UK House of Lords reform dropped - Clegg says Tories 'broke the coalition contract', Lib Dems won't - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Plans to reform the House of Lords are being abandoned after Conservatives "broke the coalition contract", Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg says.[/B] As a result, he said Lib Dem MPs could not now support Conservative-backed changes to parliamentary boundaries. Mr Clegg said all three parties had supported reform of the Lords in their 2010 election manifestos. But he said it was clear that agreement could not be reached and it faced a "slow death" in the Commons. The deputy prime minister said he was "disappointed" with the outcome, adding that he had offered the Conservatives a referendum on the issue in 2015 as part of a compromise but this was rejected. He said the Conservatives could not take a "pick and choose" approach to the coalition agreement, entered into by both parties in 2010. [B]'Mutual respect'[/B] To make sure the contract remained "balanced" the Lib Dems now wanted to delay proposals to reduce the size of the Commons from 650 to 600 MPs and to redraw parliamentary boundaries - thought likely to favour the Conservatives - until after the 2015 election. "The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken," he said. "Clearly I cannot permit a situation where Conservative rebels can pick and choose the parts of the contract they like, while Liberal Democrat MPs are bound to the entire agreement." While he was still committed to keeping the coalition going, Mr Clegg said it was a "reciprocal arrangement" and could only work if it was based on "mutual respect". [B]Tory opposition[/B] As a result, he said he had decided "reluctantly to push the pause button" on both Lords reform and proposed changes to parliamentary boundaries to equalise the size of constituencies in 2015. Although these have already been approved in principle by MPs, they require a further vote on their implementation in time for the next election. Mr Clegg said:"I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them." The Lords reform plans which would have seen 80% of peers elected and the total number of members halved to 450. But 91 Conservative MPs rebelled against the government in a vote in July - the largest such act of defiance since the coalition was formed in 2010 - while Labour said more time was needed to scrutinise the plans to address concerns about how they would work. Mr Clegg accused Labour of playing politics with the issue. "In my discussions with the Labour Party leadership, they have made it clear that while they continue to back Lords reform in principle, they are set on blocking it in practice," he said. "Supporting the ends, but - when push comes to shove - obstructing the means." [B]'One more try'[/B] The prime minister told Tory MPs last month he would make "one more try" to push Lords reform through in September when the Commons returned from its summer recess. Conservative MP John Whittingdale said Mr Cameron quickly realised there was no prospect of the rebels being won round. "I think the answer became pretty clear that that there is overwhelming opposition in the Conservative Party to any form of elected House of Lords," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One. "And therefore he (David Cameron) had to accept that this was not going to happen. Nick Clegg has just had to also now accept that reality." Lib Dem MP Martin Horwood said the Conservatives "had become the G4S of British politics" and had "failed to deliver" - a reference to the firm involved in a row about security ahead of the Olympics. Asked about the coalition's future, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said disagreements over the Lords would not affect the two parties' commitment to work together. "The really important thing about this coalition is that we came together to sort out the economic mess that we inherited from Labour," he told Sky News. "There isn't a cigarette paper between us on that."[/quote]

Oh dear, Clegg / Lib Dem's last chance to actually salvage something out of this coalition is gone. [editline]6th August 2012[/editline] This is the point at which he says "OK, no we won't support your plans anymore".

And so it begins that nothing else will go through until the next election.

So, when will the votes of no confidence start getting thrown around?

I am rubbing my hands with glee because this means that we are going to be seeing more exciting politics.

This is the reform that broke the deal? The worst one?

at least get rid of the clergy in the lords, that shit has to end

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37111146]at least get rid of the clergy in the lords, that shit has to end[/QUOTE] To be honest as I've said before, due to the clergies more socialist stance, I really don't mind them there. It may be a bit unfair to allow one group of religious leaders and not others but as long as they don't use politics to shove religion down everyones throats and deal with actual issues I can tolerate them

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37112118]To be honest as I've said before, due to the clergies more socialist stance, I really don't mind them there. It may be a bit unfair to allow one group of religious leaders and not others but as long as they don't use politics to shove religion down everyones throats and deal with actual issues I can tolerate them[/QUOTE] You're willing to compromise your principles for political gain? Nice.

[QUOTE=barraclogh;37112136]You're willing to compromise your principles for political gain? Nice.[/QUOTE] What principles?

Good. I don't like elected House of Lords anyway. It's redundant. Just get rid of the clergy.

[QUOTE=barraclogh;37112136]You're willing to compromise your principles for political gain? Nice.[/QUOTE] Not everyone is an aggressive, raging atheist. I also agree with him. The House has stopped a lot of the crap laws the government is trying to bring in. I think it should be changed one day, but not when all they want is more politicians that'll achieve nothing but approving based on party lines. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=redhaven;37112418]Good. I don't like elected House of Lords anyway. It's redundant. Just get rid of the clergy.[/QUOTE] Oh hey, did you know that the reason the government were halted to change the law to give poorer families less money, force disabled people into work was because the Lords disagreed with the government? It's clearly not redundant when they're the ones on the side of the public more than elected officials. I voted Lib Dem so uni fees wouldn't raise, families kept their child tax credits and there was a ringfenced NHS - that didn't happen, but the Lords thought it was a good idea. Unless you understand ANY of what I just said, don't make any god damn decisions because of the fucking clergy.

[QUOTE=redhaven;37112418]Good. I don't like elected House of Lords anyway. It's redundant. Just get rid of the clergy.[/QUOTE] The HoL was going to be elected by PR so its makeup would have very different from the Commons, therefore not redundant I've always been a very vague supporter. Probably should be elected but whatever, they can only delay bills anyway

[QUOTE=smurfy;37112758]The HoL was going to be elected by PR so its makeup would have very different from the Commons, therefore not redundant I've always been a very vague supporter. Probably should be elected but whatever, they can only delay bills anyway[/QUOTE] Do we really want another house full of useless politicians though? I prefer the current house of lords with business experts, scientists and engineers in it.

i'm starting to think that the day politicians shut the fuck up about eachother's wrong-doing and actually get something right themselves will never come

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;37112683] Oh hey, did you know that the reason the government were halted to change the law to give poorer families less money, force disabled people into work was because the Lords disagreed with the government? It's clearly not redundant when they're the ones on the side of the public more than elected officials. I voted Lib Dem so uni fees wouldn't raise, families kept their child tax credits and there was a ringfenced NHS - that didn't happen, but the Lords thought it was a good idea. Unless you understand ANY of what I just said, don't make any god damn decisions because of the fucking clergy.[/QUOTE] What? I don't understand what you mean indeed. I'm against the idea of an ELECTED HoS because it's doing okay on blocking nonsense from the parties (especially the Tories at this moment). An elected Lord would have to succumb to party politics (follow our policies or we'll kick you out), and couldn't make a decision independently and professionally. Of course, I dislike the idea that the Lords currently have to be affiliated to a party. [QUOTE=smurfy;37112758]The HoL was going to be elected by PR so its makeup would have very different from the Commons, therefore not redundant I've always been a very vague supporter. Probably should be elected but whatever, they can only delay bills anyway[/QUOTE] Still redundant with small difference (unless Lib-Dem gets too many votes but less seats in the Lower). They can only delay bills. Yeah, that's why the country can afford not to make the Upper House unelectable. Democracy is a safeguard against concentration of power to one person on the long-run. Democracy for the sake of democracy is nonsense.