House of Lords reform: The Cleggster just about managed to keep his chin above the waters

By
Quentin Letts

16:42 EST, 9 July 2012

|

06:18 EST, 10 July 2012

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opened the second reading debate of the House of Lords Reform Bill on MondayDeputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opened the second reading debate of the House of Lords Reform Bill on Monday

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opened the second reading debate of the House of Lords Reform Bill on Monday

Every time Nick Clegg dealt with one bunch of enemy insurgents, another lot sprouted elsewhere. I say ‘enemy’ insurgents, but in fact they were on his own side of the Chamber: Tories pinging curried devilment at this gulpy, scratchy-voiced deputy PM.

Coalition-on-Coalition fire. Here, Cleggy, catch this fizzing hand grenade. ‘I am very grateful to my Rt Hon Friend . . . ka-BOOM!’

Mr Clegg opened the second reading debate of the House of Lords Reform Bill at 3.38pm. By 3.40 the first wave of Tory mujihadeen came screaming over the horizon: Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) and Peter Lilley (Hitchin Harpenden).

Mr Clegg played the eeh-bah-gum card,
trying to claim that not enough peers come from the north-east of
England. He also felt that peers were too old. That’s a bit ageist,
isn’t it?

A friend of mine once had lunch with
China’s Deng Xiaopeng (who kept gobbing with astonishing accuracy into a
distant spittoon). The shrivelled little fella said that in his view no
man was ready for political life until he was at least 60. But what
would Mr Clegg (b.1967) know of that?

Instantly, more Tory backbenchers were up, hollering and waving their shields. Clifton-Brown, Tredinnick, Norman, Mistress Main, Griffiths. These warriors and others hopped and wailed. Mr Tredinnick’s voice was so high, you wondered if he had submitted to the surgeon’s snip. While Mr Clegg tried to provide answers, Steve Brine (Con, Winchester) stared bleakly at the ceiling. On the Government bench, only two Tory big hitters (Osborne and Gove) were present. They did their best to look bland.

Low turnout: On the Government bench, only George Osborne and Michael Gove were in attendance

Low turnout: On the Government bench, only George Osborne and Michael Gove were in attendance

Mr Clegg’s Lib Dem backbench troops had not all turned out to support him. Only 25 were on parade. Of these, not all of them were necessarily ardent fans. Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) put in a rare appearance. He rotated his ankle and wore a dazzling smile. Bliss for him. The Cleggster was just about managing to keep his chin above the waters, despite the hoo-hah (Labour MPs were asking sceptical questions, too). John Redwood (Con, Wokingham) attacked Mr Clegg’s policy from directly behind his right shoulder. Next to Mr Redwood sat Anne McIntosh (Con, Thirsk Malton), shaking her head in full camera view. David Davis (Con, Haltemprice Howden) was loving it. Lib Dem minister Lynne Featherstone looked as though she might start to cry.

Mr Clegg claimed that Sir Winston Churchill supported Lords reform. Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames (Con, Mid Sussex) rose to offer a more considered view. Mr Soames was genuinely irked. He said Churchill had altered his view as he matured. The subtext here, unless I am mistaken, was: you’ll grow out of this fetish, Clegg.

The House relished the Soames intervention. Mr Clegg tried to cite past Labour support for his policy, only for Margaret Beckett (Lab, Derby S), so gnarled a Comrade that she may once have taken dictation from Keir Hardie, to correct him. Now yet more Tories were on their feet: Dineage, Burns, Bridgen, Rees-Mogg. For Mr Clegg it must have been like trying to drive a car packed with squabbling family members.

Why is he insisting on this Bill? Easy. Lib Dems in future have little hope of making it to Parliament unless the Lords is fixed on a PR basis.
Edward Leigh (Con, Gainsborough) suggested Clegg’s Lords would be full of failed politicians. Mr Clegg: ‘No. They’ll be a different kind of politician.’

Nick Clegg has delivered a thinly-veiled warning to David Cameron that he must face down a major Tory rebellion and press ahead with Lords reform

Nick Clegg has delivered a thinly-veiled warning to David Cameron that he must face down a major Tory rebellion and press ahead with Lords reform

The House hooted, Oliver Heald (Con, NE Herts) clapping with delight. Pete Wishart (SNP, Perth) asked if Mr Clegg and his Lib Dems would refuse appointment to an unreformed Lords. Answer came there none.

For Labour, Sadiq Khan made an incomprehensibly jerky, glottal-stoppy speech, one of the worst I have heard. Not so Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Con, Kensington) who in six minutes of scintillating oratory attacked ‘this puny measure’ and its plans for ‘a sham democratic Chamber’.

They return to the debate today, but as we go into half-time young Cleggy has as much ground to recover as Poland circa 1940.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Any chance of reforming the LibDems? Might I venture to suggest that a putsch of the snapping puppies at the dog bowl in the Commons would be a start as a counter measure to the sorry and obvious attempt at survival by Capn’ Cleggy..

Why does Nick Glegg rely on ‘A’ list Political celebs such as Sir Winston Churchill to get their point over? Because he personally lacks any real political substance Nicholas Soames had every right to be Irked by Clegg’s reference to his Granpa Winston. A poor turnout! Surprise, Surprise. I feel the Clegg’s days are numbered, probable in the low teens, as Deputy PM. Shot down by friendly fire. Just Like his idiotic Proportional Representation Bill, this Bill is also doomed to failure, which must mean that two of The Gleggsters most import Bills have been blasted out of the sky by his own Ack Ack guns. All this hand to hand combat, exciting though it may appear, is delaying the real politics from taking place!! I was going to suggest that Clegg was a reincarnation of Screaming Lord Sutch, but old Sutchy was never really a Looney, but The Cleggster, on the other hand, is acting suspiciously like a Screaming Looney. Ah well back to the trenches for more hand to hand!!!!!!

Clegg and Lib Dems just make me dislike politics. What is being proposed is not a reform of the House of Lords but the abolition of the Lords. They just want to replace it with another bunch of politicians, elected on PR (mainly Lib Dems, NF, and other minority groups). It’s all plain politics of envy being selfishly discharged with complete disregards to the needs of this Great Country.

First of all lets get this right. Do members of the House of Lords get £375.00 per day for merely signing on in the register without having to sit in the house? Is that correct? Well with reform lets stop that to start with….
Secondly why should ANYBODY be voted into a Parliamentary position for 15 years? signing on for £375.00 per day? Ridiculous…
Thirdly why do this silly little thing right now? Surely it can wait until the LibDems are in power in their own right? Oh that means never doesn’t it?
lastly whatever happened to that other silly little thing, now what was it? OH YES, Proportional Reprisentation that was it… That got thrown out with the rubbish from the LibDems did’t it after it would not wash?
Someone should tell Nick and his boys to go away and sit in a darkened room until 2015 shouldn’t they Perhaps David could do that as a favour to Nick????

Not enough room here to post a proper comment so I will desist, but please visit my Facebook page.

Letts has about 70 chins

Somthing has been niggling away at my memory cells since I read the Cleggster headline —now I have remembered. Just search/google “klargestor”…..

The thing is though, of Clegg asked Quentin Letts whether he had his chin above water, Letts would have to ask “Which one do you mean”!!!???

NEVER trust a man who dyes his hair to hide the grey

The only raison d’etre for politicians seems to me to try to clear up the absolute mess they have made in the past. However, as every attempt seems to worsen the situation then it would seem to be of enormous benefit to pay them to stay at home and do nothing (some of them are ahead of me in this). It should also save on ‘expenses’ (perhaps!).

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes