Guardian: Lords united against Nick Clegg's reform plans

Overwhelming majority of peers believe an elected upper house would be unconstitutional

...is the byline in today's Guardian newspaper, reporting on potential threats to Coalition Lords Reform plans:

The scale of the fight facing Nick Clegg as he tries to reform the House of Lords has been made clear by a newspaper survey revealing an overwhelming majority of peers believe the change would be unconstitutional. The deputy prime minister published a plan last month to replace the Lords with a wholly – or 80% – elected chamber of about 300 peers. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms.

Clegg, faced with hostility to the plan and bruised after the failure of the alternative vote referendum campaign, is attempting a more sensitive approach this time, bringing in a package of measures that would appeal to ordinarily sceptical MPs and peers. Because of the intrinsic unpalatability of the proposals, it had been suggested that the government use the Parliament Act to force its will on the upper house should it transpire that peers do not back the change.

While all three main parties committed to the policy in their manifestos, there are large pockets of sceptics beneath the surface.

A survey of peers by The Times newspaper found evidence that the government could face a constitutional crisis if it tried to exert its will. The overwhelming majority of peers believe it would be unconstitutional for the government to create an elected chamber in the face of their objections.

The poll also uncovers deep splits among Clegg's Liberal Democrats despite reform being a flagship party policy. It is known that Lord Steel, the former party leader, and others are opposed, but it had been assumed that the majority of Lib Dem peers supported the current leadership.

Tory leader David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband also face mass revolt by their peers.

The Times sent questionnaires to each of the 789 people entitled to sit in the Lords, although only 400 are regular attenders. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. Of those, 80% oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber; 74% believe that it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act; and 81% believe the Lords works well as it is.

Clegg's peers are deeply split, with 64% believing the Lords works well, 46% opposing a large elected element and 54% saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.

The act is used infrequently to permit the Commons to enact measures without the consent of the upper house. It was last used to pass the 2004 Hunting Act.

Party leaders in both chambers will shortly select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up a final proposal. The committee may be chaired by a Labour figure. The government intends to have a bill ready for the Queen's Speech in spring next year.

Riddell: Battle between Parliament and judges only just begun

The conflict over human rights will test our constitution to breaking point, writes Mary Riddell in The Telegraph today (small extract follows):

The rage unleashed by the verdict in the Shoesmith case is illustrative of the mounting hostility between the judiciary and Parliament. Judges and politicians do not, and should not, always agree. The danger is that their differences, for which the catalyst is usually though not invariably human rights, become a power battle leading to constitutional meltdown. That zero-sum game has begun.

The fight is not merely arm-wrestling between two different limbs of the constitution. The third player is the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with a jurisdiction stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostock and encompassing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

Tensions between these three have already brought Britain to what some regard as the brink of constitutional crisis. In fact, the stand-off has barely started. Coming over the horizon are three issues that may test the current settlement to breaking point. The first is prisoner voting. In February, Parliament decided, by a majority of 212, to defy a 2005 ruling by the Strasbourg court to outlaw a blanket ban. With the appeal process exhausted, Britain now has no legal option but to offer some prisoners the vote, as is the common European practice.

There's more, obviously. Take a look!

BBC News: Clegg unveils plans for elected House of Lords

BBC News has news of the latest announcement (with video), made today, for Lords' Reform:

Nick Clegg has set out options for replacing the House of Lords with a mainly elected upper chamber.

The deputy prime minister outlined plans for a legislature with 300 members, 80% of which could be elected. While it was up to MPs and peers to decide the final balance, he said the first elections should happen in 2015. The plans would give Parliament "greater democratic legitimacy", he argued, but many MPs said it would threaten the supremacy of the Commons.

Labour said the plans were a "dog's dinner" lacking detail and a number of backbench MPs said any proposals should be put to the people in a referendum.

Alongside Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr Clegg announced the proposed reforms to the Commons but was barracked by many Tory MPs while doing so.

He described reform of the House of Lords as "unfinished business" but said he was "open-minded" about how to get to the government's ultimate goal of a mainly elected chamber to replace the existing appointed one.

A future government draft bill would contain plans for an 80:20 split but there would be a provision for a fully elected chamber if that is "what people want", he told MPs, appealing for a cross-party consensus on the issue.

A joint committee of 13 MPs and 13 peers to be set up in the next few months will consider plans for members of the new legislature to be elected for 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system.

Under the government's plans, members would be elected on a staged basis - a third every five years - with the first elections for the new chamber to take place in 2015 - on the same day as the next general election.

Read the rest!

Coalition 'losing way' on green policies - campaigners

BBC News brings news of high level representations made to the Coalition government regarding its current approach to environmental matters:

The heads of 15 green campaign groups have written to the prime minister (pdf link) warning the government is in danger of losing its way on environmental policy.

The letter says the coalition should promote a green economy with "urgency and resolve" if it is to follow its vow to be the "greenest government ever". The groups include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB.

Downing Street says it stands by its record of protecting the environment and delivering a low carbon economy. A year ago, David Cameron said the environment would be a top priority.

In their letter the campaign groups describe the pledge as a "great ambition" and cite the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, the decision to set up a green investment bank and a commitment to a Natural Environment White Paper as examples of a "promising start". They say the coalition "started with a strong sense of purpose on the environment but is now in danger of losing its way".

They point to the proposed changes in the planning system which they claim will not provide enough protection for wildlife and the countryside. The letter also suggests a zero carbon homes policy has been weakened and point to delays in giving borrowing powers to the new green investment bank. It says foreign policy should take account of natural resource security.

The letter adds: "Most critically we urge you to set out the case that a green economy is central to the future prosperity of the UK and not a cost to be endlessly debated and watered down... "We believe there is still scope for your government to be the greenest ever, but it will require both urgency and resolve."

There's more - take a look! A great insight into perceptions of coalition policy on a critical issue and a useful current example for the role of pressure groups within the UK.

Police reform bill defeat for government in Lords

The Guardian—amongst many other news outlets—carries news today of the defeat in the House of Lords of the Coalition government's legislation on police powers:

The government suffered a major defeat in the Lords when a rebellion by Liberal Democrat peers helped carry an amendment that could bury the government's central policy of elected police and crime commissioners.

In an apparent show of the "muscular liberalism" Nick Clegg had promised would mark a new phase in the coalition as it enters its second year, Lib Dem peers threw out the plans to introduce American-style elected commissioners.

It marks a serious defeat on the coalition's first anniversary, including for Clegg, who at the last minute sent whips round to convince his party's members to back the bill. Some 188 peers voted for the amendment, which knocked out plans for elected commissioners, with 176 opposing it. The vote carried with backing from 13 Liberal Democrat peers including Lord Oakeshott; some also defied the government by abstaining and allowing the amendment to squeak through.

Clegg had indicated support for a rival amendment that would have shelved the plans for three years to allow time for pilots, but that was passed over in favour of the stronger change which, in effect, removes the policy of elected commissioners from the legislation.

The police reform bill will return to the Commons, where it is more likely to pass, paving the way for a lengthy period of "ping-ponging" between the houses.

Ministers insisted they would try to overturn the amendment. A Home Office spokesman said: "The election of police and crime commissioners is a clear coalition agreement policy. So while we will consider the debate in the Lords, we will look to redress this in the Commons."

 The Guardian article goes on to discuss the ramifications of the Lord's rejection and the political capital being made from it by various parties.

This government defeat, of course, represents an important—and timely—current example of peers exercising their power of review in forcing a government rethink.

There is talk of using the Parliament Act to force the legislation through, regardless of Lords' opposition.... This is fraught with constitutional dilemma, however, as the understanding is that this mechanism can only be used when ensuring the implementation of a government manifesto item—what should happen when the legislation concerns something not in either coalition party manifesto, but only in the subsequent Coalition agreement?

BBC News: Number 10 shuns EU flag tradition

BBC News reports today on an apparent outbreak of mild Euro-skepticism within the Conservative sections of the Coalition government—including the PM's office:

Downing Street will not fly the EU flag over Number 10 during Europe Day on Monday unlike previous years, the BBC has learned.

Some other departments, including the Treasury and Foreign Office, will also not hoist the European symbol. But the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable's Department for Business will raise the blue and gold flag.

Downing Street denied there had been any instruction from the prime minister to departments to end the tradition. However, Number 10 did hoist the flag last year.

The UK's relationship with Europe is a potential source of tension between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

The government's own published guidance still does suggest that departments should mark the day by flying the EU flag.

A spokesperson from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the BBC its permanent secretary had taken the decision to fly the flag as in previous years. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, led by another Liberal Democrat, Chris Huhne, told the BBC it did not have a flagpole.

 More cosmetic than substantial in this instance—but may betray internal viewpoints...

Dan Snow goes for AV

Historian and television presenter Dan Snow has weighed into the the AV / FPTP debate with two very useful videos... One video provides a convenient explanation of how AV works by looking at preferences amongst a group of friends for going for coffee or going to a pub:



The other video provides a valuable historical perspective on the value of the Alternative Vote system:



Take a look!

Vote for AV to end Tory dominance – Vince Cable

The Guardian brings news of Vince Cable's appeal to progressive voters:

Vince Cable today calls for a "progressive majority" of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters to join together and say yes to the alternative vote to prevent the next century being like the last one and "dominated by Tory governments".

In a marked escalation of Lib Dem language about their coalition partners in the runup to the AV referendum on 5 May, and talking for the first time about the effect a yes vote could have on the next general election, the business secretary explicitly raises the prospect of an anti-Conservative coalition victory in an effort to boost the Yes to AV campaign and shore up Lib Dem support in the local elections.

Cable says the moment has come to end the dynamic in which votes for Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are split. Appealing to Labour voters more clearly than any of his Lib Dem colleagues, he says the "progressive majority" accounts for 50% of the electorate but their votes are shared between the three parties, which has allowed the Tories to win overall majorities on a minority of the vote.

If the supporters of all three parties can be persuaded to vote yes in the referendum the next election would be run under AV, and supporters of one party could vote for the others as second and third preferences, the business secretary points out.

The article goes on to describe Mr Cable's dissatisfaction with David Cameron's handling of AV smears and several (not so) veiled Tory attacks on the LibDem leader, Nick Clegg:

"I was surprised and alarmed to see a leaflet from the No to AV campaign put through my door with a brutal personal attack on Nick Clegg for his having loyally supported coalition policies including difficult public spending cuts. The claims that he promised not to embark on tough economic policies are simply false. I find it difficult to reconcile this leaflet attacking coalition economic policy with the fact that Mr Cameron is personally leading the no campaign and the leaflet is produced by a leading Tory donor. He [Cameron] may not directly control what his supporters are up to. But he must make it clear that he doesn't condone and will endeavour to stop personal attacks on his deputy for loyally supporting coalition policy.

"To stand by and let this happen is dangerous and puts considerable strain on the coalition. I haven't really reacted to this spat. But that leaflet was absolutely dreadful. It does take it on to a different level." Senior Lib Dems believe a TNS poll published today gives them cause for hope after previous polls have suggested leads for the no campaign of as much as 16%. The new poll found that 34% of people oppose AV but 32% support it.

Johann Hari: If you get the X Factor you'll get AV

Former Lyonian and present-day commentator for The Independent newspaper, Johann Hari today imparts his own wisdom regarding the May 5 referendum for electoral reform:

Privacy law should be made by MPs, not judges, says PM

The Guardian has the story today - demarcating a novel, fraught area of separation between Parliament and the judiciary:

Prime minister 'uneasy' over superinjunctions and judges' role after high court prevents identification of sex scandal footballer

The prime minister has waded into the debate on the use of superinjunctions by the rich and famous to avoid allegations of scandal, declaring that parliament and not the courts should decide where the right to privacy begins.

David Cameron said the development of a privacy law by judges based on European rights made him feel "a little uneasy". His comments, made while touring a car factory in Luton, follow judgments in the high court this week that prevent the identification of a married Premier League footballer and someone who works in the entertainment industry, both of whom are said to have had extramarital affairs.

Cameron said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and the way our system works. What's happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so. … we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen? The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is parliament – which you elect and put there – should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."

He added: "It might be odd to hear it, but I don't really have the answer to this one, I need to do some more thinking about it. It is an odd situation if the judges are making the law rather than parliament."

Although superinjunctions refer strictly only to legal orders whose existence cannot even be reported, the term has been used more loosely to describe injunctions aimed at suppressing the identification of individuals who claim they are entitled to anonymity under "the right to respect for private and family life" incorporated in Article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

There is disagreement within the legal profession about whether there has been a significant increase in such injunctions, which have been granted in the past to victims of blackmail or, for example, in the case of the killers of James Bulger amid fears they would be at risk if identified.

Mark Stobbs, the Law Society's director of legal policy, said: "This is a new development and it is something which needs to be watched very closely. There is a huge debate between the right to privacy and the right to public knowledge. We support open justice and transparency as a basic principle, but there must be occasional cases where there is a public interest in privacy. You might get it sometimes in the context of terrorist trials where there are real national security implications."

But Cameron Doley, of the law firm Carter Ruck, which has obtained privacy orders for clients, doubted there had been an increase in their frequency over recent years.

"The newspapers have decided that the way to change policy is to shout about it from the rooftops," he said. "There's a lot to be said for a reasoned debate about it that won't be one-sided. But judges will still have to interpret the Human Rights Act."

One of the problems, he added, was that people comment about cases in which they had not seen the evidence, while the most widely reported cases were those where the courts ruled there was insufficient justification for maintaining an injunction – such as the one involving the England football captain, John Terry.

"We do use these injunctions occasionally but not with any more frequency than we did in previous years," Doley added. "They don't always work. The worst thing to do from a PR point of view is to try and get one and fail. The rich and famous can't pay their way out of scandal."

A committee established by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, to examine the use of injunctions and super-injunctions to muzzle press reporting is due to report next month.

BBC News: House of Lords full, peers warn David Cameron

BBC News today has the story of "appointments gone mad":

David Cameron has been told by a cross-party group of senior peers that the House of Lords is "full" and he must stop creating new members.

The prime minister has created more peers more quickly than any of his post-war predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year. The House of Lords now has 792 members who are entitled to attend and vote. The peers warn that this number is "unsustainable" and is damaging the effectiveness of the Lords.

The warning comes in a report from the independent Constitution Unit at University College London and has been endorsed by 13 peers from all parties.

Read on: the report discusses the physical pressures of new appointments, as well as a perceived change in the ethos and culture of 'the other place'—suggestions for improvement in the current system are also made. As the report quietly points out:

A committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is expected to publish a draft bill on proposed reform of the Lords in the next few months but any changes agreed are unlikely to come into effect for some time.

Mumsnet: MPs lament long hours in Commons

The Observer this morning reports the findings of a recent poll run by Mumsnet, the influential UK internet website / pressure grouping... (reproduced below):

Nearly one in three MPs say they have considered quitting because of the pressure on their families caused by long working hours. Politicians complain that late-night votes and the strain of splitting their lives between constituencies and London places them under strain.

Despite efforts in recent years to reform House of Commons practices, a survey by the website Mumsnet shows nearly two thirds of MPs believe their jobs have had a negative impact on their family lives. More than 90% of the 101 MPs surveyed said that parliament was not family friendly – a figure indicating that steps such as the opening of a creche for the children of MPs and staff have not succeeded in rectifying the Commons work/life balance.

MPs regularly have to stay for late night sittings that go beyond 10pm. And last year a Cardiff Liberal Democrat MP complained it was "crazy" that she had to leave her baby with colleagues during votes in the House of Commons. Jenny Willott said she handed her 18-week-old son Toby "to the nearest MP" to comply with rules that allows only MPs into the division lobbies where votes are cast. The complaints are not new. A number of former MPs have cited the lack of time they are allowed to spend with their loved ones as a reason for their eventual abandonment of a life in parliamentary politics.One veteran MP said: "I never saw my children grow up and I'll regret that for the rest of my life." Another MP added: "I am newly elected and cannot see how I can keep this up for the next four years without damaging my family relationships."

Almost half of those MPs asked said they wanted to end late night voting. John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, said he had never considered giving up parliament but had grown concerned since being elected in May about the effect of the working practices at the Commons into MPs' lives at home. Woodcock, Labour's transport spokesman, who has a two-year-old daughter, Maisie, said: "It is a huge privilege to do the job and I'm working flat out at it. But it inevitably puts a strain on the family to live in two places through the week, spending half the week in the constituency and half the week in London."Speaking to colleagues, on top of that, the hours of the House of Commons for many people are not geared up to ease family existence for those who have their family in London during the week. Late night votes and meetings leaves them tired at the weekend and that has an effect on life at home."

Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour party, said she had long-contended that reforms were urgently necessary to make parliament more effective. "It is important that we allow MPs family lives because so much policy is centred around family," she said.

"I have for a long time said that MPs should be able to travel back from their constituencies on a Monday and start work earlier on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so they can finish earlier on those days. I think that would make parliament a more family friendly and actually a more effective place."

Despite the concerns, 85% MPs have roundly rejected the idea of parliamentarians having job shares, an idea proposed by the newly elected Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Commenting on the survey findings, CEO and co-founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts, said: "Making a country or workplace family friendly relies on all of us helping to change the culture around us. If politicians want the country to be more family friendly they need to lead by example, and at the moment parliament falls far short of this. If we want legislation that reflects the needs of families, it seems fair we allow MPs to live as families.The country could waste a lot of talent if we give in to the viewpoint that parliament is no place for a parent with young kids."

Clearly, these findings are highly interesting when it comes to assessing the overall effectiviness of the representation function within the Commons (a common examination focus!) A significant number of potential family-oriented candidates—certainly many women in particular—must be put off running for election by these problems....

Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms

'A referendum? Really?' - Both camps struggle to convince voters of importance of 5 May poll – in town that would have had a different MP under AV

The Guardian today tells a tale of 'apathy and anger' in the run up to the national referendum on 5 May:

Paul Holmes surveys the celebrated crooked spire and historic market square in his former constituency of Chesterfield and shrugs. "It's almost certain," the former Liberal Democrat MP agrees. "But you can't tell with voters."

The British Election Study suggests it is a certainty. Under AV, the alternative voting system subject to a referendum on 5 May, the study says this Derbyshire constituency would have been one of 43 to elect a different MP. The seat's Labour incumbent, Toby Perkins, would have seen his perilously slim 549 majority wiped out by second and third preferences and Holmes, 54, a former Lib Dem party chairman and history teacher, would not be the ex-MP he is today.

He says: "Nearly two out of three votes were against Labour last year. But Labour won. And that's just ludicrous. The people defending first past the post [FPTP], I just don't know how they can. It's absolutely indefensible, excepting that turkeys don't vote for Christmas."

History acknowledges the part Chesterfield has played in past political upsets. The Cock and Pynot inn, now a museum two miles from the town centre at Old Whittington, was where parliamentarian conspirators plotted the fall of James II in favour of William III in the 1688 Glorious Revolution.

Holmes is hoping a similar zeal for change will galvanise local voters to put a cross in the yes box. To persuade them, he and other Lib Dem canvassers are pounding the constituency streets, pushing local election leaflets through 48,000 letterboxes along with literature explaining why AV is so important.

But his passion appears not to have translated to the people of a town that for more than a century prospered on the sweat of coalminers and toil of engineering and was largely Labour.

Now the pits are grassed over, housing and retail developments colonise old factory sites, and Chesterfield is reinventing itself with greater reliance on smaller businesses and technology. With the Lib Dems defending 38 seats to Labour's 10 on Chesterfield council at next month's elections, Holmes feels he can argue: "The social and economic profile is changing. It's no longer a Labour town." Except under FPTP.

An interesting article, especially from the point of view of (non)-participation amongst the voting public... The feature rounds up with a summary of seats that would have produced a different result under AV in the last general election:

Research in a British Election Study working paper from the University of Essex suggests that under AV 43 seats would have been won by a different party at the 2010 general election.

Lab to Con: Dudley North.

Lab to Lib Dem: Aberdeen South, Edinburgh North and Leith, Edinburgh South, Newport East, Swansea West, Ashfield, Birmingham Hall Green, Bristol South, Chesterfield, Durham City, Hull North, Islington South and Finsbury, Lewisham West and Penge, Newcastle upon Tyne North, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Oxford East, Rochdale, Sheffield Central, Streatham.

Con to Lab: Aberconwy, Cardiff North, Brentford and Isleworth, Broxtowe, Hendon, Hove, Lancaster and Fleetwood, Sherwood, Stockton South, Warrington South.

Con to Lib Dem: Montgomeryshire, Bristol North West, Camborne and Redruth, Colne Valley, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Newton Abbot, Oxford West and Abingdon, Reading East, St Albans, Truro and Falmouth, Watford, Weston-super-Mare, York Outer.

New Statesman: A way to make MPs work for voters and not party

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond, makes the case for recalling MPs (as well as several other suggestions for a more smoothly-functioning Commons) in today's New Statesman:

.... if we want to counter the inability (or unwillingness) of parliament to scrutinise the executive, we need something bolder. A very significant start would be for the coalition partners to honour a pre-election promise made by all of the then party leaders. Following the expenses scandal, each of the leaders made a promise to allow constituents to "recall" their representative between elections. That pledge has, in effect, been scrapped.

True recall, indeed true democracy, allows people to remove their representative if most constituents have lost confidence in him or her, for whatever reason. It is a right that should exist for voters at every level, from councillor to MP. This is not a new idea. There have been failed recall attempts in California, including one against Ronald Reagan in 1968. However, in 2003, voters successfully recalled the sitting governor, Gray Davis, and replaced him at a new election with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That couldn't be further from where we are today in Britain. Under the current rules, a new MP could theoretically move to another country for five years and leave constituency work to a caseworker. Local voters would be lumbered with a useless representative until the next general election.
Most MPs occupy "safe" seats and are hard, if not impossible, to shift. The pressure they feel is from their party, not from the voters. Recall would keep even these MPs on their toes, because a member of one party could be replaced by another from the same party.

The coalition insists that it will still introduce a version of recall, but the small print makes it worse than useless. Instead of handing the decision to the voters, the government will pass it up to MPs on a parliamentary committee. Its members alone will decide if a member has behaved badly enough to be "recalled".

As the Localism Bill enters the report stage, I will team up with like-minded MPs to table an amendment to hold the coalition to its original promise. It can succeed, but only with pressure from voters around the country. ...

YES to AV campaign launches TV broadcast campaign

It's the YES to AV campaign's turn tonight to launch their TV broadcast campaign during prime time evening viewing—no sign of comedians, but certainly presenting a comedic approach to the status quo (with a serious point!):