Liberal Democrat MPs walk out of the House of Commons...

...in a huff as part of a pre-arranged stunt after their ridiculous call for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU - rather than over the current Constitution "Treaty" being debated - was denied by the Speaker.

Are they now going to stay out of the Commons?

Please, please do.

At least for the rest of this debate.

Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

It's not as if they add anything to the discussion, anyway!

Nick Clegg wants a vote on EU membership but not on the EU Constitution 'Lisbon Treaty'.

How does this make any sense?

If you consider that the British people should have vote over whether or not they stay within the European Union, surely you also think that they should have a say over the direction in which it develops? You can't seriously believe that the people should have a choice over membership but not the direction in which that organisation develops.

If a referendum is held on the Treaty and the British people vote "yes", then it is obvious that they want to stay within the EU. If they vote "no", then the issue of EU membership itself becomes an issue.

I agree completely with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, over this when he says:

The Lib Dem leadership should either back a referendum on the Treaty or finally accept that they don't want the British people to vote on the EU at all.

The Lib Dem membership seem to want to back a referendum on the Treaty, so why don't the leadership? Is it because they're chicken, and want to be able to sit on the fence? Yes, of course it is.

Two words: No thanks.

A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government would not work. Just Like a Labour-Lib Dem coalition wouldn’t. Or Labour-Conservative coalition. Coalitions, just in general, simply don’t work. Not in our political system.

Name any coalition in Britain that has not existed during a world war. Stuck? That would be because there hasn’t been any. There have been minority governments, but never any coalition government. And for good reason.

The first-past-the-post electoral system encourages oppositional politics. It certainly doesn’t encourage coalition government. The reason for this is the coalitions require a great amount of compromise and consensus – something not encouraged in the tribal world of British politics.

Whilst it is very good that the Lib Dems are making these sort of noises, the sort of thing they will want is to going to be things that a Conservative government could, or would, give. PR for Commons elections, for example, would be a very bad idea – although a cause close to the heart of many Lib Dems. It would be far better for the Conservatives to work with the Lib Dems on certain issues. But a formal government coalition? No thanks.

Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland has been accused of "unparliamentary language" after this little outburst in the Commons [via Tory Radio]:

Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: We are all fed up with it. I return to the substantive issues.
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
On regulation costs, I shall consider the question of the consultation that the Healthcare Commission is undertaking—
Greg Mulholland: He’s an a*******.

Although Labour Minister Ivan Lewis may well be almost certainly is an "a*******" - I can't say for sure because I know bugger all about him, but the fact that he is a Labour Minister means that more than likely he is - I'm going to call Greg Mulholland an a******* as well.

For suggesting this:
Erm, no it doesn't - well unless they're a retard, of course. Anyone with even half a brain can tell how large the glass of wine they have is, either on (a) it's size; (b) the amount of liquid in it; or (c) the length of time it is taking you to drink it. Or, of course, they could always ask how big it.

The reason that "[m]any licensed premises only sell wine in 175ml and 250ml measures" is because those are the sizes that people want. Why have pubs and bars stop selling 125ml glases of wine? Because people don't want 125ml glasses of wine.

The a******* - Greg Mulholland, that is - should stop trying to interfere with what individuals and private business do [of course, so should the other a*******, Ivan Lewis]. People do know how much they are drinking, at least pretty much. But it certainly isn't up to anyone, let alone an a****** of an MP like Mulholland to force pubs, bars and restaurants to serve 125ml glasses of wine. "Liberal" Democrats my a***. But then again, they're hardly "Democratic" either...

Nick Clegg has broken his party's 2005 manifesto commitment to supporting a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty. He is, however, following on from Ming Campbell, who also opposed letting the people of Britain vote on the one piece of legislation which will dictate how this country works for the foreseeable future. Clegg said:

But he is wrong - in every way. It is not "playing games with the treaty itself" or specifically 'party politics' to suggest that the very people who are supposed to give parliament it's power should be allowed to vote on it, considering that all the main parties were elected with promises of a referendum on this issue in their manifestos. Since two of those parties have broken their pledges, they really don't have that democratic right any more to decide this issue at the very least.

The "Lisbon Treaty" as it is now called is not "a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place" but far more than a codification of existing treaties - and even that would be subject to a referendum, just like any codification of the British constitution would have to be - since it provides the very foundations of the removal of sovereign power [even if, as some claim, that has already begun] in the creation of an EU President and Foreign Minister.

Quite simply, Clegg's refusal to push for a referendum on this puts the lie to the very name of his party - the Liberal Democrats. Maybe that's why there are rumours of him wanting to change to to the "Liberal Party" instead?

The idea of a referendum is not about getting the treaty voted down, but about democratic legitimacy. If a popular vote has been held, no-one who opposed the treaty can possibly argue against it being ratified and becoming law. If we the people vote for the treaty then those of us who oppose it would accept it. But if it is passed through a Parliament which promised to hold a referendum on this when it was voted in refuses to meet it's promises, then the opposite will happen.

Such large changes as proposed by the "Lisbon Treaty" require a referendum - or at least it should in the eyes of any true believer democrat.

UPDATE: At least all Lib Dems aren't as anti-democratic as their leaders [via DK].

UPDATE 2: Norfolk Blogger yet again shows why his blog is one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother to read.

The calamitously close result of the Lib Dem leadership battle didn't take long to be raised up as a comment against one of Clegg's proposals - by a Lib Dem, no less:

If Clegg's 511 vote majority can already - remember he was only elected less than a month ago! - be able to be described in terms of him not having a mandate, there may well be internal party/activist troubles coming along for Clegg far sooner than anyone could have realised.

Do they, really?

The penultimate sentence in a post on the new Times blog, Red Box, on Nick Clegg's first PMQs as Lib Dem leader, reads:

Iain Dale picks up on this and asks:
Well, I'm not a Lib Dem, but I think I can answer it anyway. Ignoring the fact that this is a media report of an unattributed and non-quoted remark.

Whilst ID cards are undoubtedly an issue - one which Nick Clegg has spoken on quite a bit and even declared that he would take part in a campaign of civil disobedience against them and even go to court. What is being said here by these "Lib Dem strategists" is more that ID cards are not the most pressing issue that most people could come up with.

Yes, it is a very important issue, but for the large majority of non-political active people, it really isn't there number 1 priority right now. When it comes closer to fruition, then yes it will be an truly important issue for all freedom-loving people in Britain, but right now, more people are likely to be interested in their winter fuel bills.

When it comes down to it, ID cards won't be the most important issue for the majority of people until the axe is hanging right over their heads. However it is, and will remain, an important one - but just number 1. A simple fact of human nature.

Labour have had a few. The Conservatives too. But now it's the Lib Dems turn to have another* donation 'scandal'.

The Lib Dems always claim to be less corrupt than anyone else, yet this just proves what is more likely is that because no-one really cares, they just get caught less. And now for them to get a little of their own medicine, with calls for an inquiry.

They are at least as bad as everyone else.

British politics may not be whiter than white, but it is at least better than most others. Of course we want - and should want - it to be whiter than white, but that will only be achieved through a requirement for as good as complete transparency over party funding and diligent journalists keeping a tab on politicians of all parties.

What will be interesting about this is how new leader Nick Clegg reacts to and deals with it.

* Remember Michael Brown's £2.4m, anyone?

The new leader of the Liberal Democrats doesn't believe in God. Like it really matters. Morality isn't reliant on religion in the slightest - you can be a good person as an Atheist, or a bad man as a religious fundamentalist of any persuasion.

However, that Clegg has revealed his lack of religion is commendable, even though it's likely to have any real impact in any direction, considering the minimal importance of religion in British politics - though I can't help but wonder whether this could have affected the very slim margin by which he won the Lib Dem leadership.

The Lib Dems have decided who will be their third leader in three years, choosing between two virtually identical candidates. So close were they considered that the Lib Dem membership could barely decide which they wanted:

Nick Clegg: 20,988
Chris Huhne: 20,477

So only 511 more members preferred Clegg to Huhne - out of the 41,465 Lib Dem members who voted. Hardly a resounding victory, with [if my maths is correct] a less than 1% majority. Thus, Clegg will always have Huhne peering over his shoulder, and the perfect leader-in-waiting should Clegg falter even a step.

But the problem Clegg now faces is how to get himself and his party taken seriously. He will be viewed by many as Cameron-lite, especially considering his relatively similar looks. He will also have to produce results, since the Lib Dems will be expecting him to emulate Cameron's early successes - even if on a reduced scale.

"Calamity" Clegg's election by such a small margin is a bad result for the Lib Dems. He has been considered the front-runner for the position for so long that for him to end up only just winning must cast doubt over his long-term ability to perform. had Huhne won, however, the opposite would have have been true, and the Lib Dems would have been seen to be on the "up" since Huhne has performed so well.

But Clegg, even though he will never be Prime Minister, may yet be the most powerful man in politics should the outcome of the next general election produce a hung parliament and thus give Clegg the role of king-maker - even the execution of this role could as easily destroy as make him. The Conservatives have already started setting out their stall as the only possible coalition partner for the Lib Dems, should a hung parliament happen - a result which is boosted by Clegg's election.

Ordovicius asks whether David Cameron's overtures towards the Liberal Democrats can be "categorised as a case of unrequited love" and "[w]ill it lead to Dave moping like a spurned lover?" Personally, I can't see it like that at all. Instead, it seems to me far more like Cameron setting out his stall as the man who is willing to make compromises and the man who cannot be blamed if Britain ends up with a minority government of any party.

Rather than unrequited love, it more about setting the Lib Dems up. By suggesting that he is willing to compromise should the occasion demand it, Cameron is giving the Lib Dems no choice about whom to select as coalition partner should the results demand it. It is about setting the Conservatives up as the non-partisan politician, as the leader who will compromise and lead a coalition government if that is what the electorate decide.

In stead of unrequited love, it's more about stitching the Lib Dems up, and giving them no choice but to select the Conservatives as coalition partners should the situation arise.

Vince Cable has said that the Lib Dem leadership race is "very close" as it enters the last week of voting. Really? So what. Who cares? All that matters it the final result. There have been plenty of comments coming from both sides of the leadership battle and from the Lib Dems in general about how close run this race is between TweedleClegg and TweedleHuhne. But why do they keep saying this? I can't remember anything similar happening in the final stages of the last Conservative leadership race.

It seems to me that this is quite simply an attempt to maintain some of the marginal interest that has been paid to the Lib Dems during their leadership race now that the voting has started and as the campaigning ends. But all it does is make people bored of the subject. It seems that every few days recently either Clegg or Huhne have been claiming that they are either marginally ahead or not far behind as an attempt to galvanise the Lib Dem members who support them into casting their votes.

This "race" has been close the whole way through, primarily because the two candidates are basically identical in policies and appeal - it was actually quite a shock when they very slightly disagreed over something! Also, I can't seem to remember any real policy pledge - or even political ideal - that either of them have actually made. Maybe this says as much about me as them, but maybe not. But if I can't remember anything they've pledge, how likely is the man on the street to?

When it comes down to it, all of this reading between the lines of the current voting situation is just boring. We the people don't really care how close it is between the two men. All we care [very slightly] about is who the winner is. And that even Lib Dems are getting tired of this just goes to show that both candidates and all their hangers-on, campaign teams, supporters, and every other Lib Dem should just wait and see what the result is. Until then, it really doesn't make any difference who is in the lead, and after it, it makes no difference how close the result was - just who won.

13% lead! Hopefully we can see this sort of poll more often...

Not only are they Tweedledum and Tweedledee, they're nasty towards each other at the same time. Releasing a press release that referred to Clegg as a "calamity" was an extremely stupid thing for Huhne's campaign team to do. It was never going to work in their favour, as it was nothing short of a direct personal attack. It has also made Clegg lodge an official complaint with the party.

What is has done is revealed the nastiness that hides underneath the Lib Dems thin veneer of warmth and fluffiness. Huhne has exposed the nasty, smearing, side of his party, one which they have generally managed to hide under mountains of fluff, aided by being so much less important in British politics than the other two parties, meaning that the media ignore the examples of Lib Dem fibbing and general nastiness.

What he has also done is exposed a personal gulf between them. Also notable is that even though they have both said that they would happily welcome their predecessors as leader - an alcoholic and a doddering old man - into their front bench team, as far as I am aware neither has said that he would welcome the other, or that they would work for the other if they lost the leadership battle...

UPDATE: Watch the argument here:

via PlayPolitical

I've just had the biggest shock of my day. TweedleHuhne and TweedleClegg actually disagree about something! If I was a Lib Dem, I might have spilt my fair trade organic green tea all over my sandals [worn with socks] or woolly jumper. It's lucky I'm not, really.

However, it is, as Dizzy points out, it's all rather complicated:

So now the Lib Dems have a problem. they actually have to make a choice between two people with actually [well, almost] differing views!