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

Which will crack first, Cameron’s hold on his party or the glue that binds the coalition?

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.

 

 

Lords attending the State Opening earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.