THE LOVE THAT HAS GONE SOUR..
By David Vance On August 7th, 2012You would need a stone not to laugh;
Nick Clegg plunged the Coalition into brutal bloodletting last night after delivering a crushing blow to Tory hopes of a majority at the next election. The Deputy Prime Minister announced he was abandoning his pet plans for House of Lords reform after opposition from Conservative backbenchers. And in a tit-for-tat move branded a ‘treachery’ by senior Tories, Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems would now vote against Tory plans to redraw constituency boundaries which are expected to help the Conservatives gain 20 seats at the next election.
But meanwhile…
David Cameron has said he will press ahead with proposed changes to the House of Commons despite the Lib Dems saying they will vote against them. The prime minister said plans to redraw constituency boundaries would be “put forward” to MPs and he urged all parties to back the “sensible” plans.
When I think Nick Clegg I see Violet Elizabeth Bott.
It is a relatively stupid move by David Cameron. Almost the entirety of the Parliamentary Labour Party will vote against them. The same now with the Liberal Democrats. The DUP won’t back them. The SDLP won’t back them. The SNP and Plaid won’t back them. Add that to the fact that a small minority of the Tory Party won’t back them.
All David Cameron is doing is ensuring a high profile Commons defeat for the Conservative Party will take place.
Seamus,
Kowtowing to such a bunch of hypocrites, even when done by other hypocrites, is never a pleasant or worthy thing to do or to watch.
At first glance, and dumb as it is, it may not be the smartest thing Cameron has done, – although I cannot think of anything to surpass it, at the moment, it may however, – given the length of time to the next elelction, – be regarded as ‘Cameron’s Last Chance’. A chance to do ‘what a man’s gotta do’, and stand up to his opposition.
Who knows, by doing what he thinks is best for the country, he may just win back enough real conservative votes to win the next election. I’m offering odds of 66-1…
Seamus,
so you don’t think the “Rapidly Shrinking Liberal Democratic Party” had any ulterior motives in reforming the House of Lords.
You don’t think political survival might have anything to do with it?
I seriously doubt David Cameron is going to survive much longer. Once the euphoria over the Olympic Games has evaporated, and the bills start rolling in, and Londoners realise that their city hasn’t come the Land of Oz… disillusionment may set in big time.
Agit, there is more to the UK than London and London isn’t really that pro-Tory anyway.
Also I do feel the Liberal Democrats had ulterior motives for reforming the House of Lords though given their current standing in the polls it wasn’t electoral. The reason he wanted to reform the Lords was because it would be his legacy. The Lib Dems, as any sort of electoral force, are done for a generation. Clegg could very easily be scalped at the next election. But if he is able to ride off into the history books as the man who finally killed off the House of Lords then he won’t care.
Ernest,
I don’t think it will be Cameron’s last chance. Because of the decision over Lords reform scuppering the boundary changes it means Labour basically need about a 1% lead over the Tories to win a majority. The Tories need about a 6% lead over Labour. Labour currently have a 10% lead. The Tories need a 4-5% swing just to stop a Labour majority government. They need an 8% swing to get a majority of their own. They are going to struggle to do that at the best of times. But with the first political event of the post conferences being Labour taking a Tory seat in a by-election as well as then a very public defeat for the Tories on boundary changes all it will do is make the Tories look weak. And that isn’t how you overturn the current electoral problems they have.
“Who knows, by doing what he thinks is best for the country, he may just win back enough real conservative votes to win the next election. I’m offering odds of 66-1…”
Except for the public don’t give a damn about it. And most people don’t feel that supporting these changes is doing what is best for the country. Most people feel that supporting these changes is doing what is best for the Conservative Party.
Seamus,
I agree with your response to Ernest above. The great tragedy continues to be that politicians keep rearranging the deck chairs as SS UK Democracy slowly sinks beneath the waves..
All the time politicians refuse the people a say on the big issues they are guaranteeing the death of our democratic society.
For example, look at what is happening within the EU and the Eurozone. We may not be part of the currency, but we’re damn well tied in to everything else, and when it collapses we will be badly hit too.
Now had the politicians like Ted Heath been really honest with us, and succeeding governments allowed us a referendum, think how much we would have been spared. Both economically and socially, we would have still been a magnet for investment and we would have avoided the Human Rights legislation.
Politicians have dragged us to this point, not democracy.
Seamus,
My point was that if instead of worrying about such trivialiies as ‘Lords reform’, Cameron has a wide range of actions open to him which, if he took the opportunity, could well reignite his voter base.
Such items as the vote on EU membership – an electoral promise if I’m not mistaken and by avoiding it is in as much a ‘breach of contract’ with his electorate as with Clagg.
Such items a immigration, human rights legislation, ineffectual judiciary, etc. etc.
all requiring attention, but he, seemingly, lacking the will to act.
The odds on offer are now 100-1….
Ernest, the problem that I feel you and many conservative commentators who what Cameron to advocate certain issues (such as an in or out EU referendum, the Human Rights Act, Immigration, significant spending cuts) forget one major point. It isn’t that Cameron lacks the will to take on these issues. Cameron lacks the Parliamentary majority to do it. There is no point in him going forward on those issues. He will lose them.
I wouldn’t also categories a major constitutional change and one that goes right to the fundamental heart of a democracy as trivial.
Seamus,
That modern day politicians pay such scant respect for constitutional matters merely reflects the general lack of interest in such matters when compared to matters such as the very real demographic changes the politicians general lack of respect for said constitutional matters, has wreaked upon this nation.
Talk of democracy is basically nonsensical when our politicians have such little respect for even the most basic of democratic concepts.
We should face the reality that we are governed by self-serving egotists, who see membership of our government as a mere stepping stone to even more powerful positions. Blair and Brown have both openly admitted as much, and Major has shown his ambition by example.
When it suits them, they are happy to promote the ‘national pride’ attitude, and are equally happy to deny it, ‘as and when it suits’, as when visiting Brussels.
The one who is prepared to say ‘no!’ to the EU, will be the one that gains electoral respect, as Thatcher showed, for brief few weeks.
The lack of integrity and honesty of our poliicians has become a joke, particularly at election times, even the most despotic of ME dictators, seem, in that respect, to be better endowed, ours just aren’t quite so overtly brutal…
Heath would have sold his grandmother to gain full admission to the EU (or whatever it was called at that time), similarly for Blair. It seems that twice we owe it to our enemies – firstly De Gaulle and then Brown (yes, I regard him as an enemy), for both having prevented our full membership at various crucial times.
Thatcher said yes to the EU. It was Thatcher who signed the Single European Act.
Also, when it comes to democracy, not one of the main three party’s advocated withdrawal from the EU at the last election. So they didn’t exactly break and election promise on it.
Seamus,
I think you are splitting hairs. I don’t believe I said anyone actually advocated withdrawal, the promise of a vote on the matter was enough to stir hopes that if the vote went the way most think it would go, then that was an assumption that withdrawal might follow.
However, as we know to vote ‘No’, doesn’t actually guarantee anything, except maybe another vote at a later date.
Didn’t Cameron make much mention of a vote on the matter? and now seems to reject the idea.
Thatcher did sign – reluctantly but only after obtaining concessions, and at the end of the day was virtually blackmailed by some of her cabinet into accepting what was offered. I did say for a few brief weeks.
Not one of them promised a vote at the last election either.
Hair splitting again. Seamaus. It is a fact that all three main parties promised a referendum (and if that isn’t a vote it’s damn close) on the EU membership. Try Googling Dave’s cast Iron Guarantee. All three..then the promise was broken. OK some circumstances may have changed but all three including the Ld’s have broken their word to the public. Yet again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/david-cameron-lisbon-treaty-referendum
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558786/Keep-EU-referendum-promise-MPs-tell-Brown.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/referendum-membership-lib
Which is why only a fool would believe anything they say..especially Cleggie.
Dog,
Read the Manifestos. Not one of the three main party’s promised a referendum in their manifesto.