Lord's Reform and equal marriage: A reminder for the Conservatives

Whilst I was trying to be connected to the Inside Politics studio at BBC Radio Ulster I heard the chair of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party, Irwin Armstrong, say that nobody wants Lord's reform. It was a sentiment also expressed by Nadine Dorries MP on ConservativeHome earlier today.

May I just refer them and all other members of the Conservative party who think like that to page 67 of the Conservative Party Manifesto in 2010.b Where it says:

"We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence."

So you see this isn't a matter of the coalition agreement, this was in both parties' manifestos, as well as that of Labour. If Tories are calling this back they are calling back their own manifesto pledge.

Then there is the issue of equal marriage again raised by both Mr Armstrong and Ms Dorries. In the Conservative's Contract for Equality published on the Monday of election week in 2010 it said:

"We will ... consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."

So again though not in their manifesto, although in a last ditch addition, it was something that the current Home Secretary signed off on and spoke highly off in the campaign. Irwin Armstrong may not have seen a need to change the word to marriage, but his Home Secretary does, the reason is equality.

Equality because people out there don't see Civil Partnerships as legal. Guesthouse landlords think they can turn away legally partnered couples because they are not 'married'. There is a difference which unfortunately homophobes will continue to attack so long as the language is different. Labour failed to make things totally equal, even though the rights are there, because they failed to deal with people's prejudices by creating room for another one.

I'd just like to thank Mark Devenport and his production team for trying to get me on to the show this afternoon to put the Lib Dem point of view against the Labour and Conservative ones. Sadly timing and technical issues made this not possible today.

Paddy on Lord's Reform

Sometimes there is a contributer to a debate that makes so much sense and makes the arguements so well you don't need to add comment. Therefore I think I merely need to give you the words of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, or just plain Paddy to most of us, from the debate in the House of Lords on Lords' Reform yesterday.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; in my enthusiasm to get at the arguments, I attempted to barge in ahead of him. That was not my intention and I hope that he will accept my apology.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that in a democracy the minority is always right. That thought has given me much comfort over the years as a Liberal, and it appears that it will have to give me comfort in this debate as well. I spent an engaging hour and a half yesterday in the House of Lords Library, looking through opposition speeches made in December 1831 to the Great Reform Act 1832 and to the Reform Act 1867. Five arguments were put forward. The first was: there is no public call for such reform beyond those mad radicals of Manchester. The second was: we should not be wasting our time and money on these matters; there are more important things to discuss such as the Schleswig-Holstein problem, the repeal of the corn laws or the crisis in the City that caused Anthony Trollope to write his wonderful novel.

A noble Lord: Not in 1832.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: No, but in 1867.

The third argument, which was put so powerfully—indeed, in bloodcurdling terms—by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, was that if we were to embark on this constitutional terra incognita, the delicate balance of the constitution would collapse around us; mere anarchy would rule upon the world.

The fourth argument put forward in those debates was, “No, no, let us not disturb the quiet groves of wisdom within which we decide the future of the nation by letting in the rude representatives of an even ruder republic. God knows what damage we shall do if such a thing should happen”. The last and fifth argument was the argument actually used by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, just a moment ago: “if it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”.

Those are the arguments that were put forward against the 1832 Act, the 1867 Act, the 1911 Act—every single reform that we have ever had—and they are the arguments that are being put forward now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Perhaps I might explain before I come to the substance of the argument.

The first argument is that there is no public interest in this matter. Of course there is not; it is our business, not the public’s. The public have made it very clear that they do not trust our electoral system in its present form. Is there anyone in this Chamber who does not realise that the dangerous and growing gap between government and governed that is undermining the confidence in our democracy must be bridged? It must be bridged by the reform and modernisation of our democratic institutions, and we have a part to play in that too. This is not about what the public want, it is about us putting our House in order.

The second issue is that there are more important things to discuss. I do not think so. Frankly, we have been very fortunate to have lived through the period of the politics of contentment. The fragility of our democratic system has not been challenged because the business of government and democracy has been to redistribute increasing wealth. If we now come to the point at which we must redistribute retrenchment, difficult decisions, hard choices, I suspect it will come to something rather different, as we see on the streets of Greece today and as we saw on the streets of London not very long ago. This is very important.

The third is that we are embarking on a constitutional journey into terra incognita. Of course we are. We do not have a written constitution in this country. I wish we did, but we are told that the genius of our constitution is that it is unwritten, that it responds to events, that it develops, that it takes its challenges and moves forward. Oliver Cromwell did not have to say, “We will delay the Civil War until we have worked out the proper constitutional relationship between Parliament and the King”. In 1832 they did not say, “Let us hold this up until we have decided what proper constitutional balances would be achieved”. If you believe in the miracle of the unwritten constitution, you must believe that our constitution will adapt. You cannot argue that that is a good thing and then say that we cannot move forward unless we know precisely and in exact detail what will happen next. Of course this will change the balance between us and the other Chamber. It will not challenge the primacy of the other Chamber, but it will challenge the absolute supremacy of the other Chamber—that is called check and balance.

The fourth argument is that this will disturb the gentle climate of wisdom in this place. I have no doubt that there is unique wisdom here, although I have to say that I do not believe it is necessarily evenly distributed—maybe in some places it is, but not everywhere. However, I am not persuaded that there is less wisdom in the 61 second chambers that are elected, that there is less wisdom in the Senate of the United States, or the Sénat in France or the Bundesrat in Germany. I do not believe that the business of election will produce less wisdom than we have here now—rather the contrary. It is not wisdom that we lack; it is legitimacy. My old friend, Lord Conrad Russell—much missed—used to say, “I would happily exchange wisdom for legitimacy”, and I will tell your Lordships why.

This is where we come to the final point—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd: “If it ain’t broke, let’s not fix it”. It is broke; it is broke in two fashions. First, our democracy now and our institutions of democracy in this country do not enjoy the confidence of our people in the way they did. That confidence is declining. We have to be part of the reform that reconnects politics with people in this country. If we do not, our democratic institutions will fall into atrophy and may suffer further in the decline of the confidence of the people of this country. If noble Lords do not realise that, they do not realise just how difficult the current situation is in Britain.

We in this Chamber cannot leave this to others to do. We must be part of that reform, modernisation, reconnection and democracy. It is said that this House does its job as a revising Chamber well. So it does. It is allowed to revise, change, amend legislation, but is it allowed to deal with the really big things? It does the small things well, but is it constructed in a way that would prevent a Government with an overwhelming majority in the other place taking this country to an unwise and, as we now know, probably illegal war? No, it would not because it did not. I cannot imagine that the decision to introduce the poll tax and the decision to take this country to war would have got through a Chamber elected on a different mandate and in a different period, or if there had been a different set of political weights in this Chamber from the one down the other end.

The truth of the matter is that we perform the function of a revising Chamber well, but that is not our only function. We are also part of the checks and balances in this country. The fact that we do not have democratic legitimacy undermines our capacity to act as a check and balance on the excessive power of the Executive backed by an excessive majority in the House of Commons. That is where we are deficient and what must be mended.

The case is very simple to argue. In a democracy, power should derive from the ballot box and nowhere else. Our democracy is diminished because this place does not derive its power from democracy and the ballot box but from political patronage—the patronage of the powerful. Is it acceptable in a democracy that the membership of this place depends on the patronage of the powerful at the time? We are diminished in two ways. We are diminished because we do not perform the function that we need to perform of acting as a check and a balance on the Government, and we do not do so because we are a creature of the Government’s patronage. I cannot believe that noble Lords find that acceptable in this Chamber .

A noble Lord: Time.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me, I will finish now. I have already strained my time but I ask for patience. The Leader of the House is right. We have spent 100 years addressing reform in this House. It is time to understand why that is necessary—both to make our place in modern democracy and to fulfil our proper function to provide a check and balance on an Executive who may get too powerful. We turned our hand to this 100 years ago; it is time to finish it now.

Why we need to elect the Lords - Bryant stumbles into a Labour induced reason

Earlier today it seems that Labour MP Chris Bryant's objection to a fair, egalitarian House of Lords, based on the result of the election result left him standing there in just his underpants. Oops, that's another thing altogether.

However, here is what he said in Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister:

The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords

"with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."

There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium? 

Now when the New Labour regime first got elected, with the most sizable majority of ANY Labour Government they promised to reform the Lords and get an elected element to it. In thirteen years, including a second term with the second highest majority of Labour members, the only elected element they managed to secure for the Lords was the remaining hereditary peers. 

What they did do was lead to the inflation of the size current second chamber, which of course was to bring it more into line with the votes of the people in the previous three general elections. The moratorium in appointed more peers would keep a disproportional number of Labour peers to their popularity in the last General Election.

Here is Nick Clegg's response:

Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords. 

So yes for thirteen years the only Lords Reform that Labour brought about was to largely get rid of the hereditary element, down to 92. Ironically if there hadn't been by elections to replace this number with fresh blood there would be only 78 hereditaries remaining. There are 512 creations of Life Peers since 1997 who are still alive, this is more than the 465 (187 of whom are still alive) who were in the House then. 830 Peers now compared to 616 (taking the Life plus 92 Hereditaries, 26 Spiritual and 26 Law Lords as of 1997).

As both Nick said and I agree, the fact that more 'appointments would currently be need to rectify 13 years of Labour creation of peers shows just why we need to Reform the Lords and do it NOW!

We'd rather be led by aristocats

Everyone on has them the Uncle or Aunt you really want to lock away at parties, preferable not in the same room as your storing the booze. The Duchess of Cambridge had hers on best behaviour at her wedding, the Duke managed to keep his Aunt well out of the way, although her daughters' headware almost stole the show, thankfully saved by his new sister-in-law's derrière.

Well today it is the turn of Sir William Dugdale 2nd Baronet the maternal uncle of another attendee at that wedding the Prime Minister.Today he is telling the Telegraph that the people prefer to be led by an aristocrat. After all as a friend pointed out cats are developing opposable thumbs.

"The thing is, and the Labour Party underestimate it, but, if you ask the working classes who they want to lead them, they prefer to be led by a duke.

"I know it’s an unpopular thing to say these days, however I have learnt this from my own experience."

He was launching his own memoirs, Settling the Bill, and probably was chairman during Jasper Carrott's nadir years as a Birmingham City supporter of cross city rivals Villa. Of course Ron Saunders who had led Villa most of the way there resigned in February 1982 mere months before Villa lifted the European Cup for the only time due to a disagreement with the Club about his salary. Clearly he didn't like being led by a particular aristocat.

Sir William further says that his nephew shouldn't be ashamed of his association with the white ties and tails of the Bullington Club, of which Sir William himself, despite also being an Old Etonian wasn't invited. What he did do instead was join protests with Bullington members....against the Trade Unions.

Yeah you heard it there right. The man advocating that the working classed should be led by a Duke was making war against the labour movement that had fought to give them some rights that had been lacking for centuries if not millennia.

Probably the 2nd Baronet is biting out against the Lord's Reform Bill.

By the way the last time the UK was lead by a Duke was 34 days in 1834 when the Duke of Wellington was the provisional leader of his second brief stint.

A closer look at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Since I blogged earlier about the draft House of Lord Reform Bill I've decided to look further into it.

First of all is what was said in the programme for government:

"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. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers."

The committee met 7 times from June to December, reached agreement on a large number of issues, but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system.

So it is those two differences which may seem minor but are quite major as far as laying out primary legislation goes. The draft Bill is laying out that 80% of the second chamber be elected (this is in line with Conservative thinking) but leaves open the scrutiny of an 100% elected chamber in line with the coalition agreement (and indeed the Liberal Democrat manifesto). The system used for elected that system is laid out as Single Transferable Vote (in line with Lib Dem manifesto) but allows for scrutiny of other electoral systems such as a open list system (which the Conservatives and indeed Labour may well prefer).

The electoral system dilemma

 Looking at the electoral system first. STV electing multiple members in a constituency allows the people to choose on their preferences by their own preferences. Bearing in mind that some of the people who prefer the open list system said that they thought AV was a complex system, clearly don't understand how much more complex the open list is.

AV has one quota, 50% of the valid votes in whichever round you are in. There are two quotas in the open list. The first is the quota for acquiring a seat in that constituency. This will determine how many quotas and therefore seats are gained by each party.

The second is the quota within the list, this is first ranked by the party, but then there is a quota for the number of first preferences within that list. Any candidate who personally gains that number of preferences will be elected. If the number of seats are not filled then the empty seats will be filled by order on the list.

Let's say that this party secures 5,000 votes, the quota is 1,000 vote so therefore they secure 5 seats. Say the requirement for being elected off the list is 25% of a quota or else 25 votes.

• Candidate #1 3,500
• Candidate #2 65
• Candidate #3 75
• Candidate #4 450
• Candidate #5 175
• Candidate #6 200
• Candidate #7 350
• Candidate #8 35

Candidates 1,4 and 7 are elected from the list. Candidates 6 and 5 have the next highest first preferences but because they FAILED to  reach the quota it is back to the ordering of the list. Therefore candidates 2 and 3 fill up the remaining seats.

Therefore if the open list system is adopted at the behest of the people who told you AV would let losers into Westminster via a too complex system you will see just what hypocrites they are. STV is the system that like AV leaves the real, indeed only power, in the hands of the voters. Even bigger losers could get elected under an open list system, someone might actually hypothetically get no votes on the open list yet because of their placing by the party still get elected.

The size of the elected element

The number is set at 300 members (plus instead of 26 just 12 ex officio Lords Spiritual). However, whether that 300 is fully elected of just 240 of them are is an important issue. If the latter there are 20 seats that are up for appointment by the Prime Minister at the time of each election (bear in mind both the election to the 'Lords' and the Commons will be occuring at the same time). It may not sound like much until you think if one party wins each of the three elections that make up the terms. They would have, persumably a majority of the elected 2nd chamber and then have the appointments as well. It could well give the push over the 50% majority of seats in the second chamber, those extra 60 seats, that would be harder to achieve under a purely proportional system without any remaining appointments.

It is clear therefore that both the systems preferred by the Conservatives are actually the parties trying once again to grasp and retain as much power as they think they can get away with. Appearing to be progressive at one hand but giving themselves just enough retention of control to get who they want into the 2nd chamber.

Complementing the House of Commons

There is a section in the draft bill that talk about the second chamber complimenting the House of Commons, still deemed to be the primary chamber that the second chamber.

It says:

• A long term for members of three normal Parliaments;
• A single non-renewable term;
• An appointed element (in an 80% elected House of Lords)
• A different voting system for elections to the reformed House of Lords from that used for elections to the House of Commons.

Whoa!! I've just spotted something. That final phrase in a bill that comes to life after the AV referendum for the House of Commons. Remember the No 2 AV team tried to persuade some people, like the Unionist Parties here or some PR supporters that if they vote no to AV they are saying yes to PR. This Bill would seem to rule out the same sort of PR at any point in the future for the two houses.

This means that if we get STV for the second chamber you can wave that goodbye for the Commons. That is not what the Lib Dems, Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin or certain Unionist parties stood for in the Westminster elections. Nor is it why those parties supported the AV referendum. Failed though it may have been they have all said they will carry on the fight for reform.

More thoughts to come perhaps

There are 174 pages of the proposed Bill, but just are just some of my initial thoughts....for now.

It's only taken a century but we're getting to Elect the Lords

For a number of years on 10 August many bloggers, including myself, have remember the 1911 Parliament Act which stated:

"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."

Well it hasn't been immediate but  yesterday there was progress in a draft House of Lords Reform Bill which says:

• a reformed House with 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three parliaments
• elections using the single transferable vote (STV), electing a third of members each time with elections normally taking place at the same time as General Elections
• multi-member electoral districts, to be drawn up independently based on national and county boundaries
• a continuation of the presence of Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords, reducing their number from 26 to 12
• a transition staggered over the course of three electoral cyclesThe White Paper sets out three different options for the transition period and acknowledges that the case can be made for other proportional representation systems including the open list. The draft Bill and White Paper are clear the powers of the reformed House of Lords will remain the same, with it continuing to provide scrutiny and expertise, complementing the work of the Commons.

Apart from the retention of the Lords Spiritual (even at reduced numbers) this would appear to be a fully elected second chamber. The issue of their Lordship Spiritual is that they are not chosen by popularity but would be annointed appointedby some Bishop's Court no doubt, or at lest the 10 lesser places will be as I assume the two Archbishoprics of Canterbury and York would lay claim to two seats.

The Government yesterday stated that

"The draft Bill sets out firm proposals, while the White Paper considers alternative options on which the Government remains open-minded.

"The Government is committed to a wholly or mainly elected chamber and both options are reflected in what is published today.

"The draft Bill illustrates how a reformed House of Lords with 80 per cent of elected members could look, with the remaining 20 per cent appointed independently to sit as cross-benchers. Alongside this, the White Paper sets out the case for a 100 per cent elected chamber."

The 80 per cent figure mentioned is a pandering to the Conservatives who unlike Labour or the Lib Dems only promised a "mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords". I'm hoping that the other two main parties with otther of the smaller parties will join forces to ensure that the 100% figure is succcessful.

The three term limit, and the election largely at the same time with the genreal elections means that there will be a 15 year limit on their Lordships, or whatever they may be called, sitting in the Upper Chamber. Electing in thirds by STV will ensure that this chamber should always manage to be a chamber with no overall control and therefor maintain its legislative reforming role that it currently does without hyperinflation of the number of members.

It may have taken a hundred years, hopefully it won't be another hundred years before this substitution is madee. It should be complete within 14 years time. The will of this government must now be to get this change through both Houses so that the reform we have long be waiting for will come about.

The one downside is that here we will have Tories saying that is ok to elect one third of the members of the Houses of Parliament by a proportional system, one which isn't first past the post, just shortly after they were saying that the Alternative Vote was an unBritish way to do things.

If a Lord were to pass away, how would they be replaced, would there be a by-election in that constituency? If there were an STV seat by-election for a single position that is actually an Alternative Vote election, much like we currently have for by-elections for the 'hereditary' positions in the Lords.

A Future Free from Lords

So Jack Straw is wanting us to believe him when he says that Labour will replace the House of Lords with a full elected chamber. Let's look at what Labour promised as far as some of the reform pledged in 1997, bear in mind they have had a clear majority to do all of this since then (my notes in red).

A modern House of Lords

The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. Well apart from the 92 that remain. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. Well after 13 years failing to complete stage one what ever next. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered.

The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. This has improved. We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.

A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform.

We have no plans to replace the monarchy.

An effective House of Commons

We believe the House of Commons is in need of modernisation and we will ask the House to establish a special Select Committee to review its procedures. Prime Minister's Questions will be made more effective. Surely a measure of effectiveness is the answers the PM gives, I say failure. Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses. The process for scrutinising European legislation will be overhauled.

The Nolan recommendations will be fully implemented and extended to all public bodies. We will oblige parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure: Done. Labour does this voluntarily and all parties should do so. Foreign funding will be banned. Not from Non-Doms it would appear. We will ask the Nolan Committee to consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed.

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system. They took to 2010 to recommend anything to the house, apparently without consultation.

At this election, Labour is proud to be making major strides to rectify the under-representation of women in public life.

Open government

Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions. The Scott Report on arms to Iraq revealed Conservative abuses of power. So now we have Labour abuses of power with a second Iraq war. We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, But there will be delays in making MPs subject to such legislation on their expenses. leading to more open government, and an independent National Statistical Service. Unless drugs stats disagree with government policy for example.

So what now do we trust that they'll put this into place over the next 5 years?

Few Tools Beyond the Brute Force of Political Edict

So what do Labour do to get things done? We according to 60 Whitehall's senior officials they have 'few tools beyond the brute force of political edict'.

Indeed the findings for the Institute for Government also say that despite their grip on power there is a "conspicuous lack of a single coherent strategy for government". Indeed they call for a radical shake up of Whitehall if it is to function after the election, whoever is in power. As Nick Clegg has been saying recently the old ways are not working, they need to chance, even the Civil Servants are saying that, not a phrase we often heard Sir Humphrey saying in Yes Minister.

In the report Shaping Up: A Whitehall for the Future there is a damning assessment of Labour.

• Downing Street lacks a coherent strategy and is reduced to issuing "barmy ideas" as it squabbles with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Giving No 10 greater powers would inflict only more harm on the country.
• Ministers have lost their grip: "The machine is starting to pull away from them. There is a sense that you are at the end of an era."
• The Treasury has given up on its duty to control public spending because it has been "hijacked and turned into a social policy department, a welfare department, a reducing international debt department, an everything-under-the-sun department".

Indeed in the anonymous interviews with senior civil servants many of whom have served through all 13 years of Labour Government the director-general of one department said:

"What comes out of No 10 is lots of barmy ideas. It’s the worst possible kind of policy making, which is ‘here is a problem, let’s have a kneejerk reaction to it tomorrow on what we’re going to announce’ and quite frankly the less contact with No 10 the better."

Well Liberal Democrats have been saying for a while that Labour are thinking on the hoof. One example was their reaction to MPs expenses. Many of the things that Labour came up with in the interim do not make sense and lack the transparency that the public demand. For example the daily subsidence allowance is a flat rate, it is not based on the actual expense of things required. Jo Swinson told us the story last year of how post scandal she wanted to make claims for incidental food whilst travelling out of her offices etc which came to less than one day's allowance. The fees office wouldn't have it and asked her to claim for the 6 days in question in full!!!

They rejected Nick Clegg's call to discuss this, and indeed far reaching reforms. Reforms that would include reforming parts of Whitehall. Cameron of course wants to make change in Whitehall as well, however he merely wants to cut it incredibly without looking at functionality, indeed he is hinting that certain functions will be 'best' (in his opinion) carried out by being put to private tender. Don't think that is what the report is looking for in reform either when it says of the current set up.

"The fragmentation and lack of co-ordination at the centre of the civil service — the Treasury, No 10 and the Cabinet Office — leads to an administrative centre that is relatively weak. This curious situation has created a strategic gap at the heart of British government which inhibits the ability to set overall government priorities and translate them into action."

So if Labour live in the mess, and the Conservatives merely want to hive the responsibilities out, is this the way to reform governance. As Nick Clegg said on BBC's Hardtalk last week:

"David Cameron talks about change, but none of the Conservative MPs who avoided capital gains tax or made huge profits flipping their homes were forced to resign. He promised to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs but then the Conservatives voted against a law that would do just that. They have made it clear they will block attempts to make the voting system fair. They walked out on cross-party talks on party funding and refused to cap donations.

"Labour promised to clean up politics and make it fair but they failed. They wouldn't even push through reform after the expenses scandal. They went back on their promise to change the voting system.

"They failed to make the House of Lords elected and accountable to voters. They failed to clean up party funding because they rely on the unions. And they blocked attempts to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs. Labour will never change the political system."

So what is on offer to shape up Government. Again Nick said:

"We [Lib Dems] will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties."

There will also be plans to reform Whitehall it is part of the efficiency savings we've been crying out for since the start of the banking crisis reared its head. We recognise that of course Government departments serve a purpose but there are parts of it that need a shake up and some of the quangos are just a way to feather nests of those who want to influence. Government whatever its size isn't of itself bad which the Tories seem to think (i.e. Big is bad) but how it functions is important. That is the difference. That is real change.

Make It So - The Reforming Queen's Speech

The Labour Pre-Manifesto Queen's speech is being attacked in today's Independent by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg as a "waste of everyone's time" over the next 70 days of Government sitting before a General Election is called. Merely acting as window dressing for a lot of what Labour want to do beyond the date of the poll.

Here then is what Nick and the people want want to hear when she takes her speech out of the pouch on the throne in the Lords on Wednesday.

My Government would like to apologise to the my subjects for the way it has flagrantly mistreated them, and their money, over their expenses claims. They have listened to One's subjects are will be putting together a programme of wide sweeping reform to remedy this lack of trust, accountability and transparency before they come to One ready to go to the people in the spring.

Over the next seventy days my Government will start by enacting all the proposals of the Kelly Commission without exception. (gasps from those standing at the rear of the chamber). Oh yes you will. (aside: Can One still send them to the Tower?) As many as can be will be in place immediately shall be, the remainder will be enabled ready to come into effect on the resumption of the next Parliamentary session.

My Government realises though that the Kelly Commission report is merely a way of capturing the horse after it has bolted, so is proposing with the rest of Parliaments time to shore up the stable and paddock as well, so that the temptation or ability to bolt in this way is not presentable again to its members.

Therefore My Government will bring to both Houses legislation to curb the power of the whips offices, enabling more power to be placed in the hands of back bench MPs and therefore those of One's subjects whom they represent. Further to this they will present a Bill to set the length of each subsequent Parliament Term to occur on the first Thursday of may every four years thereafter, thus removing the ability of my Government to benefit from a favourable mood in the nation, something which their monarch has never had the ability so to do.

Legislation will also be brought before both Houses to install a Member's code of conduct, including an independent commission to adjudicate on members maintaining of said code. They will then also move a Bill that any Member in serious breach of the code, can when one in ten of their electorate deem fit face a recall election, in which they are entitled to stand either with the backing of their party, or falling that as an independent and any who choose to challenge them on their record.

This brings my Government to the part of how such elections will be carried out. Firstly by the end of this session my Government will pass a Bill to fully elect the House of Lords. The current Life Peers will take on the title of Working Peers. Each party representation will decide amongst their current Membership, by lot, three thirds measures of their membership. Their representation will be distributed evenly dependent on electorate across geographical areas in line with the European Election regions. The first third will present themselves to the public in 2012, for election for six years, the subsequent thirds in 2014 and 2016. The same rules of Code of Conduct and for procedure when they are breached shall also apply to One's Working Peers.

Finally my Government proposes to bring legislation to this place and the other place that all elections to seats in this Palace will be contested by proportional representation, using a Single Transferable Vote, for multi-member wards. The first for working peers will be in place in 2012, and the Boundary Commission with draw up 5-6 members constituencies for the lower chamber in time for the election that shall occur on the first day of May in the year of our Lord 2014 D.V. which may be the sixty-second year of One's reign if One is spared.

All this shall come to be for the sake of One's subjects, for sake of restoring trust in My Government and My Opposition and all who deem to represent the people of this United Kingdom in these places.

(At the point Her Majesty adjusted the royal robes, leaned forward slightly in the throne and looked down the chamber to where the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Rt. Hon Nick Clegg and other leaders were standing. Looking them in the eye she raised her right hand and pointed the four fingers in their direction) Make it so, number ones.

Update: See also Stephen Tall's reflections at Lib Dem Voice.

Mary Honeyball, are you aware of what reform is or aren't you?

Maybe Mary Honeyball MEP wants a nice cosy soundbite, like wot Gordon gave her in Brighton last week, when she wrote for LabourList 'Nick, are you committed to reform or aren't you?'. Too busy to read all 92 pages of Nick's pamphlet the Liberal Moment.

Maybe she was too busy trying to get elected to hear Nick Clegg calling for deep and serious reform before the summer recess. A far deeper reform than her dear leader was willing to offer in the speech that apparently was changing key themes up to 1:30 on the morning it was made.

Maybe, most worryingly, she doesn't know that reform is, this history of her own party to fail to deliver, or maybe like so many in the Labour Party she just doesn't get it.

To save you time Mary all you need to read to see that Nick is pages 45-49 of the Liberal Moment. Or maybe look at what the Lib Dems did in Scotland delivering on electoral reform into the programme of Government after only 4 years as a minor partner to a larger party. When after 12 years of a large majority Labor has failed to meet its 1997 pledges to bring about a fully elected House of Lords or the promise of electoral reform.

Nick outlines what true reform is, in those few short pages. He points out that the only more centralised Government system is Europe is in a place with fewer people than the Borough of Croydon, and that being Malta. Yet 16 years ago the great Labour hope, no not Blair but John Smith said:

"I want to see a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and te state - a shift away from an overpowering state to a citizens' democracy where the people have rights and powers and where they are served by accountable and responsive government."

So much for the road not taken. Nick does admit that Labour did start on some of the reforms that Robin Cook and Bob Maclennan sought to push forward, but before them Roy Jenkins. But they have failed on the big things and some of the delivery. Labour have refused to cap donations. Refuse to listen to their own members but bow to the union paymasters.

Jenkins wanted power dispersed from an overbearing executive and given back to Parliament, yet Labour have just closed in, trying to control the Internet, the media and the voters from a war room in Whitehall. He lists the lack of transparency and scrutiny that led to the expenses scandal being so blown up, as nobody had any idea what some of their MPs were up to, and then when they did Parliament over did it with the redacting.

But Mary one of the final paragraphs answers your question fully. Nick writes:

"Finally, but fundamentally, we need to give people a proper say in who governs the country with fair votes. No government should be able to secure total power with the support of just one out of five people. Political reform might seem obscure sometimes, but it underpins real change. As I have outlined, it is our very system of election that confines the scope of our governments to create a fairer, freer society that Liberal Democrats have always championed."

So why then Mary asks are we bowing to the Conservatives, did you miss it Mary. Nick wants to be Prime Minister. We already have Labour on the run. We are looking to target the Conservatives and we'll put up a stronger fight that Labour are doing at present. Recent opinion polls after our conference showed clear inroads into the Conservative support, with a little bit more chipped off a faltering Labour Party.

We're taking the fight to both of you, a message of real change and real reform that neither of the other parties have delivered despite having the votes to.

VotertragedyapproachesGordonisatrocious*

I guess I'm on a song lyric re-writing burst myself. One wonders what Gordon Brown would come out with if faced with the threat of a Jeremy Paxman interview on Newsnight. After all the blogopshere has already taken Brown to town. Would a nervy Prime Minister see the menace in Paxo's eyes and fess up? Maybe: though probably not as musically as the Sherman brothers' lyrics to Mary Poppins which I've rehashed below though.

PAXMAN

So Prime Minister your speech went down well in the hall but the Sun are saying you’ve lost it. Have you really lost all ambition and hope of forming the next Government.

BROWN

No Jeremy
No Jeremy
That’s not what I see!
Because I’m as plucky
As plucky can be

So Jeremy
So Jeremy
What you say isn’t true!
The people will decide
It’s not up to you
And the Sun is remiss
If they think so too

PAXMAN

Now in Mori’s opinion poll
You’ve been stung
It shows that Labour’s
On the bottommost rung

BROWN

Though Prescott spends time
Dreamin’ of chaps he could choke
In the next Parliament
It’s the people who vote

Now Jeremy
Now Jeremy
Can we talk policy!
It’s how we can win
And winners be

PAXMAN

Your policy
From what I see
Aren’t really that new!
You’ve made some often
But not seen them through
As for teenage mums
It’s workhouse renewed

BROWN

Ah Jeremy
Err Jeremy
Ask the BNP!
It’s their policy
We nicked it you see

So Jeremy
Oh Jeremy
Voting change too!
Lib Dems will love us
When that we review
We'll give them AV
Yes that's what we'll do.

But Jeremy
Lord ‘reditry
‘istr’y they’ll be!
When people place their vote
For Labour and me

No where is there
A more 'appier crew
Than them wot sings
"The Red Flag, me,
Labour new!"
But you've shown Jeremy
Our policy
Is see through!

Lyrics Stephen Glenn
Music Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman

*Working out the title maybe I chose the wrong song, or maybe I'm just still being inspired.

You Ermine a Laugh

Today it is being reported that 52 Labour MPs are currently seeking to be on a Brown resignation honours list for elevation to the Upper Chamber after the next election. That is one in every 7 MPs that were elected under Blair in 2005. But this number is the backbenchers not even counting the prominent Cabinet Members who would expect ennoblement when they finally leave the commons. Many of the 52 have not yet announced that they will be stepping down but are at this point intending to stand again.

The fact that so many are seeking elevation shows that Labour is merely going through the motions until the election is called, but also that the system is flawed. People who know nothing other than politics in the Labour party are wanting to stay on in the office down the corridor. Admittedly it is a rather splendid office building, and the work is very similar to what they do now. But unlike currently is not up the whim of the 70,000 or so people who give them a review every 4-5 years it is a job for life.

The fact that these people may well be failing to satisfy the electorate yet maintain a seat in 'the other place' shows just how much reform is needing throughout the whole of Parliament. Some of these 52 may well be those who are stepping down or who may be forced out on the back of the expenses scandal. They should not have an automatic or semi-automatic right to be appointed to an allowance system worh £45,ooo per annum on top of their MPs pension and parachute payment.

We need reform in the Lords and the Commons. Nick Clegg is right that much of the stuff that needs to be done has been debated in depth in the past. But the 'honourable members' have done all they can to preserve their own path to easy street. Unless they wake up, smell the sulphur from the torches of the approaching hoard and take action they won't be preserved.

In launching the Take Back Power agenda for change yesterday Nick has shown what is required, achievable and doable. As Millennium said yesterday politics is the 'art of the possible' some of the reforms (such as AV+ instead of STV) do not go as far as Lib Dems want, but they are things on which there has been some level of agreement in the past. That is how the 100 days target can and should be met. We're looking for consensus, a consensus for change and the clock for that 100 days starts ticking on Monday when our MPs return.

The King's Address to his Fluffy Kingdom

As regular readers and cuddlers will know I generally leave the political stuff to Mister Stephen. However, my good friend and fluffy pachyderm Mister Millennium Dome has spoken I'd like to urge you all to read it.

Hamble, Jemima, Humpty Dumpty, Big and Little Ted. Gordon the Gopher, Ed the Duck. We need your support as establishment characters within the BBC to get the voice and views of Captain Clegg saviour of our democracy unto the airwaves, tellybox, wirelessbox, interwebby.

Over at ITV I evoke Bungle, George and Zippy to do the same.

Garfield, Snoopy, Fred Bassett and the rest should rise off the cartoon pages unless their newspapers cover the story of the latest reformer and what he has to say about he proposes we do.

Captain Clegg has not just spoken like Mr Balloon of the Tory party, he set out the gameplan and is telling MPs to get kitting up and into action. Mr Balloon is merely talking about what he is thinking of doing next season, if we are lucky. But it's just a wee bit of trimming around the edges and no real shake up in team selection, their training or lifestyle. The fans, sorry forgot the voteypeople aren't really fans right now, are looking for a radical overhaul. They don't want their MPs to wallowing at the bottom but they'd like to think they can soar up the league to the very pinnacle. That's not just a few Tell-lie-graph saints but the who lot sitting on the benches.

So may I echo the Trunk call of my friend and encourage all the fluffy kingdom to persuade their adoring owners to take action to encourage their MPs to sort out this mess we find ourselves in. Take Back Power. Let's make the next 100 days count for something great a Third Reform Act(s) even more far reaching and necessary than those of 1832 and 1867.

We're Not Going on a Summer Holiday

We need parliamentary reform, we need it now, we shouldn't leave for holidays until it is sorted that is what Nick Clegg is saying in the Guardian. While David Cameron is outlining what he would do if he was elected as Prime Minister and Alan Johnson is saying what he would do possibly to set out his leadership challenge the Lib Dem leader is saying to his fellow MPs we need to get this done before we can move on.

Setting out his vision for a new politics setting out a hundred day plan that will give the people the right to recall a corrupt MP, abolishing the House of Lords, getting corrupt money out of politics and electoral reform that gives everyone a voice. When he broke convention to speak out against the Speaker he was already say that the conservatism and convention of the Houses of Parliament were a hindrance that the people did not understand and that MPs chose to hide behind. Listening to Julie Kirkbride this evening, and reading what my own MP Michael Connarty has had to say it is clear that many have yet to learn. He says:

"People will say it isn't possible – parliament can't act that quickly. I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.

"Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly. Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum – the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good."

And referring to David Cameron's comments about open-source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages says these will not rescue British democracy but merely provide cover to maintain the status quo. That status quo is that the two major parties have hung unto power in their own fiefdoms or shires in safe seats. As Mark pointed out in his excellent post the safer the seat was envisioned to be often the more corrupt the Member.

How can this be done in 100 days?

Well a lot of the issues have been thrashed out party funding reform was outlined by Sir Hayden Phillips only the Tories walked out. Lords reform has been agreed with in principle, and to avoid an increased hegemony can be elected like the Senate in the USA on different boundaries and with different times for electing them than the lower house. While he welcomes Alan Johnson's adoption of the Jenkin's solution of AV plus he acknowledges this is not the best situation where as STV allows the people to vote for the person not just the party and the party approved candidate/list.

Can this be done in 100 days?

During the 2001 election William Hague said there was only so many days to save the pound. But really we do only have so many days to save British democracy. But Nick thinks not only that it can be done but that it needs doing concluding:

"Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change."

So the MPs should forget about getting on an all-singing, all-dancing double decker to head off to their first or is that second home, you know the one in their constituency. Or even to some other home where they can take flight.

They're not going on a summer holiday,

Heads down working for a week or

Thrasing out reform in their holiday

Working out how to serve you-ou-ou

As they really ought to.

Read also Paul Walter's take on it including the Cleggmeister's timetable. Darell Goodliffe who's willing to bar the gates for longer as some stuff is missing. Jamie Saddler's love (platonic) for Nick Clegg.

UPDATE: You can find out more on the Campaign Website

Government Need to Shift on Lords' Reform

This day last year I took part in the Elect the Lords bloggers pledge. Now a year on little has changed from the Government's point of view as regards the upper chamber.

Last year I reflected on how the sad loss to electoral reform the death of Robin Cook might have on steering his Labour colleagues through and towards this which he felt passionately about. A year on and his successor as MP for Livingston Jim Devine has dug in his heels over electoral reform. However, he is sadly not alone on Labour's benches.

While a recent poll of Lord's reform supporters showed that the majority favoured a fully elected second chamber, but would be be willing to compromise at 70%, Jack Straw recently claimed the concensus was for 50%. Where he got this figure from is the supject of a great deal of speculation. However, when the subuject was last voted on in the House of Commons 50% was so unpopular an opinion it was not even put to the vote, whereas 80% was the closest to being taken up when it fell short by only 3 votes.

It is now 95 years since the 1911 Parliament Act said:

"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."

Surely now with the recent revelations of cash for honours for both Labour and Conservative donors the case to reform the House of Lords is as strong now as it was in those Edwardian times? Is it not time to Elect the Lords?