example: the Berlusconi alliance had in 2008 a comfortable majority (340 MPs out of 630), but now faces a very critical no confidence vote because of a split in the main party, the PDL, and the creation of the FLI by the speaker of the Parliament G. Fini (35 MPs). To compensate for the votes lost with this split, Berlusconi has begun to buy votes from opposition parties (in exchange of loan payment, fiscal exceptions and all sorts of goodies), so there is now a dead heat around 315-315. So if his government collapses, his opponents will introduce a new electoral law, and so on and so forth. In times like these I begin to understand my parents who left Italy for Greece (my father was half-Greek), even though a part of my heart remains irremediably Italian. There are times where I wish I had voting rights in Italy, as I have in Greece and France, but then again I am sick and tired of these games in Italian parliament, one can never be sure if the person that one has voted for will keep his/her allegiance to the end, it is a third-world situation unsuited for a European country.
@ Roger Mexico
I’m slightly confused by the reference to the AV and Constituencies Bill, because that’s already at committee stage in the Lords and doesn’t seem to have any substantial changes.
corrected me.
——————————————————
Yes, that was what sort of confused me too & caused me to conflate the two bills, until Martyn X
Nick Hadley,
No you have not misread Alec. Basically what he is about to tell you is that he believes Gordon Brown is a greatly underrated economic mind that was responsible for great prosperity and little suffering. That the supposed prosperity pre 2007 is in no way connected to the suffering post 2007. And that pre 2007 “prosperity” was the result of Gordons brilliance, and post 2007 was bad luck and little to do with him.
Just think of a bog standard left wing academic economist (net wealth destroyer) along the lines of Krugman, Stiglitz, and terrible “journalists” like Martin Wolf of the FT. He believes the more money government spends, the richer we become. (Almost to the point of making two plus two equal five.) And that as many markets as possible should be interfered with as much as possible because a few hundred idiot politicians and academic advisors in London know best. Which is the standard economics lesson taught in schools and unis around the country. (I believe Gordon Brown is an economics academic too, BTW. Which is, shall we say, not a shocker.)
Fortunately private sector taxpayers (the only group that actually has to fund the government) started to become suspicious of the idea of alchemy in the last year or two, and this group of “economists” have become somewhat marginalised even despite their dire warnings of apocalypse if the government doesnt spend spend spend.
Anthony
What is the British Polling Council situation with semi-private polls like Lord Ashcroft’s? I can’t see the tables for Ashcroft’s previous polls being on Populus’ site – for example the one of Clegg’s and Huhne’s constituencies in October.
Similarly the tables for the ERS poll on AV haven’t appeared on ICM’s site, but instead on that of a third party. (I suspect ERS have a problem with site maintenance at the moment).
Do pollsters not need to put the details on their own sites? They have no control over how or for how long other people will display the information that they have collected for independent scrutiny.
By the way, Ashcroft’s report and tables are now downloadable from his site here:
ht tp://www.lordashcroft.com/news/11122010_whatfuturefortheliberaldemocrats.html
@Roger Mexico
Thanks for the date correction. I read your later post with interest. An early election triggered now by Blue would be suicidal – it would be seen as self-indulgent. So is this the timeline?
* Febrary 2011: the 600 constituencies kick in: any general election after that would be held in the new constituencies
* May 2011: AV ref: if won, any general election after that would be held under AV
* Autumn 2011?: the general election date becomes May 7 2015, regardless of any shenanigans
So:
* A General Election between December 2010 and January 2011 would be held under FPTP and the 650 constituencies
* A General Election between February 2011 and May 2011 would be held under FPTP and the 600 constituencies
* A General Election between June 2011 and Autumn 2011 would be held under FPTP/AV and the 600 constituencies
* A General Election between Winter 2011 and 2015 would require the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
* A General Election 2015 would be held under FPTP/AV and the 600 constituencies
Regards, Martyn
Legislation on this [AV & MP Seat Reductions] must clear Parliament by the end of January to allow for the referendum in May, and is expected to light the touch paper of Tory anger again when it goes before the Lords on its final passage.
“We didn’t want a referendum on AV and we are going to fight this,” said one Tory peer.
———————————————————–
IMO, the Lords rejecting the electoral reform bill (AV, seat reductions) &/or fixed term parliament, would pave the way for them also rejecting the Lords reform without it appearing to be naked self-interest.
I’d think there wouldn’t need to be a great many Tory Peers against this bill because I think most Labour Lords could easily be persuaded to vote against it.
If the Lords kill the bill, would the Coalition survive? I am beginning to think it would. The Dems who are in government soooo desperately want to stay there.
@ M
WTF?! Alec is a very articulate person, he’s perfectly capable of ‘speaking’ for himself.
@Amber,
The Lords can’t kill the bill (Uma Thurman!). They can slow it down by a bit, but that’s as far as it goes. The Commons can force it thru if they want.
Regards, Martyn
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949
@ Martyn
Kill Bill is a great ‘cartoon’.
The Lords need to delay it until around 59 Tories agree to rebel or go MIA on the day of the vote then?
@ Martyn X
It is somewhat confusing, though. Because what is the point of a Tory Peer saying they’ll fight it, if there’s nothing they can do about it.
Similarly:
Meanwhile, the tuition fees legislation is not out of the woods yet. It goes to the Lords this week, where the situation is described as “very tight”.
How can it be “not out of the woods yet”, if the Lords can’t stop or significantly change a bill?
I do my homework; then I read something from a professional political commentator that is at odds with my understanding of the situation. So I assume that, being a professional, they know better than I do.
Martyn
The redrawing of the constituencies would have to be carried out by the various Boundary Commissions. I haven’t checked to see if there is a timetable anywhere associated with the Bill, but it’s expected to take two years at least, even after new staff have been recruited etc. So mid-2013 would be the minimum – before that it would have to be on the old boundaries.
The Lords haven’t got to the Constituencies bit yet (they’re considering it again tomorrow by the way) and they may have all sorts of modifications they want to make which could drag the process out even further and might also make the boundary re-drawing longer (by reinstating the public enquiries for example).
The Lords of course can’t kill off the Bill (or even part of it) but they could delay it for a year or so. But any amendments, for example scrapping the referendum or mucking up the review process, would give the Commons a second bite and rebellious Tories there could agree with the Lords against the Government. They might even produce a Bill that the government no longer wanted and would be forced to withdraw.
@M
Good post with some humour & more than a grain of truth in it.
As for killing the bill in the Lords, certainly they could amend/delay it but they won’t. However should they do so, (on an issue that was in the manifesto, only six months since the election), then I imagine Cameron would enact the Parliament Act. After all it was used by Blair on a totally unimportant issue, not so long ago.
On another matter, doe anyone know what has become of the pledge to bar Scottish, Welsh & NI voting on devolved matters. (The West Lothian question)? Was it lost in the coalition agreement, or is it buried within another bill? I have heard no reference to it for a long time.
@Amber, @Roger Mexico, @Robert in France
Thanks for your replies. I have to go now: something really intellectual (cough, cough) commands my attention (Oh Gawd, Dermot looks rubbish in a dickie bow – woah, Cheryl looks great in red!)
Regards, Martyn
Roger – there is no published timetable for the boundary review, though the boundary commissions have apparently given some indications. Drawing up proposals would start in February once Dec data from all authorities has been gathered. Provisional recommendations will be published in September 2011, meaning the 12 week consultation period will end in December 2011.
The commissions will hopefully then publish final recommendations around the middle of 2012. Given that every previous boundary review has been followed by some sort of legal challenge, there will no doubt be some variety of challenge to this one too, meaning it will be done and dusted by late 2012 or early 2013. I think the government’s aim is to have it done by 2013 so the parties have 2 years to select candidates and get them bedded in for the election.
Note that re-introducing public inquiries shouldn’t make a huge amount of difference to the timing (though the legislation already makes the written consultation period 8 weeks longer, so it would still be longer than at present). The bit of local inquiries that took a long time seemed to be the period assistant commissioners took to digest the inquiry and make a report and the boundary commission to consider and respond to that. None of those bits should change – while in the absence of inquiries the legislation no longer compels the boundary commission to appoint assistant commissioners to examine and report on each area, it’s expected they still will (if nothing else, it would be an impossibly large task for the commissioners to examine all the written submissions for each area with assistant commissioners help.)
(Lord Lipsey has, incidentally, tabled an amendment that would compel the Commission to appoint Assistant Commissioners in each area and publish their reports. It’s a thoroughly good idea and I hope his amendment goes through, but in practice it’s something I think the Commissions are doing voluntarily anyway.)
The major changes in speeding up the process are (1) doing the whole country at once, rather than 3 counties at a time, which is an administrative change and requires no legislative change, just some investment and (2) getting rid of the consultation period for revised proposals (which virtually never made any difference). If the Lords brings that back it would slow things down a bit.
As you say, if fixed term legislation doesn’t go through and there is an early election for some reason, then whatever boundaries are in force at the time are used. If the boundary review is still ongoing, it will be the current ones.
Martyn/Amber
I’ve just checked and it appears clause 1 of the Bill which sets up the referendum and says it must be held on 5 May 2011 has already been passed by the Lords. Of course if later clauses are altered or deleted the thing could still be unworkable.
Robert in France
According to the Coalition Agreement:
• We will establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’. (page 27 point 6)
ht tp://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409088/pfg_coalition.pdf
Anthony
Equally according to the Coalition Agreement we find on the same page:
• We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010
I can’t find any evidence of such a Committee, but the Telegraph article does say that proposals will be brought forward in February. Any idea what’s going on?
Martyn can now try to work out a way of combining election to the Lords with X Factor.
Roger Mexico
The Committee on Lords Reform is a Government committee which is tasked to draw up a draft Bill on the House of Lords by the end of the year. Once published, the draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee. The membership of the Committee is drawn from the front benches of both the Government and main opposition party in the Commons and the Lords. Its membership was announced to the House on 7 June 2010 and was changed to reflect the elections to the Shadow Cabinet which took place in the autumn.
The membership is now as follows
•
Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister (Chair);
•
Mark Harper, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform;
•
Sir George Young, Leader of the House of Commons;
•
David Heath, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons;
•
Hilary Benn, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons;
•
Sadiq Khan, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice;
•
Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the House of Lords;
•
Lord McNally, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords;
•
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, gave details of the Committee during the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 7 June 2010:
Roger –
No, the Lord’s accepted Lord Rooker’s amendment to that clause. It now says the referendum will be held on a date before 31st October. So it could still be held on 5th May, but the government has the option to choose another date if they see fit (Rooker’s argument for the amendment was that it gave the government sufficient freedom that if the bill was tied up in its passage and ended up not passing in good time for a 5th May referendum, the government would then have the freedom to have the referendum on a slightly later date).
On the Lords reform, I think the government’s timetable on it has slipped a bit. I spoke to my old university tutor Lord Norton a couple of months back (who obviously has a great interest in these sort of things) and his impression was that it wouldn’t turn up this year.
@Roger Mexico
Many thanks
Mike
Thanks for that. I couldn’t find anything about it on a quick google (which of course was clogged up with the debris of previous efforts to reform the Lords) and the Wikipedia article had no mention of it.
There seem to have been no consultations public or within the Parties. Indeed even when I searched with the title you gave me the first links that came up were all to the 2002 process or earlier. The only relevant reference I could find was on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s site!
Anthony
Thanks – I heard it had been changed but the text on the Parliament.uk still has the fixed date.
@Nick Hadley – “You intrigue me. What party do you support? I’m not sure you’ve been as clear as you may you think you have been on this because I’d assumed you to be a Labour supporter.”
I tired of the nonsense that everything pre 1997 was lovely and evil Gordon destroyed eveything and ate babies. I’ve always said Labour did many good things, but had striking failures too. I guess my reputation was forged back in the days when this blog was almost entirely Tory and someone had to try to point out the rabid Labour hating was a bit over the top. The bottom line is that Labour was the best alternative at the time.
I deliberately haven’t stated which party I support because it inevitably pigeon holes me in people’s minds. Besides – I disagree with my party on many of their policies, but they are the best long term bet in my view.
I’ve been surprised no one’s guessed, but I’ll keep it going a while longer if you don’t mind.
@M – “No you have not misread Alec. Basically what he is about to tell you is that he believes Gordon Brown is a greatly underrated economic mind that was responsible for great prosperity and little suffering. That the supposed prosperity pre 2007 is in no way connected to the suffering post 2007. And that pre 2007 “prosperity” was the result of Gordons brilliance, and post 2007 was bad luck and little to do with him.
Just think of a bog standard left wing academic economist (net wealth destroyer)”
M – I don’t normally respond in such a manner, but you’re talking total b*ll*cks. Instead of mouthing off about other people, try actually reading what they post.
If you bothered to read my posts over the years you would have noted that I’m a company director, running the private sector company I established, with a small workforce seeing a 60% rise in turnover during the worst recesssion since the 1930s and sending in a hefty tax bill to the exchequer on the back of lots of hard work by me and my staff.
Left wing academic economist my *rse.
If you had bothered to read my posts on Brown you would also know that among other things, I have criticised him for spending too much from around 2004 – 2008, creating too much complexity and for failing to shift taxation from income and earnings to assetts and wealth, along with many other failings.
I did take the view that public services have got a lot to thanks Labour for after 13 years, but I have repeatedly questioned the value for money achieved.
As for the pre 2007 prosperity – I’ve said on several occasions that we can thank the Chinese for that. I do think Brown did well during the actual crisis – much better than Cameron would have managed – but I don’t absolve him from some responsibility for it, although the origins go much wider and deeper than him alone.
If you’re ever looking for a job, don’t bother applying to my company. I only employ people who try to understand things before they comment on them.
@Robert in France – “On another matter, doe anyone know what has become of the pledge to bar Scottish, Welsh & NI voting on devolved matters. (The West Lothian question)? Was it lost in the coalition agreement, or is it buried within another bill? I have heard no reference to it for a long time.”
It was only ever touted in terms of Scottish MPs as I recall, and was never an actual policy for the Tories. Funnily enough, all talk of this this seemed to disappear shirtly after Cameron signed a formal pact with the Ulster Unionists.
Isn’t that odd?
alec
i’ve always suspected you of being green, i’ve been imagining you with a long unkempt beard and moses sandals. i also thought that your company might be making windmills
i think M has set off a new game “guess the party of alec”
Alec,
If you really are the person you describe, then I have made a terrible mistake and I apologise. The person I am thinking of is an academic. An economics professor with the belief that government spending has gravity defying characteristics. And I was convinced this person was named Alec. And your opinions were (supposedly) so similar it was “clear” you were one and the same. Given it is not so, it is a terrible failing of my memory and again Im sorry.
I wish this site had some sort of search function. I was so sure. Id like to see how I got it so wrong.
I wont be recalling anything from the past any more or making any witness statements to the police or anything.
Good of you to still offer me a job after all that though. Incredibly decent. CVs in the post. Thx.
I must admit I do remember being completely shocked a little while back reading a post where Alec almost… almost… came out against the UKs continued membership of the EU. And that it wouldnt take a whole lot more for the balance of his opinion to change. I guess that should have been my first clue that I had him confused with someone else. Unless my memory is wrong again and that wasnt him either…
@ M
And at this point M’s hand gently slipped in the potty and he continued his sweet dreams…
I’m really sorry… I was reading something else…
Amberstar
“It is somewhat confusing, though. Because what is the point of a Tory Peer saying they’ll fight it, if there’s nothing they can do about it.”
Weesht lass! You have just undercut the entire Labour strategy for the May elections.
“Alec – I’ve been surprised no one’s guessed, but I’ll keep it going a while longer if you don’t mind. ”
I know what party Alec supports, but then, I have the benefit of being able to google his email address. My lips are sealed!
@ ALEC
I agree with you,’isn’t that odd’
As a blue I’m afraid I never did understand why Cameron wooed the Unionists, when there was so little to gain – there was more to gain by being neutral in NI in my view.
On the guessing game as to your party, from the clues of: radical, left, eurosceptic..(according to M). I would go for Mr Scargill’s party – The Socialists Labour Party, set up, I think after Blair got rid of Clause 4.
@M – “If you really are the person you describe, then I have made a terrible mistake and I apologise.”
Accepted. I think I know who you refer to and I accept is can be quite easy to confuse posts and posters sometimes.
I also would have preferred not to employ such fruity language so apologise to you (and AW) for that. Temporary frustration – nothing more, but still not acceptable.
@robert in France – Eurosceptic yes, pro Socialist Labour certainly not, but your earlier post was bang on the money (apart from the beard and sandals – no facial hair, shaven headed crew cut, I’ve got half a cow on order from one of my neighbours farms and I like boxing).
I disagree with much of Green Party policy but I am a member. Once you say this though on a forum like this it can be hard for people to accept your posts without assuming you represent your party, but there you go – you all know now.
@Alec
I think you have credited me with saying Green, however that was in fact Richard in Norway.
ALEC
Interesting that you are eurosceptic AND green. Green seems to chime with strongly pro-Europe in my consciousness.
Are you an exception, or is the view different from the inside?
BT Says…
I think Green party policy is very-Eurosceptic (they are opposed to the single currency, and want the EU to have powers in far fewer areas), so Alec may not be that unusual!
Thanks AW
Is this general of greens across Europe, or just the UK breed?
Buggered if I know! Ask Alec
“Buggered if I know! Ask Alec”
That’s exactly what I wanted to avoid…
I’ve no idea either. I get the impression most Euro Greens are more pro EU but I really don’t know.