By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Paul Goodman appears in this Sunday Politics report on Lords reform, warning that Lib Dems might withdraw support from the boundaries review if they don't get an elected Lords. Tories need to understand, says Ming Campbell, that belief in an elected Lords is in the Lib Dems' DNA.

After the above package the Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott debated reform with Tory backbencher Philip Davies. Davies told Oakeshott that he'd treat Lib Dem claims to believe in democracy more seriously if they weren't so pro-EU. Oakeshott said the Conservatives wouldn't get boundary reform if Lib Dems didn't get an elected Lords...

Andrew Neil: Would you vote against Lords reform?

Philip Davies MP: Absolutely, I certainly will be.

Lord Oakeshott: Okay well in that case you’ll be fighting the next election on the old boundaries.

It was a sparky exchange...

And as for Lord Oakeshott's claim that an elected Lords was in the Tory manifesto - that is disputed.

Comments

[redmayne77]

I am not a Liberal Democrat buy Phillip Davies was intellectually outclassed, albeit an easy achievement.

This is making sure that the contitution is changed in recompense for the stupidity of the No side in the AV referendum battle.

[Andrew Landriani]

There is an alternative interpretation to Lord Oakeshott's comment in response to Philip Davies. Rather than vote down boundary changes he may have meant that the LibDems would exit government, therefore sparking an early general election.

Obviously that would amount to the same conclusion; namely the fall of the government and an in-coming Labour administration with a significant majority.

This is a clear sign that we may be 'all in this together' but the LibDems are in it for themselves alone!

[Ricardo's Ghost]

and there was me thinking that the wretched AV referendum was the price paid for the boundary changes. The Lib Dems are, for reasons best known to themselves, determined to cement their reputation as the most duplicitous, weak-willed, and incompetent party in British politics.

Perhaps we need to occasionally remind them of this:
- despite spending an election saying they'd back the party with the most votes and seats in a hung Parliament they desperately tried to hatch a deal with Labour
- despite telling voters that tuition fees was such a priority for them it was worthy of its own pledge, when the coalition negotiations got underway they dropped it immediately in order to get a compromise on constitutional change
- despite wearing their green and rural credentials on their sleeve they didn't ask to have a Minister in Defra
- despite voting for the original Health Bill and signing off on it, they then did an about-turn when it looked unpopular
- despite getting their compromises on the Health Bill during the pause, when it was still unpopular they came out against it again
- despite agreeing to the tactics over the proposed EU treaty, when those tactics being played out resulted in a UK veto, they howled outrage

[Patsy Sergeant]

What is the victim of coercion always told? That if you give in once, you will be the target again.

How refreshing it would be if the two parties could learn to work together as a team. However, having watched the interviews with the older LibDems, that take place periodically, all they display is what they have always displayed, which is an arrogant belief that they have a right to absolute authority in government. Having got a taste of government now, albeit as the minority party, the 'oldies' are not about to let this opportunity pass, and it would not surprise me at all if the elected MP's are not regularly badgered by the 'oldies' to demand more and be more aggressive!!

[Ricardian]

I beg to differ, Lord Oakeshott was appallingly rude and every time Phillip Davies opened his mouth to make a point, Lord Oakeshott butted in.

I have noticed that Lord Oakeshott has been spouting quite alot these last few weeks. He should realise that the Lib Dems are in Coalition because the country is in a very dangerous situation and they should be concentrating on trying to clean up Labour's mess and not trying to score political points. Lord Oakeshott said that reform of the House of Lords was in the Coalition agreement implying that Phillip Davies would have to vote for it, so I would like to remind him that so were boundary changes and therefore Lib Dem MPs will have to vote for that.

Liam Fox pointed out that Conservative MPs make up 5/6 of the Coalition. That might be something that Lord Oakeshott might like to reflect on when he tries to deny voters the right to be in a constituency of equal numbers.

[Elaine Turner]

You are so right.. the AV and boundary changes were linked. The Liberals have to behave like nice children. They have had their turn (AV), now it is our turn (boundary changes) and then it will be their turn (Lords reform). Should the Libs veto the boundary changes, I think that should be the end of the Coalition. The Liberals don't have anywhere to go except to Labour and they still won't have a majority, save with all the other MPs and that I would think is going to create problems and the Lib Dems would look even worse in the public's eye than they do already.

[G+P]

Tories should vote with their consciences on Lords reform and Lib Dems should do the same with the boundary changes.

But when it comes to the boundary changes:

a) They don’t hurt the Lib Dems
b) The Lib dems got the AV referendum which was worth much, much more to them than the poxy boundary changes.

I’ll freely admit that I felt the AV referendum was too high a price too pay. I was happy to be proved more or less wrong when it was defeated.

The Lib Dems just take take take. Oakeshot is despicable.

[G+P]

Quite right. This just goes to show why fixed term parliaments are such a bad idea. If a coalition falls apart it should be possible to go to the people to resolve the issue, indeed that should be considered the norm.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Very well said.

[LadyHyacinth]

My understanding was that if there was a referendum on AV then the Lib Dems would support the boundary changes. The Lib Dems have been throwing their toys out of the pram since they lost that referendum (by a massive margin I seem to remember) and now apparently the goalposts have moved again.

What an odious character Oakshott is but then he is Cable's mouthpiece. I felt this coalition was going to last but since the likes of Williams, Oakshott and Ashdown have nobbled Clegg, I honestly don't think I can stand another three years of watching these duplicitous, back-stabbing, infantile name-calling b-------s. Everything tor policy is being watered down to the extent it's hardly worth pursuing. The NHS has been mauled to death by the Lib Dems with more on the way.

The sooner we have a GE, the better.

[john]

Who cares about the AV referendum? They lost, as most people predicted..

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Trading major constitutional changes like tokens in a game is not the way we should alter our constitution in this country.

If the votes aren't there for boundary changes, they shouldn't happen. If the votes aren't there (on their own merits) to alter the House of Lords, then it shouldn't happen either.

Having 14% of the coalition hold the other 86% to ransom like this does show up just how power-drunk and desperate the Liberals are. The AV referendum was supposed to be the bone to the Liberals, now they blew that they're whining over something else.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I agree with you Elaine. I think that the LibDems should be 'seen' to play their part in the 'sharing' bargain, actually I would go further and say that they should be penalised in some way if they don't agree. Mainly because I think that they are behaving more like spoilt children than adults!!

[Tim Montgomerie]

Well said Matt.

[michael mcgough]

Ah,blackmail the backbone of bipolar coalition politics.

[It doesn't add up...]

Solution: defer the Lords legislation until AFTER the boundaries have been voted on. The Lib Dems already had the AV referendum as an up front sweetener. Enough is enough, or they'll get diabetes from all the sweeteners they're getting. Time for jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but never jam today.

[Ross J Warren]

We are in bed with a shocking upstart. It is liberality and its a curse. Why are we even pretending this is anything but a liberally sloppy fudge, this coalition is almost worse than the pits of Labour.

[hector]

I dont see the coalition agreement as being done in a paired way eg av for boundary changes. The way I see it is that both conservatives and lib dems have agreed to support everything in the agreement. From memory members of all parties were happy to go ahead with the agreemenet at the time and must now accept they have to agree to vote for things they dont want, if conservative mps stood up at the time and said they were not happy with the agreement and wanted the party to run as a minority government then its a different story.

I doubt it matters anyone the combined payroll vote of each party combined with those desperate to get on the payroll will ensure both go through.

[G+P]

1) We agreed to play russian roulette with our entire country in exchange for something. We can now expect to get that something or else the Lib Dems should sling their hook and we should call a general election.

2) The referendum still did some damage as the pro-proportional representation people got a huge free hit (campaigning wise) against the rest of us.

3) It was not at all clear that they were certain to lose that referendum at the time it was called. Although the book makers never called the probability of a yes win as being over 40%, for a long time the “yes” camp had a big lead in the polls.

[radsatser]

It's all rather grubby from where I'm standing.

Neither party believes in democracy otherwise we would have had a vote on the EU, and a devolution arrangement that was fair and equitable.

The Conservative party want new boundaries for simple party electoral advantage, and they don't want an elected Lords because they would lose party advantage, as there is no way it would be acceptable to use FPTP, which would mean the minor parties would get their feet under the table at the expense of Labour and the Conservatives.

The Lib Dems want an elected Lords because they are one of the minor parties that would benefit, and they don't want new boundaries because they will lose out.

What a bunch of opportunistic tossers!!!

[LadyHyacinth]

Even with boundary changes, the Conservatives would still find it difficult to achieve a majority. This just makes the playing field a little more even after years of Labour's gerrymandering.

The real scandal is postal voting, especially in Asian communities but I see the government doesn't have the stomach for that particular fight but they should.

[Joe De Mocritus]

Time to start planning for a General Election.

Of course, in his wisdom, our great leader has given away his rights in that area, so he will have to work hard to manufacture losing a vote of no confidence. What a prat.

[Bruce]

they actually don't need a full majority, there are 313 lib dem and labour with another two awaiting court. The NI mob tend to cancel each other out and the nats would side with labour so edm can form a government. The only thing is if some libdems stay.

[Bruce]

Oakeshott is nowhere near the strongest performer the lib dems have but Phillip Daviees couldn't handle him. His performance was poor and he didn't come across to the party advantage. There are others far more competent who can put the party message in a more attractive way

[Ian]

> Lord Oakeshott said that reform of the House of
> Lords was in the Coalition agreement implying
> that Phillip Davies would have to vote for it, so
> I would like to remind him that so were boundary
> changes and therefore Lib Dem MPs will have to
> vote for that.

Yes, that's precisely the point. And vice versa.

If the HoL reform doesn't carry, why would the LibDems, having been shafted by the Tories twice, vote for new boundaries? And the argument about "better things to do in times of crisis" can be applied just as easily to fiddling with constituency boundaries, which is hardly a national priority right now.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I do wonder if Lord Oakeshott really speaks for the majority of Liberal Democrats? He is a bit of embarrassment what ever your political vuewpoint. Personally I hope we call his bluff and that the Conservatives kill electing the House of Lords stone dead.

[robert]

Call the Liberal Democrat bluff and go to the country.
Blackmail is a nasty thing and Liberal Democrats are nasty.

[Boudicca]

I can't help thinking that the LibDems will go cool on an elected Lords under a PR system when they realise that UKIP may well end up with more Lords than they do - and also possibly hold the balance of power in the Upper Chamber. Bring it on, I say.

[Faustiesblog (ex-Conservative)]

Philip Davies took exactly the right approach. If the LibDems want to bust the coalition apart, let's see how well they do in the ensuing GE.

Anyhow, in the event of the LibDems pressing their ejector seat button, the Conservatives might just have sufficient numbers to govern alone - provided that they get the thinking Right on board. That wouldn't be too much of a challenge for a truly conservative party to handle. ;)

The LibDems are the fox on the run and Philip is the doughty hound on its trail.

Go get 'em, Phil!

[Simon Densley]

The Lords are far too important to allow the Lib Dems to push through their destructive dreams. If we have to live without boundary changes, so be it. We can fight for them again at another time. But once the Lords and everything it stands for is obliterated, it can never be resurrected. Both are important; but we are comparing something of great political importance with a fundamental pillar of Britain's greatness. And the Lib Dems should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves over the whole issue. The sooner they are gotten rid of the better.

[Marc Heine]

Ask anyone who has fought the LibDems at the local level if they are known for honesty and integrity. They are a party of the self-righteous and the self-important, the sort of people who could never win in a straight fight--certainly not since well before the last war, so that is roughly forever--so they are reduced to muddying the waters and getting in the way of parties who actually DO stand for something.

With their support ranging from 7 to 12 percent in the latest opinion polls, they are desperately fighting for survival. They will do anything--repeat: anything--to maintain their specious presence on the political scene.

I wonder if a) Mr Cameron, and b) CCHQ, realise this, or even care.

[Dave Bush]

Don't underestimate Callme Dave's wish to stay as PM for as long as possible. It is all very well calling the Lib Dems duplicitous, but the planning in the corridors of CCO is just as murky.

[Ricardian]

Boundary changes were in return for the Conservatives agreeing to the AV referendum. We delivered, it is now time for the Lib Dems to deliver. I believe the agreement on Lords reform says words to the effect that it will be investigated. I'm not sure what you mean by "having been shafted by the Tories twice".

[Andrew Smith]

Looks as if Cameron is barely in office and certainly not in power.

[michael mcgough]

"so he will have to work hard to manufacture losing a vote of no confidence."

he's making a good start Joe

[Fish]

Just been trying to find what Oakshott's majority was at the last GE. Can't seem to find it!

[Paul McKeown]

The deal was that Cameron was not to campaign on the AV referendum, and that it was to be allowed a fair go. Patently that didn't happen.

Oakeshott has my blessing. If Davies and his ilk wish to welch on the Coalition agreement, then fine, they are welcome.

Meanwhile, watch the Lib Dem MPs cross the floor, vote no confidence with Labour in Cameron, and wait for Her Maj. to summon Ed Miliband as Prime Minister for the remainder of the five year parliamentary term.

Not that I would welcome Ed Balls's financial plans for the country, but I do firmly believe that one good shafting deserves another.

Watching Philip Davies's face on the opposition benches would be a joy. Well, from the hoisted by own petard perspective, anyway. It could only truly be a joy, if he actually underwent a facial transplant.

[Mr Angry]

The AV referendum voted NO because the British people were completely unconvinced by the YES lobby's, weak and often spurious, arguments. It had nothing to do with it somehow not being given a "fair go", that is nonsense.

[Malcolm Dunn]

That's patently untrue. There was no agreements whatsoever on Cameron campaigning on anything.
It was also given a fair go, the fact that the campaign for AV was inept was the fault of its proponents, no one else.
The Lib Dems are likely to be shafted at the next election whoever wins,again the fault is entirely theirs.

[Paul McKeown]

And that is old-fashioned, self-serving cock.

There was an agreement that Cameron would not campaign. He broke it because he wanted to keep his more worthless backbenchers on side. What you say about an inept campaign, well I do agree. But it isn't the point: flout an important agreement like that, in such fashion, you immediately lose any good will that you had until then.

And matey, old pal, don't you be writing the Lib Dems off at the next election. I am willing to bet you lot will be coming round their door again asking for help. However, given the drooling incompetence with which an change to the management of the NHS is being attempted, outside the coalition agreement and outside any manifesto put to the electorate, I am beginning to wonder whether it is Labour will get the better end of the next hung parliament, 2015-2020.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Really? What agreement was that? I think you just made it up.

[Paul McKeown]

Really? You think that - or did you just put your fingers in your ears and go, "La, la, la, I can't hear you?"

Eh?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Eh?

[Simon Densley]

As someone who has just fought them at local level (in Worcester park), I concur... You are absolutely right about them.

[Marcus Buist]

What sort of fair go is it if the other side are not allowed to campaign? As it happens, AV was wholly rejected in the referendum, but in staging that referendum the Conservatives fulfilled their obligations under the coalition agreement. The boundary review must go ahead, the current system is undemocratic and just as importantly, it is skewed in Labour's favour. The ultimate disaster for this country would be a Labour government that would undermine the economy, and reverse the vital Conservative achievements in education and welfare reform.

[BODYBUTTER]

BODY LOTION increases brightness of the skin.To get more BODY LOTION visit: vegantreeowl.com.au

[BODYBUTTER]

Ah, body butter. I go through so much of this stuff trying to keep my skin well hydrated, especially in the 100+ degree weather we've been having here for the last few weeks.More various body butter visit: www.vegantreeowl.com.au