Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I doubt that Labour have any appetite to see any part of the Coalition programme succeed, especially as that is a Lib Dem Coalition quid pro quo for accepting a Boundary commission report that will act in conservative interests.

I think Labour want Lords Reform in principle, but not this reform and especially not at that price

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 04:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The proposed Lords reform doesn't reflect the details of the reform proposed in the Labour manifesto. There's no reason for them to vote for it.

Further, stopping the Conservatives gerrymandering has to be a priority if we want to remain a democratic country.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 05:55:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be in the Lib Dem interest to agree to almost any change in the existing bill, to appease Labour. However, Labour will consider that the House of Lords is less important than boundary changes for the House of Commons.

The most likely outcome is that Labour will move the goalposts, as much as they need, to avoid reaching a Lords compromise.

We will then have to see if the Liberal Democrats are bluffing, on voting down the Commons boundary changes. I think, given the timescale, that they probably are but trying to play hardball politics and not going through with a threat is going to look appallingly weak.

by Gary J on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 06:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is, if the Lib Dems make concessions to Labour, this will give Cameron the excuse to give the whole Tory party the go ahead to vote against the bill...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 09:20:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Labour will surely do anything to avoid helping the libdems achieve a victory over their tory partners. With the current non-democratic electoral system, Labour will be seeking to marginalise the libdems definitively.

This is one of the many evils of the UK electoral system. Another, minor, evil is the endless bickering over gerrymandering. A much greater issue is that the system no doubt favours economic disparities between territories.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 09:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't fault Labour for this.  Clegg had his chance to cut a deal with Labour, with ridding the world of "first past the post" as part of it, but he went with the Tories instead and got nothing.  Now the Lib Dems as a party no longer have anything to offer Labour.
by rifek on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 09:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why should Labour deal with the Lib Dems at all?  If the coalition fractures, so do the Lib Dems, with Labour raking in most of the chips.
by rifek on Sat Jul 21st, 2012 at 09:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series