End of Lords reform:End of Coalition?

It seem s that David Cameron is about to pull; the Plug on Nick Clegg's Lord's  reform


Earlier this year, the two Coalition Leaders outlined plans to replace appointed peers in the House of Lords with elected senators. The first elections were to be held in 2015 with the elected members of the 


However, dozens of Conservative MPs and peers expressed their strong opposition to the proposal amid fears it would undermine the supremacy of the Commons.

But the Government is now said to be preparing to shelve the plans, which would slash the number of peers and make the chamber 80% elected.

The move will open the door to retaliation by the Lib Dems, who have already warned they could block boundary changes that could hand the Tories an extra 20 seats at the next election.

There has been some speculation if the Lib  Dems  are humiliated with the dropping of Law reform or the allowed to retaliate over boundary changes then Cameron will offer the Lib Dems. A reform of political party funding or more support for green energy.

But surely Clegg' can't be seen clinging to a coalition which has failed to deliver two of his manifesto commitments  Introduction of the Single Transferable Vote and a Fully elected Second chamber.for more money for his party?

What can Clegg do know that he has been humiliated twice over two key reforms  of our political system? Which the Lib Dems entered the coalition in high hopes of achieving

• Carry on and hope that they can claim to have moderated even more 
savage cuts from the Tories

• Look at a way of introducing Law reform that the Tories would back.

• Withdraw from the Opposition and allow the Tories to form a minortity government  but stil back them on key issue for some concessions .

• Withdraw from the coalition and  become a full part of the opposition.

• Withdraw and force a vote of no confidence and a General election and likely seat losses even 50%.

None of these options are likely to enhance the Lib Dems in the eyes of the electorate and they look like to be in for a torrid time. and can Clegg guarantee he can take all his 57 MPs with him?
Cameron has 305 MPs he needs he beds 325 for a majority (excluding the speaker  there are 649)But with Sinn Fein nor taking their seats he needs 322 in reality
So  if 15 - 20 Lib Dems stay in the coalition then Cameron will have a working Party majority .

One would suspect all those Lib Dems who have experienced the reins of power will be reluctant to give up their post especially if it would lead to a general election and a wipe-out of their party


.It seems that Clegg's only option is to carry on and hope that he  can somehow get some minor concession from Cameron,that he will claim as a major victory in the next 3 years. Unlikely but then what else has he got?

Are the Libdems just a Tory Faction now?

Well no its worse than that if Nick Glegg was a Government Minister and  the leader of a faction  within the Tory party (Like the Bruge group) and he had been humiliated by his leader. To the extent that  the Deputy prime minister was

"bitterly disappointed" by the outcome of the EU summit, and says he is still committed to the coalition government with the Conservatives. adding that David Cameron's decision to veto a new EU treaty would leave the UK "isolated and marginalised".

 He could, no probably nd would have resigned  from his cabinet position and  returned to the Backbenches and be probably be followed  if they had any ounce of morality by his fellow Libdem ministers.

U K's new position on the World Map

Of course this would have led to the fall of the coalition . So Clegg and his colleagues are showing that far from being a moderating influence on Camerons Conservative, they are in such a weak position that they can't even stand up for their principals and are prepared to accept th UK Isolationist Role and its new position as a Mid Atlantic Island with no influence in Europe treated like a minor power by the US and the rest of the World regarding us as the home of greedy bankers .

Clegg seems to be a impossible position he clearly leads a party that if they were in opposition would have been the most vocal opponent of Cameron's pathetic kowtowing to the Tory Eurosceptic right who may be a faction that  but clearly has more and influence that he ad his rag tag army has.

However if he was to call time on the coalition and force a General Election it it is unlikely his party would return anything but a rump.

Cameron has clearly humiliated his deputy but unlike previous Ministers, who had previously experienced  this such as  such as Geoffrey Howe after in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's Margaret Thatcher position at the Rome European Council meeting way back in November 1990, at which she had declared for the first time that Britain would never enter a single currency , left the Cabinet and  this led to his resignation speech. where he offered a striking cricket metaphor for British negotiations on EMU in Europe:

"It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain". 

In Clegg's case it seems that he wasn't even allowed on the team bus.

Will History repeat Itself? (Big Soceity & Care in the Community)

On paper David Cameron’s "Big Society" looks a quite attractive policy for a decentralist  like myself, but in reality it is a policy to transfer power to voluntary groups which will be run by the sort of people that the Con-Lib coalition approve of. You can bet your life no group that advocates any form pf democratic participation bases on socialist principals will be allowed.


I am  reminded of another Tory Policy "Care in the community" which was introduced in the late 1980.s with the claim that it would end institutionalised care.

The basis behind "Care in the Community"  was intended,

To cap public expenditure on independent sector residential and nursing home care. This was achieved in that local authorities became responsible for operating a needs-based yet cash-limited system.

The Plan was to having a mixed economy of care, i.e. a variety of providers. The mixed economy provision in residential and nursing home care would be maintained despite the social security budget being capped. And there would many independent organisations providing domiciliary care services.

The main aim was to redefine the boundaries between health and social care. Much of the continuing care of elderly and disabled people was provided by the NHS. Now much of tha this would  re-defined as social care and is the responsibility of local authorities.

An important point to note however was that NHS services a was free, whereas social services have to be contributed . so some people could be charged under Care in the Community where they had previously received it free under the NHS or the local authority could pick up the bill by means testing

Means and Smith ( Bristol University (1989) claimed that the reforms:

Introduced a system that is no better than the previous more bureaucratic systems of resource allocation

Were an excellent idea, but received little understanding or commitment from social services as the lead agency in community care

the enthusiasm of local authorities was undermined by vested professional interests, or the service legacy of the last forty years

health services and social services workers have not worked well together and there have been few 'multidisciplinary' assessments carried out

in reality little collaboration took place except at senior management level

the reforms have been undermined by chronic underfunding by central government .

the voluntarily sector was the main beneficiary of this attempt to develop a "mixed economy of care"

What we saw under the Care in the Community agenda was sick people being made homeless wandering the streets as social services fought with limited budgets to deal with a crisis which should have been dealt with by the NHS and supported by central government.

It is clear in my mind that the major driving force behind this disastrous policy was to cut costs and so it will be with Cameron's Big Society.