Nick Clegg proposes such a plan. Now the flippant answer to this is simple "remove the Lib Dems, then". But this doesn't answer the question. And besides, there never will be 150 Lib Dem MPs to remove.

On a serious note, Clegg's justification doesn't work. He wants to remove 150 MPs from the Commons - taking it to around 500 - to save money. Well, primarily to save political parties from having to raise money from big donors. Let's have a little pop quiz:

So why do political parties raise money?
a) To pay MPs
b) To run the rest of the party
c) So they can swan off on holiday

So Clegg's idea that fewer MPs equal less need for party fund-raising just doesn't make sense... especially since he also wants more state money to go to political parties. Which would eat up the £30m savings he said would be generated by cutting the number of MPs. There is, of course, another way of saving money - cutting MPs salaries or expense allowances.


The idea of cutting the number of MPs also raises other questions - such as the potential impact on democracy. Is fewer MPs a goof thing? Not in and of itself. If anything, actually, more of a bad thing as MPs become more and more distant from their constituents. Any reduction in the numebr of MPs would have to be matched in devolution of powers to local councils, or as part of a proper devolution system - equal English, Scottish, and Welsh parliaments.

The plan to reduce the number of MPs sounds good in a press release or a speech, but in reality it isn't much cop. The downsides of the loss of representatives simply isn't worth the tiny amount of money that is [supposedly] to be saved.

The loser today is Nick Clegg, as about a fifth of his party vote against his orders with the Conservatives and for democracy, and three frontbenchers resign.

But, of course, the real loser today is Britain, who has pretty much just had the Lisbon Treaty ratified without the people being asked.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Chris Huhne seems to think so, anyway.

"People in charge"? Who the hell does he think has been running the Liberal Democrats? Little green men from Mars? Pod people? The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe (aka Max)?

Well, at least this opens the door for an whole new line of speculation over why and how Ming was forced out. Did they discover his secret and threaten to spill the beans? Or does Ming just want to phone home?

And is he also trying to subtlety suggest that Nick Clegg is less than human? Maybe that was part of the deal - Ming will go quietly, but in return they can't openly out Clegg. Or maybe Huhne is just trying to lead us off the scent...

Idea pseudo-nicked from Guido.

After Ming Campbell has been evicted from the leadership, the BBC report that "as many as seven are considering running" to repalce him. But of them, not even Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have yet announced. Apparently:

They'll both stand, and this 'period of reflection' is nothing more than an attempt to not be seen as the back-stabber. But both of them are. Along with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable. That Ming made the choice by himself to stand down is utter bollocks. As Iain Dale describes, they pushed him into going.

I'm not surprised that no-one has yet officially thrown their hats into the ring. But I bet they are many, many soundings being taken behind closed doors.

Ming had to go, sooner or later. In my last post I said "He'll be gone by the end of the week, then. Within a month at the latest." I just didn't think that he'd go quite this soon!

It is clear that Ming has failed as Lib Dem leader. Under his leadership, the Lib Dem polls have plummeted by about ten points from their 2005 high. He really did lead them down the loo.

But what will happen now? We know that Nick Clegg wants to stand, and it is inevitable that Chris Huhne will as well. And since Lembit Opik has recently resigned as leader of the Lib Dems in Wales, it seems likely that he may well want to stand as well. There is also the likelihood that Party President Simon Hughes will want to stand again as well - as might Vince Cable. And what about Charles Kennedy? He was ousted for being a drunk but claims to have beaten the addiction, and has significantly refused to rule out standing again. Iain Dale thinks that he is the man to rescue the Lib Dems. I don't think he has a chance of getting the job back.

But, really, whatever happens and whoever leads the Liberal Democrats, they don't really make much difference. They are little more than a protest party. Hence why it makes little difference who is their leader - it is the effectively the actions of the other parties who decide how much support they get. Whether Clegg, Huhne, Kennedy, or whoever else wins the leadership election, it won't matter much. They will get the traditional bounce in the polls - but then it'll be back to politics as normal.

Of course, all of this is reliant on them being able to remain united after Ming the Figurehead has fully left the stage. This is their chance to decide where they will go and what it means to be a Lib Dem.

Source: BBC

Why did Nick Clegg do it? But whatever the reason, he did. Whether it is a mistake or not will emerge in the future, but it can be seen as little other than the effective throwing down of the gauntlet to Chris Huhne.

It seems that the Lib Dems are fed up with the constant questions about Ming's leadership and the positioning of the potential leadership candidates - so much so that Simon Hughes delivered quite a smack-down to them in a speech just shown on Daily Politics.

Even though Clegg specifically said that "if you are asking me would I stand against Ming, the answer is no," that he also said "if there was a vacancy in the future then I probably would" will just keep the leadership questions coming - and we may well see a riposte from Chris Huhne soon.

UPDATE: Huhne has responded, saying that it is "premature" to talk of a leadership election. A bit of a slap-down for Clegg and a way for Huhne to seem like the more loyal of the two - and to keep his powder dry.

Sources: BBC, Times News Blog