X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

The Lib Dem penalty for a ‘breach of contract’ on the Lords

6 August 2012

3:58 PM

6 August 2012

3:58 PM

In his statement to the press this afternoon in which he confirmed that the Liberal Democrats were throwing the towel in over reform of the House of Lords, Nick Clegg tried to paint his party as the ‘mature one’. He said the coalition agreement was ‘a contract that keeps the coalition parties working together in the national interest’, and added:

‘My party has held to that contract even when it meant voting for things that we found difficult. The Liberal Democrats are proving themselves to be a mature and competent party of government and I am proud that we have met our obligations.’

Later he pointed out that it was not his party that had caused the Lords reforms, and therefore the boundary reforms too, to fail. The images in Clegg’s statement focused less on the idea of the coalition as a marriage that the media is so fond of and more on cold, hard business deals, and the consequences of breaking contractual agreements. ‘When part of a contract is broken,’ he said, ‘It is normal to amend that contract in order then to move on.’

[Alt-Text]


The Deputy Prime Minister had been discussing whether the Conservatives could muster the numbers necessary for the programme motion on Lords reform to go through for weeks, his aides said. As a compromise, he had offered a referendum on Lords reform that would take place on election day in 2015, and both the reforms to the upper chamber and those to the boundaries being deferred to 2020. Clegg had known for a few days last week before the story made its way into the papers that this would not work. Today he spoke to David Cameron on the phone to confirm the warnings of the past few months: that the Liberal Democrats will be opposing the boundary reforms.

How is this going to work? ‘In a sense, this is a new moment,’ said Mr Clegg. He explained that the Conservatives were keen to push the reforms to a vote, but that the Liberal Democrats wanted to table an amendment which would see the changes to constituencies delayed until after the 2015 election. If that amendment is not accepted, ministers from the Liberal Democrat benches will vote against the reforms, but the line from the party is that they will not be sacked because this is over a breach of contract from the Conservative party. Then the coalition will miraculously move on, seemingly with no hard feelings. They are also trying to push that the coalition is an extraordinary set of circumstances in itself.

It is still difficult to imagine either side of the coalition managing to continue to behave in the ‘mature’ manner that Clegg sketched out this afternoon when it comes to other areas of dissent. David Cameron might struggle to sack a Conservative minister who pushed a non-coalition agenda, while Lib Dem frontbenchers would come under pressure from backbenchers and party members to rebel again on other issues of equal importance.

Clegg is hoping to go to his party conference with some other legislative victory to prove that the Liberal Democrats are still delivering in government. He suggested that this could be going further than the Vickers proposals on banking reform, or on reforming social care or increasing employment opportunities for young people. These would fill the legislative void left by the behemoth Lords Reform Bill. Expect more details on the Liberal Democrat positions on these areas in the weeks running up the autumn conference season.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close