Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Beginning of the end?

It's been more than amusing watching the Lib Dem hysteria as its MP's and party members have looked into the abyss of electoral annihilation (mostly due to the fact that people tend to blame the government no matter what) and have seen the abyss in the shape of UKIP wink back. So, rather than be grown up about it...
Actually, what am I writing here, these are Lib Dems I'm talking about.
So when in trouble, the Lib Dems have sought instead to try and break the coagulation, by using the oldest Lib Dem trick in the book, blaming the Tories for starting it.
The Prime Minister is setting up a bitter clash over the reforms next year, as the Liberal Democrats have said they will vote against the proposals.
Mr Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, said on Monday that his party could not support the boundary changes because the Conservatives have dropped reforms to the House of Lords.
He declared the Coalition's contract to be "broken" and accused the Conservatives of failing to live up to their promises.
However, Mr Cameron today brushed off Mr Clegg's claims by saying he "does not accept" accusations that the Coalition agreement has been breached.
"We want the boundary change vote to go ahead," he said in Wales today.
Tbh, I doubt that many people were particularly stirred by reform of the House of Lords, save perhaps a generation of spongers unelectable MP's  seeking another route to the top trough. No i don't have any particular problem with the House of Lords, they have in the past reigned in the ideological lunacy of various govenments both Labour and Tory, they have a far greater grasp of the UK's weird and wonderful constitution than most elected MP's too. Are they perfect? No. Do they make mistakes too? Yes. But the alternatives proposed, give no greater hope of accountability or control, merely another way to turn part of Parliament into a party political machine.
As for boundary changes, I really have no problem with this and support the move to do so. After all, shouldn't an MP roughly represent the same amount of people as any other? Why should inner city wards be grossly over represented in the commons, though getting an inner city Labour MP to admit that might be problematical I have to admit.
Still it stands to reason that boundary reform can only leave MP's being more representative of the people who elect them rather than widely diverse numbers depending on which area of the country they represent.
On the other hand it's like asking some turkey's to vote for Christmas, so I expect Cameron will struggle just a bit.

0 annotations: