The press misses a big story in Nick Clegg: The Liberal Who Came to Power

I have just listened to the second part of Steve Richards' Radio 4 documentary Nick Clegg: The Liberal Who Came to Power.

The press coverage beforehand concentrated on Jeremy Browne's opposition to the idea of selling ourselves as the party of the centre and on Shirley Williams observation that Nick likes to surround himself with young people, not all of whom are particularly competent - Simon Titley's belligerent youths.

I agree with both, but Shirley Williams said something else important that the pre-broadcast coverage missed.

She said that Nick Clegg has a low opinion of the House of Lords.

I was talking to a peer in London the other week - as one does - and was told that relations between Nick and the Lib Dem group in the Lords are not good. The peers feel they are required to do a lot of hard work to improve the poor (and often illiberal) legislation the Commons sends to them and do not get the recognition from Nick that they deserve.

This poor feeling between Nick and the Lords, I was told, in part explains the poisonous progress of the Rennard affair. Many Lib Dem peers are inclined to stand by one of their own because of it.

This story first appeared on Liberal England - since then I have heard the same story from another source.

Running out of old grandees

‘Two jobs’ Tom McNally has finally shed one of his roles, having resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.

He has combined this since 2010 with being a justice minister, with the result that it is easy to find peers who believe the demands made of McNally mean that he did neither role effectively and had an obvious conflict of interest when peers objected to something the Ministry of Justice is doing.

This was illustrated by his having been probably the only person in the hall at last month’s party conference in Glasgow to vote against the emergency motion on legal aid cuts – the party was against MoJ policy and he was stuck with it.

Who will succeed him? McNally followed Shirley Williams, who followed Bill Rogers who followed Roy Jenkins, who was appointed at the merger.

Alert readers will have spotted that the qualification for being Lords leader is to have been a prominent SDP member and, apart from the appalling Ian Wrigglesworth, the House is running out of those. As a newly appointed peer, Wigglesworth probably also lacks the required seniority.

Those thought to be in the running include John Alderdice, the group’s convenor (and a suitably distinguished and trusted loyalist), and its deputy convenor, former party president Navnit Dholakia.

Update on 4 October – We now hear that Jim Wallace will be standing for Lords leader, despite breaking the unwritten rule of never having been in the SDP.

However, as a Scottish lawyer, it is unclear that Wallace could take McNally’s Ministry of Justice post, which presumably will have to wait for the reshuffle.

At last... those new peerages

Finally, after several false starts, the list of new life peerages has been announced. There are ten new Liberal Democrat peers. How does this list compare with Liberator’s predictions on 16th June?

Well, we correctly predicted that there would be ten new peers and we correctly predicted seven of them:

• Olly Grender
• Christine Humphreys
• Brian Paddick
• James Palumbo
• Alison Suttie
• Rumi Verjee
• Sir Ian Wrigglesworth

We also predicted an unnamed Scottish Liberal Democrat, who turned out to be:

• Jeremy Purvis

We failed to predict two:

• Cathy Bakewell
• Zahida Manzoor

Meanwhile, two of our predictions went away empty-handed:

• Liz Lynne
• Julie Smith

In any event, there is an equal number of men and women on the Liberal Democrat list. But the list is heavily biased to people resident in London (even if they came from somewhere else originally).

The practice of ennobling former MPs seems to have come to an end. Only one of the nominees is a former MP (Sir Ian Wrigglesworth), and he lost his seat in 1987. His nomination probably had more to do with his subsequent services to the party than his time as an MP.

How many of today’s new peers were elected to the party’s Interim Peers Panel? The answer is just two; Brian Paddick, who was elected to the panel in 2008 (and, strictly speaking, his membership of the panel expired in 2012), and Olly Grender, who was elected to the 2006 panel (which expired in 2010).

Only one person from the most recent list (elected in 2010) has so far been made a peer: Sal Brinton. Only three from the 2008 list have previously been ennobled: Jonathan Marks, Monroe Palmer and Ben Stoneham. It is probably safe to assume that Mr Clegg does not have much time for the Interim Peers Panel.

Those Lib Dem peerages in full

A new batch of Liberal Democrat life peerages is imminent once again. A front-page report in today’s Sunday Times headlined ‘Cash for peerages row hits Clegg’ names some of them. (The report is hidden behind a paywall but is quoted by Liberal Democrat Voice and Liberal Burblings).

The wealthy donors accused by the Sunday Times of ‘cash for peerages’ are Rumi Verjee and Sudhir Choudhrie, although the paper reports that Choudhrie has been dropped from the proposed list of peers. Verjee was the subject of another Sunday Times report on 20 January.

Rumours of the new life peerages have been around for at least a year. A list of new peers was drawn up more than a year ago but was shelved when it looked like the House of Lords was about to be reformed. Indeed, so certain of reform was the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Executive that it postponed last autumn’s scheduled election to the party’s Interim Peers Panel.

After the blockage of Lords reform by Tory MPs, the Federal Executive failed to reinstate the election. Meanwhile, rumours resurfaced last November of a new list of peers. This list was shelved for mysterious reasons.

Then this February, we reported the imminent announcement of the list, which included 18 new Liberal Democrat peers. Again, the announcement was postponed for mysterious reasons.

Now, we understand that the list may finally be announced, and it is less than half the length of earlier versions. The Sunday Times says there will be 20 new peers, of whom seven will be Liberal Democrats; the report names six of them:

• Olly Grender
• Liz Lynne
• Brian Paddick
• Alison Suttie
• Rumi Verjee
• Sir Ian Wrigglesworth

From separate sources, Liberator has heard there will be not seven but ten new Liberal Democrat peers. Besides the six people named by the Sunday Times, the other four are expected to be:

• James Palumbo
• Julie Smith
• A Welsh peer (expected to be Christine Humphreys, President of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and a former member of the Welsh Assembly)
• A Scottish peer (not known; Elspeth Attwooll or Ross Finnie, possibly?)

Whether there are seven, ten or eighteen new Liberal Democrat peers, the creation of yet more new peerages will serve only to further overcrowd a crowded House of Lords. The number of peers will exceed 800, making the Lords the world’s largest legislature after the Chinese National People’s Congress. Perhaps the Lords chamber should be renamed the Great Hall of the People?

Postscript: Today’s Observer has news of a report by the Electoral Reform Society, which predicts that, following the 2015 general election, the number of peers could increase to over 2,000 to satisfy the principle of balancing the number of peers in accordance with the previous election result. This prediction may be an exaggeration, nevertheless the exponential growth of the Lords can only hasten reform.

Secret courts and the Stockholm syndrome

More information has come to light regarding Tuesday night’s votes in the House of Lords on secret courts. And it seems there is a fundamental problem of Liberal Democrats on the government payroll (i.e. ministers and whips) behaving as if they are suffering from a coalition equivalent of the Stockholm syndrome.

There were three key amendments in the Lords debate:

1. Amendment 6A (proposed by Labour peer Jeremy Beecham, which would have made secret courts a “last resort”). This amendment was narrowly defeated by 174 votes to 158, a margin of 16. 26 Liberal Democrat peers defied the whip and voted for this amendment, while 29 supported the government by voting against party policy.
2. Amendment 6B (proposed by Liberal Democrat peer Ken Macdonald, which would have empowered judges to balance demands for closed hearings with the public interest in open justice). This amendment was not moved to a vote.
3. Amendments 19A to 19D (proposed by Liberal Democrat peer Jonathan Marks, which concerned the review and renewal of the legislation). Amendment 19B was heavily defeated by 141 votes to 65, a margin of 76. 31 Liberal Democrat peers defied the whip and voted for this amendment, while 22 supported the government. The other Marks amendments (19A, C and D) were not moved to a vote. The increased size of the rebellion was largely due to the party leadership in both Houses privately agreeing that it was OK to rebel on this amendment, so the vote was not the display of cojones it might first appear.

Of those Liberal Democrat peers who backed the government, 12 of the 29 on the first vote and 10 of the 22 on the second vote were part of the so-called payroll vote (including whips who don’t actually receive any pay). The rebels therefore had a clear majority of those Liberal Democrat peers who were free agents.

There are reports that about 20 Liberal Democrat peers were in the building but abstained on both votes, while others stayed at home. Given the first vote was so narrow, it would not have required many more Liberal Democrat peers (and/or Labour peers) to secure victory. On the second vote, however, Liberal Democrat peers could not have salvaged the amendment no matter how many rebelled; the problem was the failure of enough Labour peers to vote. The timing was also a problem. The two votes took place later than expected (at 9.21pm and 10pm respectively, instead of 7pm).

The ‘what ifs’ extend beyond the conduct of Tuesday night’s votes. Liberal Democrat peers were put in a difficult position by their colleagues in the Commons. And the circumstances of being in coalition will in any case create frequent conflicts of loyalty.

But let us say you are a Liberal Democrat peer who feels that the discipline of being in coalition always overrides questions of liberal principle. You ought at least to vote for things like secret courts with a heavy heart and not act like one Liberal Democrat whip did on Tuesday night by being openly jubilant when the amendments were defeated.

This enthusiasm when fundamental liberal principles are abandoned suggests that being in coalition has created something akin to the Stockholm syndrome among Liberal Democrat parliamentarians who are either on the government payroll or aspire to it. They should remember that the coalition is a creature of circumstance and not political nirvana. If swallowing bitter pills makes you light up with joy, you really do need a good slap.

Talking of people in need of a good slap, there is more information on Nick Clegg’s recent immigration speech. Simon Hughes was shown the text only one hour before it was delivered and, in the short time available, is said to have prevented it from being even worse.

Secret Courts – the battle is not over

Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts has today e-mailed supporters with a reminder to lobby Liberal Democrat peers about Tuesday’s vote in the House of Lords on secret courts. It reminds us that the stakes are high:

The campaign continues and reaches the eleventh hour this week. The Lords vote on Tuesday will either improve this terrible Bill, or see it pass in its current non-JCHR compliant form which will mean the campaign to stop the Bill will have failed.

You may recall David Howarth’s advice at the recent party conference to the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, Tom McNally:

Tom, I know the Lords can stop this bill. You know the Lords can stop this bill. They should stop this bill.

McNally and his chief whip Dick Newby have ignored this advice. They are arm-twisting Liberal Democrat peers who oppose secret courts, advising them to abstain rather than vote against the government.

If you would like to treat McNally’s and Newby’s stand with the contempt it deserves, here is an opportunity to do something about it.

New Lib Dem peerages: runners and riders

Liberator understands that a large batch of new life peers is shortly to be announced, probably before the end of this month.

The list will include 18 Liberal Democrats, which implies at least 30 new Conservative peers and over 50 new peers in all, since the ostensible aim is to bring the parties’ share of peerages more closely into line with the result of the last general election. This has a certain logic, although it means the creation of a ridiculous number of new peerages, since each successive general election will require the winning party to leapfrog the others.

It is likely that most of the names on the list will be those held over from last spring, when a batch of new peerages was aborted because Lords reform was on the cards. After those reforms were abandoned, there were strong rumours that the list would be revived and announced in November but it was again shelved, for unknown reasons. It now appears that the dust has finally been blown off last year’s list and a few more names added for good measure.

Needless to say, rumours are flying around about who the lucky 18 Liberal Democrats will be. Here is Liberator’s guide to the strongest contenders...

Controversial Lib Dem peerage

Yesterday’s Sunday Times reported that one of the Liberal Democrat nominations on the forthcoming list of new life peers is millionaire businessman Rumi Verjee.

(The Sunday Times story is hidden behind a paywall but you can read a summary on the Indian news website ZeeNews.com).

Of course, no one outside the leader’s office – not even Sunday Times journalists – knows who is on the list. The list may not yet have been finalised. But that has not stopped the criticism.

Critics of Verjee’s nomination have raised three issues. The first is one faced by any wealthy donor receiving an honour. Verjee (through his company Brompton Capital Limited) has made donations to the Liberal Democrats totalling £775,000 since May 2010, which has led to predictable if unfounded allegations by a Labour MP. Second, at the Labour Party’s request, the Electoral Commission is examining whether these donations are “impermissible”, although Verjee and the party are likely to be cleared of any wrongdoing. And third, it has been suggested that Verjee’s offshore business interests are at odds with recent statements by leading Liberal Democrat ministers critical of offshore operations.

Provided the Electoral Commission gives the all-clear, no laws have been broken, and much of the controversy is the product of Labour’s muckraking (in an area where a certain phrase about pots and kettles springs to mind). The question of policy on offshore interests is one for the leader to answer, not Verjee.

The fundamental problem is not Verjee’s wealth or business affairs. Rather, this sort of controversy, even if unfair, underlines the problem of having a legislature (the House of Lords) that is nominated rather than elected. If there is any fault, it belongs to the system of patronage and the politicians who uphold it.

End of the peer show

Rumours have reached Liberator of the imminent announcement of a new batch of life peers, including up to 15 Liberal Democrats. This was originally planned for the spring, but postponed because of Lords reform. With the defeat of reform proposals, the list of new peers has been revived.

The argument for appointing more peers is ostensibly to adjust the party balance more in line with the Commons, since Labour still has more peers than the Tories (225 to 212). Despite that argument, news of more appointments will not go down well with existing peers.

The number of peers has reached absurd proportions (currently 760, plus another 52 on leave of absence or disqualified from sitting), making it one of the largest legislative chambers in the world. Quite apart from the growing costs, the never ending expansion of the Lords is causing serious problems with such things as the allocation of office space and other working facilities.

Who will be the lucky Liberal Democrats this time? One name perpetually at the top of the rumour list is Brian Paddick, to be rewarded for his two attempts to become Mayor of London. Otherwise, if past experience is anything to go by, appointments will be used to beef up the numbers of women and ethnic minorities in parliament. In any event, all appointees will be expected to work as full-time peers (unless they have been unusually generous donors). And given the growing rebelliousness of Liberal Democrat peers, Nick Clegg is unlikely to make a rod for his own back by appointing any more potential rebels (which is why it would be a surprise if any of the MPs who lost their seats in 2005 or 2010 will be sent to the Lords).

The party has awarded peerages to most of its women who have served as council leaders, so a strong contender must be Barbara Janke, who was leader of Bristol City Council until she resigned in April. Rumours are also circulating of Julie Smith (policy wonk and Cambridge councillor) and Deirdre Razzall (editor of Liberal Democrat News until it finally closed last week).

Liz Lynne (former MP and MEP) must be a strong contender. However, her fellow former MEP Diana Wallis resigned from the European Parliament in controversial circumstances and may be passed over.

We must not forget, of course, the Liberal Democrats’ interim peers panel, last elected in 2010. There should have been fresh elections this year, but the party’s Federal Executive decided to cancel them because of Lords reform. When those reforms were themselves cancelled, the FE failed to revive the scheduled election.

The 2010 peers panel remains current till 2014, however. Might Clegg pick any of his nominations from this list? Only one person elected to the 2010 panel has so far been ennobled, and that is Sal Brinton. Of the remainder, the likeliest candidate is Chris Bones, a management consultant and close ally of Clegg, who you may recall in 2008 led the Bones Commission into party reform. Others on the panel who are more of an outside bet are David Boyle, Liz Leffman and Mike Tuffrey; none of the others seems likely.

But whoever gets a peerage, the inflated size of the House of Lords will serve only to hasten reform of one sort or another.