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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?