Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Clegg shines (and Labour acts dirty)
CLEGG[i-CLEGG]"Personally, Mr Speaker, I have always supported a 100% elected upper House - but the key here is not to make the best the enemy of the good" - Nick Clegg, Statement to Commons 17 May 2011
Today Clegg published his plans for reforming the House of Lords. He shined in true form whilst presenting it to the Commons, looking like the Nick Clegg of old who inspired me during the election.
I'm grateful to George Potter (a Lib Dem up in Surrey, but we don't hold it against him - that is, the fact he's a Lib Dem, not the fact he's in Surrey) for listing the main points of the proposals:
- 300 members
- 80% elected - 20% appointed but with a provision for a fully elected chamber
- Members to be elected for single 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation
- A third of members to be elected in 2015, a further third in 2020 and 2025
- Number of bishops to be reduced from 26 to 12
You can see his excellent summary of the reasoning behind these points here.
Here's what Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Secretary, had to say:
"These proposals risk being a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome—not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease. After 12 months in office, he has nothing new to say on Lords reform, but is simply putting out proposals that kick the issue into the long grass." (Hansard)It's my own view that he is pretty much making the best of a bad situation - Tories opposed, much of Labour opposed and even those in Labour who back reform opposing it because they feel like sticking the knife in.
Anyhow, here's what Our Glorious Leader (Caroline) had to say:
"I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, but given that a poll released today shows that 74% of people are against unelected bishops having a place in our legislature, including 70% of Christians, and given that expertise and wisdom are not the monopoly of any one religion, will he look again at that aspect of the reform?" (Hansard)
Outside of the Commons chamber that was really the key issue at stake. The British Humanist Association has been pointing out, convincingly, that although the number of Bishops will be cut, in line with the smaller size of the new Chamber this will mean a proportionate increase:
Under current arrangements, Bishops make up 3% of the House of Lords. Under the G"overnment’s proposals that would increase to 4%. Reducing the number of reserved seats for Bishops from 26 to 12 would actually increase their presence proportionately in the chamber.
BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented:
‘The presence of unelected prelates is an anomaly within our system of government, and their retention, even in diminished numbers, would be an indefensible affront to democratic principles. In no other legislative chamber are elected or appointed representatives deemed so insufficiently qualified to deal with matters of belief and morality that they require supplementing by clergy.'" (BHA website).
But let's remember something: today a man stood at the Despatch Box and said, after 100 years of waiting, that the House of Lords will be an elected institution.
If only Labour could pull its head out of the sand, it might understand that and engage with that man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Very interesting blog. Totally agree with an elected house. Definitely think that any religious leaders should have to stand as candidates just like anyone else. Just wish Labour would start being progressive again. Who's holding back 'red' Ed?
ReplyDeleteCheers :)
ReplyDeleteTechnically he's now 'Blue' Ed after signing up to the blossoming Blue Labour phenomena:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/17/ed-miliband-endorses-blue-labour-thinking
How dare you. I feel mortally insulted. I am not from up north. I'm from Surrey (Guildford to be precise). I demand you retract that slur this instant.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, great blog (though I am from Guildford and not Lincoln).
I thought so George, which is why I put 'up in Lincoln' as opposed to 'from Lincoln'.
ReplyDeleteHehehehe.
But I'm not in Lincoln! I'm in Surrey - that's where I go to university. Tsk tsk. You greens, always making assumptions. Next you'll be trying to convince me that global warming isn't a myth made up by the lizardmen.
ReplyDelete