Tories must deliver at least "tiny" elected element to Lords or lose boundary changes, Cameron tells 1922 meeting

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

The Prime Minister has just addressed the 1922 meeting of Tory MPs - his final opportunity to address them before the summer recess. I'm told he got a warm if not rapturous reception and, in return, spoke candidly without bluster. More peers were present than for some time... Can't think why!

The top line is that he promised to launch "one more" push for Lords reform. If we don't give the Lib Dems even a "tiny" elected element to the Upper House we will lose other constitutional changes, he warned. By other constitutional changes he means boundary changes. If we can't deliver that element the Coalition will need to move on swiftly to other things but there will be a price for the Conservatives in losing the boundary review, he implied.

Looking forward the Tories needed, he said, to focus on three things: (1) the Coalition's awful inheritance (he said the British people were fair-minded and will be fair to Government if it keeps country safe from the global economic storm); (2) our values, especially social mobility/ aspiration and compassion - as most illustrated by the Gove and IDS reforms; and (3) that Labour, not UKIP or the LibDems were the Tory enemy. He has instructed ministers to go after Labour over the summer and autumn. Father of House Peter Tapsell in questions rebuked David Cameron in his unique style. Labour are opponents, not enemies, he said. Debate in the Commons had become far too personal, Sir Peter added.

Interestingly the PM began by paying handsome tribute to the Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin and gave him a big hug. My cynical/ realistic sources interpreted this as a sign that Mr McLoughlin's seven year period of service would not survive the post-Olympics reshuffle.

Can the Coalition be rebooted?

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Forget for a moment that most of us didn't want to be here. Most Tory members didn't approve of the kind of changes Cameron made to the Conservative Party. Most Tory members didn't think much of the awful Tory election campaign. Most Tory members wanted to govern as a minority government, not as coalition. Most Tory members then wish we'd pursued a more ambitious growth plan.

In summary --- The wrong modernisation. The wrong election campaign. The wrong post-election strategy. The wrong economic policy. Those four things are all true but we are where we are. Can the Coalition be saved?

Let's be clear, it needs to be saved. If there's an election now there's little chance of an outright Tory majority. Who thinks we will go from 33% (our overnight rating) to 43% during an election campaign? It's possible, yes, but likely? Hardly. Certain? You must be joking. An election would be fought on the old boundaries. The likely result is a Labour-led government; either in partnership with the Cable-Farron-Hughes wing of the Lib Dems or with Ed Miliband enjoying his own Commons majority. Ed Balls would be Chancellor.

Continue reading "Can the Coalition be rebooted?" »

Loyalist MPs will be doing David Cameron a favour if they vote against the Lords Reform Bill today

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

Because this bill is neither one thing nor the other, it threatens the stabililty of our constitution

There are two workable models for the House of Lords.  The first is for it no longer to be a revising chamber, and for a wholly elected second chamber to replace it as part of a rationalist package of constitutional reform (which would also include a fully-fledged written constitution in which the relationship between the two houses would be set out).  The second is for it to continue to be a revising chamber, in which case it is best kept much as it is, since the presence of elected members would only muddy the constitutional waters by raising the inevitable question: which elected House should prevail in the event of a clash?

I prefer the second model.  Some ConservativeHome readers would opt for the first, for which John Strafford argued on this site yesterday.  There is no doubt that Nick Clegg's plans are a halfway house between the two.  They offer the emergence in the Upper House of "senators" elected for a single 15 year terms by proportional representation on regional lists.  These pushmepullyous represent the worst of both worlds.  On the one hand, no-one who stands for a single 15 year term has an incentive to respond to voters once elected, especially since he or she will be hand-picked for the lists by the party machines.  On the other, he or she will be able to claim a democratic mandate - and, in some cases, a greater legitimacy too (in the event of the Senator in question spurning the validity of first-past-the-post).

Continue reading "Loyalist MPs will be doing David Cameron a favour if they vote against the Lords Reform Bill today" »

A guide to help you through the Lords Bill Spin War

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

The debate on the Government's Lords Reform Bill begins today and concludes tomorrow.  Here is a brief guide to try to help you through the maze of spin about what's happening now and will happen next:

• Don't believe what you read about numbers...  Both Whips and rebels have an interest in talking up the number of rebels - the latter so that they can put heart into potential rebels, the former so that they can proclaim "success" if the number is less than expected.  So be sceptical, for example, about today's report in the Independent in which "privately, Tory whips say there is a high chance that the Coalition is about to be defeated for the first time in a Commons vote on an important piece of legislation".  Some rebels that the whips have targeted will peel off.  However, new ones will emerge that the Whips aren't expecting. The Prime Minister will have rung around potential rebels over the weekend.

• ...Especially since the Whips' role is ambiguous... The Financial Times (£) reports this morning that some Conservative MPs believe that Downing Street can't be serious about the measure if William Hague, rather than George Osborne, has been dispatched to lead a whipping operation for the bill.  But this may itself be spin: Mr Hague is the ultimate party loyalist - and symbol of loyalty - and this may be enough to explain his involvement.  What is certain is that the Whips have been pulled hither and thither during the last few weeks.  First, David Cameron told Andrew Griffiths in a private meeting that rebels wouldn't see their career prospects harmed.  Next, the Whips had to crack down on potential rebels after this got out.  Their view is in any event ambiguous.  There have been reports of the Whips' phone-round on the measure beginning late and of rebellion being discreetly encouraged.  However this may be, John Randall, the Deputy Chief Whip, has a record of voting against Lords Reform.

Continue reading "A guide to help you through the Lords Bill Spin War" »

Lords reform Minister Mark Harper says "very Conservative proposals" will strengthen Parliament

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Constitutional and Political Reform (ie Nick Clegg's Conservative deputy), Mark Harper, appeared on Sky News earlier to give the Government's side of the Lords reform argument. Mr Harper said:

"It’s been Conservative policy to have a mainly elected House of Lords since 1999. I stood on the last three elections on that manifesto and the Coalition Agreement does no more than ask both the Coalition parties to deliver what was in both of our manifestos and indeed what was in Labour’s manifesto as well and I think it’s a very good Conservative measure about strengthening Parliament and having a check on the power of the executive and I think all Conservatives ought to be able to support it."

The Conservative manifesto actually says "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords", which does not entail proceeding with any legislation, and the fact that 80-100 Tory MPs are likely to rebel indicates quite clearly that a consensus has not been reached. Mr Harper continued:

"This is a proposition on which most members of the public – 70% of the public – will say that it’s perfectly sensible that you elect most of the lawmakers in the House of Lords, they don’t think there’s anything exceptional about it. I think we should have a proper debate in Parliament, a proportional amount of time, I don’t think we should over-focus on it but we should get on and enact this very sensible reform which the public support."

Continue reading "Lords reform Minister Mark Harper says "very Conservative proposals" will strengthen Parliament" »

Do Tory Lords rebels have 100 votes or 80?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

The newspapers today are, of course, filled with plenty of Lords rebellion stories. The Observer has details of a letter written by 36 cross-party peers, including Norman Lamont and Geoffrey Howe, and... 

"...the former Northern Ireland secretary and party chairman Peter Brooke, the former Scottish secretary Michael Forsyth, the former agriculture minister Michael Jopling, the former transport secretary John MacGregor, the former attorney general Patrick Mayhew, the former Scottish secretary Ian Lang and former environment, industry and social security secretary Patrick Jenkin. Another signatory is the former Liberal leader David Steel."

The letter argues that the Lords is "a vast reservoir of talent and experience, which complements the more youthful and vigorous House of Commons without ever being able to threaten it", and reform along Nick Clegg's suggested lines would "remove the unambiguous democratic mandate the House of Commons currently enjoys".

Such attempts at persuading MPs may be necessary: a number of newspapers report the number of Tory rebels to be at 80 - as opposed to 100, the figure given a number of times during the week. The Sunday Telegraph confirms the whips are responsible for the drop in numbers - and says the Prime Minister will telephone rebels to further try and change their minds:

"Sources across Westminster agree that Tuesday’s vote on House of Lords reform is on a “knife edge”. It is understood the number of Conservative rebels has fallen from almost 100 to around 80 in recent days as the whips have set to work shoring up support for the Government. ... This weekend the Prime Minister is to ring rebel Tories directly in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds."

Continue reading "Do Tory Lords rebels have 100 votes or 80?" »

Tory members say an elected Lords is too high a price to pay, in order to deliver the boundaries review

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

We voted for a referendum on AV and the Liberal Democrats supported the boundaries review.

Do you remember that deal?

The Lib Dems are now arguing - ever more loudly - that, actually, it's not quite so simple.

They are denying that there ever was a simple AV-for-new-boundaries deal. The AV vote and the boundaries review were both part of the Coalition Agreement and the Coalition Agreement - including, for example, Lords reform - must be observed in its entirety.

It seems that the Tory leadership has decided to press on with Lords reform. Tom Strathclyde, the Leader of the Lords, reiterated his support for an elected Upper House on Sunday. The view in Numbers 10 and 11 is that the extra twenty seats that the Conservative Party might* gain as part of equal-sized seats are worth it. Moreover, says Team Cameron, if we don't win the next election we may get an elected Lords anyway as part of a Lib/Lab deal and it will be elected in a way that is more threatening to the supremacy of the Commons than the model proposed by the Coalition.

Continue reading "Tory members say an elected Lords is too high a price to pay, in order to deliver the boundaries review" »

It is time for MPs to scrag the bankers

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

One of politicians' most primal instincts is to avoid blame - and dump it elsewhere.  Yesterday's manoevres by George Osborne and Ed Balls to hold each other's parties responsible for the banking collapse in general, and the Libor scandal in particular, was therefore unremarkable.  In a fair world, as Bruce Anderson suggests today, most of the blame would attach itself irremovably to the Shadow Chancellor himself, who is deeply implicated in Gordon Brown's idiot tripartite regulation of the City (though if banks are determined to lie about their borrowing costs, even the best regulation in the world may not find out - swiftly, at any rate).

But the world remains resolutely unfair, and Mr Balls's chutzpah may thus pay off.  It is the Conservative Party, not the billionaire-friendly party that Tony Blair turned Labour into, that is associated with country suppers, rising horses, wearing tails at weddings, the Bullingdon Club - all the David Cameron-related trivia about which Downing Street has understandably proved so sensitive - and capitalism itself.  No wonder Messrs Cameron and Osborne have scrabbled about agonising over Stephen Hester's bonus, removing Fred Goodwin's knighthood (in effect) and pronouncing, in Mr Cameron's case, on Jimmy Carr's tax affairs.  They are seeking to avoid blame.

Continue reading "It is time for MPs to scrag the bankers" »

Cameron's welfare speech was timed to help him over Lords reform (on which the Government is in trouble)

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

The coverage of David Cameron's welfare speech is entering its third day.  The Prime Minister started off by trailing it with an interview in the Mail on Sunday.  He delivered it yesterday, and Tim Montgomerie and I wrote about it on this site - here and here.  So did Tim Leunig of CentreForum.  Today, the comment pages and blogs are full of further views on it: for example, Iain Martin in the Daily Telegraph is for the speech's contents and Polly Toynbee in the Guardian is (unsuprisingly) against.

But hang on a moment.  Why are we devoting so much attention to this speech?

Continue reading "Cameron's welfare speech was timed to help him over Lords reform (on which the Government is in trouble)" »

Cameron cannot gain a workable Conservative majority without the boundary review

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

David Cameron has told the Daily Mail that he wants a Tory majority at the next election and complained about the Liberal Democrats:

"Mr Cameron singled out human rights law, reform of workplace rights and support for marriage as areas where Tory principles are being held in check but urged senior MPs growing tired of coalition not to ‘waste’ the next three years.

‘There is a growing list of things that I want to do but can’t, which will form the basis of the Conservative manifesto that I will campaign for right up and down the country,’ the Prime Minister said. ‘Be in no doubt, I want a Tory-only government.' "

Continue reading "Cameron cannot gain a workable Conservative majority without the boundary review" »