Nick Clegg signals combative approach to coalition describing PM's party as political enemies who must be taken on
Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats have vowed to face down "ruthless" and "extreme" forces in the Tory party to protect the British people from right-wing policies that would widen inequality and benefit the rich.
At a rally on Saturday night to open his party's annual conference in Birmingham, Clegg underlined the Lib Dems' newly combative approach to the coalition, describing David Cameron's party as "political enemies" who must be taken on when necessary in the national interest. After a traumatic year during which the Lib Dems' popularity has plummeted and their leader has been accused of abandoning his party's principles, Clegg struck a markedly more assertive note.
While trumpeting his party's successes so far in influencing health and tax policies, he said it was more prepared than ever to "fight tooth and nail" for what was right. "We are prepared to be awkward," he said. "We are not here to make things easy. We're here to put things right."
In an interview with the Observer, his deputy Simon Hughes goes further, telling the Conservatives they have no mandate to drive through a rightwing agenda. Hughes says the Tories have shown themselves to be "ruthless" operators in the first 16 months of the coalition over the referendum on electoral reform and boundary changes and says the resurgent right of the party is "extreme" on issues such as Europe and tax.
He says Tories must come to their senses and realise that they did not win the last election – and that they rely on the Lib Dems for power.
"Not only did they not win but they got a third of those who voted," he said. "The Tory party is not the dominant party in British politics that it used to be. It is absolutely not the dominant force in Scotland and Wales that it used to be. The Tory right have forgotten that."
In a rebuff to Conservative hardliners he adds: "There is absolutely no majority in parliament for your views. If there is a coalition government in the national interest then extreme remedies and answers are not appropriate."
The comments are bound to infuriate Conservatives as the conference season opens. Many Tories are beginning to resent profoundly the way the Lib Dems are already watering down Tory changes on health and education and blocking Cameron from developing a more hardline approach on Europe.
Clegg and his ministers are now convinced they can claw back some of their pre-election popularity if they can demonstrate that they are reining in the Conservatives and stamping their own mark on government. Deep division between the coalition partners will surface in Birmingham over tax, welfare, health, pensions and last month's riots.There's more detail in the article regarding specific initiatives the LibDems say they will take in the coming months—take a look!
When the coaliton was formed in May last year, it seemed that the Liberal Democrats would use their pivotal position to drive through major changes in our system of government. But following the decisive victory for the ‘no’ campaign in the referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote in May this year, there were grounds for believing that coalition constitutional reform momentum had been dissipated; a view confirmed by the hostile political reception received in both Houses of Parliament by the government’s Draft House of Lords Reform Bill shortly afterwards.
Yet a document published in draft last December will represent a further constitutional shift for the UK. Though this text – currently labeled the ‘Cabinet Manual’ – is appearing on their watch, its creation cannot be attributed to either coalition partner. It is an inheritance from the dying days of the premiership of Gordon Brown, who announced it was in production in February 2010.
Brown intended that the manual would be the first step in a process possibly leading to a full 'written' constitution for the UK. A more urgent impetus to produce this document came because it could provide public confirmation of the procedures to be followed in the event of an inconclusive General Election, an outcome which seemed increasingly likely in early 2010. An initial draft dealing specifically with the ‘hung Parliament’ scenario was published in time for the poll. Another inspiration for the overall document was the desire to introduce into the UK an equivalent to the New Zealand Cabinet Manual, which has existed in some form since the late 1970s.
While Gordon Brown’s written constitution project has been abandoned, the manual has survived and will represent the fullest publicly available official statement of the rules of the UK political game ever to have been produced.
Subtitled ‘A guide to the laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government’, it will cover many crucial features of the UK constitution: including the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty; the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility; and, as noted above, the regulations governing what happens when there is no overall winner in a General Election.
Some vital principles of the UK constitution are published in an official document seemingly for the first time: for instance, the convention that the prime minister must be a member of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords.
The draft issued in December was also notable for what it did not mention. We were left in the dark, for instance, over whether the ‘yes’ votes secured in referendums held on EEC membership (in 1975) and devolution (at various points since the late 1990s) can only be overturned by further referendums, or whether the UK Parliament could decide to withdraw from the European Union or abolish devolved assemblies entirely on its own account, without referring the issue back to the general populations involved.
Nor was Parliament's precise role in decisions about British entry into armed combat set out. Consequently we do not know whether the government regards itself as bound by the House of Commons Resolution of May 2007 describing it as ‘inconceivable’ that any government would depart from the precedent set in 2002 and 2003 over the Iraq conflict in ‘seeking and obtaining the approval of the House for its decisions in respect of military action’, subject to flexibility in emergencies. It is arguable that this resolution was not fully abided by with respect to the conflict in Libya, since it could be read as requiring advance approval, which the government was arguably in a position to seek in March 2011 but did not. (However, during the debate on the United Nations Resolution 1973 of 21 March, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, pledged that the government would ‘enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action’.)
Those matters that were included in the draft were not always covered in an entirely satisfactory way, particularly because much of the manual deals with constitutional conventions, which are often difficult to put in writing. There is reference to the need for Royal Assent to be provided before a Bill becomes law, but no mention of the fact that it has not been withheld by a monarch since 1707. The ‘primacy’ of the House of Commons over the House of Lords is asserted. But there is no explanation of whether the so-called ‘Salisbury-Addison’ doctrine, which stipulates that the Lords does not obstruct legislation enacting pledges included in the manifesto of the party which won the most recent General Election, has survived the advent of a coalition government with no one ‘winning’ manifesto to draw upon.
Moreover, this document has been drafted within Whitehall, with little outside involvement from either Parliament or public, and will ultimately be owned by the executive. It is arguably inappropriate for such an important publication to be produced in this exclusive way; particularly since it is more than simply an operating manual for the London-based executive, extending widely as it does to issues such as the role of supranational institutions, devolution settlements, the upholding of human rights, Parliament and the nature of UK democracy. Some statements included in the draft text, including about the kind of discretion the judiciary and Parliament should afford ministers when holding them to account, are simply not within the remit of the executive to make.
Discussion of these concerns has yet to break out of the worlds of academia and parliamentary select committees into the wider public domain. But it should. The manual, and the problems with it, matter, not least because this document is likely to be treated by many – including within the media – as the closest equivalent to the written constitution which the UK famously lacks.
In truth, though, there are crucial differences between the manual and the text of a written constitution (which the manual does not purport to be). The inclusion of rules, conventions or laws within it does not explicitly afford them any legal status beyond that which they already possess (although it may come to play a part in legal proceedings to a limited extent). It neither entrenches its contents nor prescribes a procedure through which it can be amended. Moreover, the production of the manual – an executive dominated process – does not accord with the democratic principles that could arguably be expected if it were intended to be a written constitution. It is not owned by all of us, and could not possibly open with the phrase ‘We the people’.
Indeed, powerful statements of this kind – associated with some of the most famous world constitutional statements – are absent from the manual. It lacks poetry – not one of its phrases is likely to cling to the Velcro of memory. Instead of lines such as ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ or ‘Men are born and remain free and equal in rights’, what could be seen as the preamble (the foreword) begins: ‘The way in which government operates is a vital part of the United Kingdom’s (UK) democracy, but it can be complex for those involved in, and for those outside of, government’. And closes: ‘We envisage that an updated version will be available on the Cabinet Office website, with an updated hard copy publication at the start of each new Parliament’.
The true significance – and considerable value – of the manual is as a window into executive practice and the executive’s view of constitutional procedure. Not only enthusiastic constitutional observers should peer through that window – one never before opened in this country – at regular intervals, even though we might not always like what we see. Within the machinery of British politics, the hidden wiring is emerging.
Political party membership appears to be in terminal decline in the UK - so can anything be done to reverse the trend? And does it matter?
It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people. But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit. There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together.
There are many theories as to why this has happened. The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians. We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?). Politics itself has become too boring and managerial - the ideological red meat loved by the "party faithful" is in short supply.
There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community.
"Most people don't use politics for socialising in the way they might have done in the fifties and sixties, when you had a realistic chance of meeting your future husband or wife at a party dinner or dance.
"There may be the odd exception, but that really isn't the case any more," says Jonathan Isaby, former co-editor of Conservative Home, a popular website for Tory supporters.
Even those drawn to political activism can find party politics a bit strange and off-putting, preferring instead to join one of the many single issue campaigns that now exist.
"I sometimes drag my wife along to political events but she hates going because she thinks they are all a load of oddballs," said one prominent single issue campaigner, who did not want to be named.
"Politics is conducted in a very specific way in the UK that doesn't really chime with the rest of the country."
It is not all gloom - there are still many thriving local party associations around the country. And new parties, such as the Greens, UKIP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, have sprung up over the years to cater to the increasingly diverse political tastes of the British public.
But - with the exception of the SNP in Scotland - the big three Westminster parties still dominate in terms of membership and influence. And unless they can find a way of breathing new life into their moribund structures, British democracy could soon find itself on the critical list.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has made rebuilding his party a top priority. The membership will vote next month on a series of proposals - from discount membership fees to making local parties more "welcoming" - aimed at Refounding Labour. Mr Miliband wants to transform the party into a modern, outward-looking organisation, less in thrall to a rulebook that has not changed much since the party was founded in 1918. He believes local parties should become more like community action groups - forging links with other voluntary organisations. Labour's annual conference could be opened up to campaign groups and charities - who will be allowed to speak from the floor in debates (but not to vote on policies).
But the proposals have not gone down well with some Labour members. They are particularly upset that members of a planned Labour "supporters network" could get the right to vote in leadership elections. What, they argue, is the point of paying a subscription fee - which at £41 is currently the highest of the main three parties - if you do not get some privileges?
The Conservatives have also thrown the party open to non-members and supporters - as well as launching a more conventional recruitment drive.
"I think many find the idea of committing themselves to one party for life a bit scary," says Jonathan Isaby, who recently joined the Taxpayers Alliance pressure group as its political director. "There are a lot of people who don't want to sign on the dotted line to join a party, but who are equally happy to help out by delivering leaflets for a particular candidate they want to support. And that can be just as useful as donating money, if not more so."
David Cameron's party is also trying to get members involved in policy formation - a process that had effectively died out - and it has pioneered the use of "open primaries" to select Tory election candidates.
The Lib Dems have also been opening up their party structures and meetings to non-members.
Some commentators, such as Mark Pack, of the grassroots Lib Dem Voice website, believe parties need to broaden their support base in this way to avoid becoming unrepresentative of the public at large. "There is a point at which you have to see the membership as atypical," he says.
This matters because party members can still have a big influence on government policy as well as getting to choose the party leaders and even, in certain circumstances, the prime minister.
For all their overblown rhetoric - and nothing attracts overblown rhetoric like party recruitment drives - the big parties have effectively given up on becoming mass membership organisations. There will be no return to the 1950s.
What we might be witnessing instead is the birth of a new kind of political party. Not so much a religion to be followed by faithful, as a pastime to be pursued once or twice a year, when other commitments allow.
Not unlike the Caravan Club, in fact...
Campaigners who gather more than 100,000 petition signatures could have their ideas debated in Parliament, via a newly launched government website.
The e-petitions site, which will ask the public for proposals, is aimed at "building confidence" in MPs' work.
House of Commons leader Sir George Young said politicians could not afford to be complacent and had to give a "megaphone" to people's concerns. But Labour has said the petitions could lead to debates on "crazy ideas".
The system, launched on Friday, replaces the existing e-petitions pages on the Downing Street website, set up under Tony Blair. It allows popular petitions to be discussed by the backbench business committee of MPs, which has the power to propose debates on non-government matters.
But some proposals, including those judged to be "libellous or offensive" or "related to honours and appointments" will be barred from the website. Posting more than one petition on a single subject is also banned.
Sir George, a Conservative, said: "Today's launch represents another step towards a more accessible and transparent Parliament." He added: "In recent weeks, Parliament has been at the centre of public interest, by leading the debate on phone-hacking allegations.
"But this shouldn't mean that Parliament becomes complacent. There's much more that we can do to build confidence in the work of the House of Commons and we should continue to find new ways of encouraging people to engage.
"The public already have many opportunities to make their voices heard in Parliament, and this new system of e-petitions could give them a megaphone."
However, Sir George said: "Of course, parliamentary time is not unlimited and we want the best e-petitions to be given airtime - so we will monitor the site closely over the coming months to assess whether the 100,000 figure is an appropriate target."
Deputy Leader of the House, Lib Dem MP David Heath, said: "The e-petitions website is the latest example of how the coalition is continuing to take forward its programme for government.
"It underscores our commitment to reform of the parliamentary process, and will help to reinforce the aim of greater engagement by people in the politics of this country."
Petitions will be moderated by government departments, with oversight from the Office of the Leader of the Commons. The plans were first set out in the Conservatives' 2010 election manifesto.
Petitions were introduced to the Downing Street website by Tony Blair. The most popular, with more than 1.8 million people in support, opposed road pricing. More than 70,000 backed the one-word suggestion that Gordon Brown should "resign". And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister.
The dust is settling, the parliamentarians are gone and the workmen have moved in to begin Westminster's usual summer programme of renovation and repair work.
Like the Forth Bridge, the Palace of Westminster, with its cast iron Victorian roofs, its Neolithic heating systems and endless need for maintenance and repair will be crawling with builders and craftsmen rather than politicians - the institution it houses, though, is in unexpectedly good order.
The horrible, doom-laden slog to the last election is a receding memory; the new MPs elected in 2010 (and the considerable number of new peers appointed since then) sit in a more open, more independent and powerful parliament than has been seen for decades.
The House of Commons has won some limited power to set its own agenda and has used it to some effect.
The select committees are more powerful and independent-minded than ever before. And the willingness of MPs and Peers to defy their whips is clearly high - rebellion in this Parliament is already routine; the Tory right, the Lib Dem left, Blairite diehards, eurosceptics, europhiles, libertarians, animal-lovers, NHS reform-sceptics and ultras, all have at least flexed their muscles.
After just one year, new MPs from the 2010 intake - a third of the total, remember - are more likely to have defied their party line than those of the 1997 intake were after four years in the Commons. In short, the Commons in particular, and Parliament in general, is a healthier institution, rather closer to what the public expects of their lawmakers.
Observers offer varying opinions of the performance of the Home Affairs and Culture committees in grilling those enmeshed in the hacking scandal, but the simple fact that the mighty Murdochs were forced to appear before MPs has reminded parliament of its own latent power.
And the trouble with treating select committee hearings as drama rather than inquisition is that reviewers look for "gotcha" moments and the visible collapse of witnesses, when the real importance may lie in the micro-details of answers given. Remember, these inquiries are not over.
More generally, the select committees have amassed more power and respect in the year or so since they resumed operations after the election.
The Treasury Committee has acquired a vet over the hiring and firing of the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the watchdog tasked with validating the Chancellor's economic projections and the Public Administration Committee persuaded a nominee to head the UK Statistics Authority to withdraw, with its chair, Bernard Jenkin remarking pointedly that "there was a perception it was the regulated choosing the regulator".
This kind of thing is clearly going to happen more frequently. As is searing criticism of Government policy in committee reports - take a look at the output of the Public Accounts Committee or of the Defence Committee. Look at the role played by the Health Committee with the Health and Social Care Bill, or the critique of Big Society localism offered by the Communities Committee.
In the Chamber, term ended with the Prime Minister facing a long and gruelling interrogation over the hacking scandal - one which he survived pretty well, but which none the less signalled that it is still essential for senior ministers (and the Leader of the Opposition) to convince in the Chamber.
More generally, a combination of the new Backbench Business Committee facilitating debates on subjects MPs want to talk about, and the Speaker allowing many more urgent questions - and, memorably, the emergency debate on phone hacking - have created a much more vibrant Commons.
To be sure MPs are still members of political parties and mostly vote according to the party line. But there is far more sign of individual judgement being exercised along the way and the Government has to take account of that in advance.
On the other side of the building, the Lords is a pretty vibrant place, too. Peers have already fought one massive, if ultimately, fairly fruitless, battle over the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act.
They can be expected to take to the trenches again over elected police commissioners, over the Government's proposed health and welfare reforms and over the future of their own chamber. You may be in favour of these measures, or against them, but they are all big important subjects and deserve robust debate and scrutiny; and they're going to get them.
Mostly missing from the scene is the expenses issue which so dominated the last parliament. MPs now groan about IPSA, and press for it to exercise a lighter touch. But it will be pretty hard for any future freeloaders to help themselves to the kind of extraordinary perks enjoyed by earlier generations.
So I'm afraid, as I head off for my holidays, I'm going to indulge in a little optimism. A stronger Parliament is doing a better job. And that is a good thing for the country. Blogging will resume when Parliament resumes - and barring an emergency recall, that will be on 5 September.
The Conservatives outspent Labour by nearly £15m in 2010, according to the Electoral Commission.A £14.3m overspend and the Conservatives still couldn't win the election outright! These figures are also fraught with significance for the Labour Party and its leadership...
In the period, which includes the general election, the Conservatives spent £49.2m - some £6m more than they collected in income. Labour spent £34.9m, including £1.05 from the Co-operative Party, an affiliated organisation.
The Liberal Democrats spent just under £10m, with the SNP on £2.2m and Plaid Cymru on £932,708
The commission said it was considering whether to impose sanctions on the BNP after it failed to submit its accounts. The party - which is already facing financial difficulties - could be fined up to £20,000 for late submission under new powers handed to the commission to prevent abuses. The BNP has been given 28 days to file its 2010 accounts or provide a reasonable explanation for why they are late. The party was not available for comment.
The Christian Party also failed to submit its accounts by the deadline and faces similar sanctions.
Electoral Commission chairman Peter Wardle said: "This is not acceptable. We have commenced formal case reviews into the circumstances.
"If we are satisfied that the rules have been broken and the parties concerned do not have a reasonable excuse, we will use our new powers to impose sanctions in accordance with our published enforcement policy, to ensure future compliance with the law."
Both parties could also be issued with a compliance notice, demanding that they hand over all financial documentation and appoint an auditor, at their own expense, to examine them.
The BNP was criticised last year by the electoral watchdog for failing to keep a proper record of who was donating money to it - but it could not take any action at that stage as it lacked sufficient powers.
Twelve parties, with expenditure of more than £250,000 in 2010, have submitted their accounts to the Electoral Commission.
The Labour Party has seen donations from wealthy individuals all but dry up since Tony Blair stood down as its leader and is now mostly reliant on support from the trade unions.
Figures released in December showed that the Conservatives had spent twice as much as Labour on campaigning at last year's general election. The Conservatives spent £16.6m, less than their £17.8m outlay in 2005. Labour's expenditure more than halved from £17.9m in 2005 to £8m.
Easton goes on to explore some of the main tenets of emergent "Cameronism", namely, 'upside down accountability' and affirming the importance of private sector profit... Worth a read for insight into developing Conservative party ideology, as represented by the Tory leader.I suspect every modern prime minister secretly wants to have their own "ism".
High honour indeed to have your name ism-ised, evidence that your ideas are radical and coherent enough to be classified as a distinct philosophy or school of thought.
People will have their own views about Thatcherism or Blairism (isms tend to divide opinion), but having a full Wikipedia entry - better still a reference in the OED - dedicated to one's political vision is truly to have made one's mark.
Majorism and Brownism are unconvincing stubs. History appears to have decided they may have re-upholstered the settee and scattered a few cushions but they didn't alter the feng shui of the room.
The current occupant of No 10 hopes today marks the unveiling of a convincing definition of Cameronism.
His Open Public Services paper is less a policy document and more an attempt to join the dots of domestic reform into a coherent whole.
"The reason for having a paper is that, though it won't be packed with policies, we need to try and change the culture so that people can see there is a consistent line of thought," he told me at a briefing in the cabinet room in No 10 last week.
Worrying news in regard to the effectiveness of Parliament overall.New MPs are finding the combination of long hours and a heavy workload a struggle, and worry the job is harming their family lives, research suggests.
A survey by the Hansard Society of the 227 MPs elected for the first time in 2010 suggest the new intake are working an average of 69 hours a week. One said the demands of Westminster and constituency work had a "devastating" impact on their private life.
MPs' hours were changed in 2005 because they were not "family friendly". The chamber decided to start its proceedings earlier on some days amid complaints that long hours and post-midnight finishes were putting off many people from becoming MPs. But the man who oversees the parliamentary expenses system has said the Commons schedule - which includes 2.30pm-10.00pm sessions on Monday and Tuesday - remains "idiosyncratic" and moving to more regular working hours could save money.
Last year saw an above-average number of newcomers to the Commons after a swathe of former MPs were either forced to stand down, following revelations about their expenses, or chose to retire.
Political research body the Hansard Society canvassed all the new MPs - about a quarter of whom responded - about their experiences during their first year in Parliament. It found that the "vast number" believed the job - which requires MPs to divide their time between Parliament and their constituency - was having a "detrimental" effect on their private lives.
While most MPs had expected to work a 60-hour week, on average they were doing nine hours more. The respondents said they spent more time on constituency casework than any other matter and that they passed 63% of their time in Westminster compared to 37% in their consituency.
The new MPs also expressed dissatisfaction with how the new expenses system was working - with 79% saying they were not happy with how the independent watchdog Ipsa was performing. MPs have complained the new system is too "costly and bureaucratic" and last month voted for it to be reviewed - although Ipsa has said the principles of independent oversight and greater transparency cannot be changed.
The Hansard Society, which conducted similar research after the 2005 general election, said it was too early to say whether these concerns would make any MPs reconsider their future in Parliament and their political ambitions. But Matt Korris, who compiled the report, said it provided an insight into the challenges faced by MPs.
"We need effective MPs in order for Parliament and our system of representative democracy to function successfully," he said. "These findings underscore the need for a review of the role of MPs, not just to build an improved political system, but for the very well-being of MPs themselves."
The report also suggests that more than half of the new MPs took a pay cut when they entered Parliament. MPs earn a salary of £65,738 and voted to forgo a 1% pay rise this year.
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.
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!
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.Read the rest!
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.
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."
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.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.
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."
More cosmetic than substantial in this instance—but may betray internal viewpoints...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.
