Fellow Bloggers: you don't think we're wasting our time do you?

Lib Dem Voice asked the question 'who do you think are the most effective non MPs at promoting the party?' and the results are out.

It's an interesting and eclectic mix and it's hard to argue with any of the names on it.

What's more interesting who isn't on the list. Any bloggers.

Now, I'm slightly exaggerating for effect as both Mark Pack and Stephen Tall figure. But I wouldn't class them as bloggers, given they run Lib Dem Voice, just as I wouldn't call Tim Montgomerie (Conservative Home) a blogger either.

But where was Caron Lindsay, Nick Thornsby, Richard Flowers, Jonathan Calder et al? Nary a mention.

Now, hands up. I didn't nominate any bloggers myself. Which says quite a lot in terms of 'top of mindness' of the blogging fraternity.

It's also probably true to say that the blogging effect works more as a sum of the whole than the parts. And perhaps we talk more to an internal audience than an external one.

We also are probably more critical of the party than the general media comment you see which would disincline members to vote for us in a survey like this. I noticed this tweet after the Golden Dozen was published on Sunday...



But I am also reminded that when I asked Nick Clegg last year if he read blogs, he (gently) told me no, he didn't have the time.

At the very least - the results of the LDV survey say to the Lib Dem blogging fraternity (of which I am proud to be a part) 'must ty harder'.

Will do.

Lords Reform; Boundary Changes; State funding for Political Parties. Are they really worth the same?

When Lords Reform was dropped, in the far off days days when The Daily Telegraph was asking whether we would ever win a Gold medal at The Olympics, rightly or wrongly we decided that Boundary Changes had a roughly equal value to the Tories as Lords Reform did for the Lib Dems, and we would therefore cancel one out in revenge for the other.

This may or may not be true - there are some Tories who will undoubtably be delighted that their constituencies are safe - but David Cameron's reluctance to drop the legislation in the face of hopeless odds does suggest they think it very important (though as I have written before - there may be something else going on...).

But now it has been suggested that the Quad had dinner last week and came up with an alternative plan - to give state funding of political parties the same 'tariff' as the other two policies, and allow both this and boundary changes through.

Now, as has been made quickly clear, this would not go down well with Tory backbenchers and so there's no guarantee Cameron can deliver (quite the opposite in fact given his Lord's Reform history...). and indeed a senior party source in the Lib Dems has poured cold water on the idea also...

And without some sort of cast iron guarantee Nick would be start raving bonkers to reverse his position on the boundary's legislation (especially as that would be a reversal of a reversal) - and it's hard to see what that guarantee can be.

But it also seems to be to be getting slightly ludicrous that we are horse trading constitutional changes left, right and centre without actually any central plan of where we want these changes to finally take us. There needs to be a grand vision - and as AV has fallen, and Lords Reform is dead, I can't see the logic in a half baked vision.

But am I wrong? Do all three of these ideas really have the same value? 

Surely not.

The death of Lords reform is an indictment of Westminster

My latest from The New statesman - pop over and see the original which for once has some sensible and non Troll like comments.

If the dramatic political events of yesterday tell us anything, it’s probably that we were barking up the wrong tree on Lords reform. We were thinking too small. We should have been chasing Westminster reform.

To everyone sitting in the Westminster bubble, I say this. In last month's Commons vote, Lords reform passed with a majority of 338, with support from all three of the main parties, yet it will not see the light of the day. What does that say to the wider public about how well, or rather badly, "the system" works? We can blame "game playing" by Labour (a charge we in the Lib Dems have now opened ourselves up to – we were all for equal constituencies not so long ago…) or weak leadership from a Prime Minster incapable of getting his backbenchers to support legislation fashioned (let’s not forget) by a non-partisan, cross-party group of Parliamentarians. But actually none of this, nor the subsequent game of he-said-she-said, does our politics any credit.

No, the electorate just sees a dysfunctional system that cannot deliver a reform promised for 100 years and writ large in everyone’s manifestos. Is it any wonder, then, that the public turns its back on political parties, who have seen their membership fall so dramatically, as a result? Is it a surprise that we get excited about a 65% turnout at a general election when, until as recently as 1992, turnouts of 75 or even 80% were the norm? Or that the most popular Conservative politician in the country isn’t even a member of Parliament?

Sure, most people in the country don’t have Lords reform at the top of their list of priorities right now. But that only makes the failure to achieve it even more bizarre – this isn’t some high profile vote loser or winner, yet our elected representatives have conspired and connived to make delivering it impossible in an orgy of game playing, petty politics and self-interest. A lot is being written about who the winners and losers from the affair are. But outside the bubble, the words piss up and brewery are the ones that first spring to mind.

Boundary Changes: Cameron is a man with a plan.

Cameron has by all accounts decided to press on with presenting legislation introducing boundary changes.

At first glance this seems madness. It's hard to see how he can win. But we all know he needs those boundary changes if he's to stand any realistic chance of delivering a majority for the Tories at the next General Election. And the longer it looks like he can't deliver that, the less time he's got in charge of the Tories. As we all know, they're not afraid of changing their leader as soon as they think it will stand them in better shape for keeping or taking power. The clock's ticking. Hence this desperate throw of the dice...

....or is it it quite as desperate as it looks?

Maybe - just maybe, there's something else going on.

Nick's on the record to Parliament, supporting boundary changes, saying for example...

There can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.

If there was a Parliamentary debate around the changes to boundary's, Nick would have to speak in it. Why? Because he's the Cabinet minister with special responsibility for political and constitutional reform. And he'd have to stand up and effectively tell Parliament that either he didn't believe in the changes now - or he didn't support them back then. 

He will be in a very difficult position.

I suspect Cameron has war gamed this. And sees further heaped embarrassment for the Lib Dems as a big upside. Popular with his back benches. Shows he wont let us dictate what policy he can or cannot introduce (whether he can deliver it or not). A man of principle - vs. Nick, the political opportunist. It's all upside for him.

And who knows - maybe something will turn up and he'll actually win. 

Once again - this potentially could play very badly for the Lib Dems.

So, fellow readers. Which party leader did we decide was going first

I asked in my last poll 'Which party leader will lose their position first?'

Even with a huge Lib Dem bias to this blogs readership, the answer was fairly clear.

I guess if anyone is safe right now it would be Ed Miliband. Ahead in the polls, and (since this poll closed) seemingly nailed on to win the next election, with the demise of the boundary changes. Though things do change...

But I wonder if Nick's position is truly that much weaker than Cameron's. Partly because Cameron's decision to press on with boundary changes looks rather like the act of a desperate man (or does it? - more of that in my next post). And partly because if any party finds it easier to ditch a leader than the others, it's the Tories.

It's a tiny sample (far less people voted than in previous polls - perhaps Olympic Fever made getting people to focus on this sort of thing more difficult. But it doesn't make pleasant reading for Nick. It will interesting to see what the results of the latest LDV vote, especially the Nick Clegg questions, tell us.

Cameron's decision to drop Lords reform will test the coalition like never before

Posted this last Friday in The New Statesman. 4 days later, I'm feeling I had it pretty much on the money...

Do pop over there to see the comments...

So now we know. The reported abandonment of Lords Reform means the government’s legislative programme is being run, not by the Prime Minister, but by a group of 100 or so Conservative backbenchers who henceforth will be calling the shots. It’s quite a moment.

The received wisdom seems to be that that "no Lords Reform means similarly no boundary changes", there’s a minor sulk for a day or so and then everyone moves on.

This is quite wrong. From a Lib Dem perspective, the two great constitutional changes we wanted to achieve in government will have failed. There will have to be some mighty great bits of compensation in return – and it’s unlikely the Tories will deliver. Can anyone see Osborne – now guaranteed to be Chancellor until the next election according to the PM yesterday – agreeing to a radical green agenda? Ditto on delivering root and branch banking reform, the so-called "Vickers Plus" plan apparently favoured by Vince. Self-interest means neither the Labour or Conservative leadership will show any great enthusiasm for Party Funding reform. And even if they did, those emboldened Tory backbenchers now know they can stop anything they don’t like in its tracks.

But neither is the status quo acceptable to grassroots Lib Dems. Expect fireworks at the Brighton conference where Lib Dem members will be demanding Nick Clegg negotiates the earth in return for this latest Conservative debacle – but which he knows he cannot deliver because his Tory opposite number is holed below the water line.

Nick’s only power will be similarly to say a firm "No" to anything we find even vaguely uncomfortable going forward. The snooping bill should be firmly in his sights. But more than that, he needs to stop any of the legislation that the Tory right are itching to start pushing – attempts to abandon the European Convention of Human Rights and an EU referendum are two obvious areas in which Nick is more likely to be able to control Tory backbenchers than the PM. There’s an irony there.

And so we reach an impasse in which the sole government agenda item will become the centrepiece of the coalition agreement – reducing the deficit. And even there a fight is brewing as Vince pushes for Plan B and Osborne looks to cut Welfare. Another impasse looms.

And all the time the pressure builds. Tory backbenchers will be stretching their muscles, Lib Dem grass roots will be pushing right back. Eventually something is going to give. The only question is which is the weakest spot – Cameron’s hold on his party or the glue that binds the coalition?

One of them is going to crack first. And then the fun really starts.

Out of focus. Poorly framed. Slightly washed out.

...and yet still probably the best picture you'll ever see.

Lovely.

h/t to @charlstonm & @philipnormal

Update: Oh no! Apparently it's a photoshop. Makes me quite sad.