Oh the Hypocrisy!

Yesterday I wrote in support of the Coalition's plans to increase tuition fees, and explained why I was hoping that the House of Lords would allow the reforms to pass through the Upper Chamber without amendment.  Despite my obvious pleasure at the much-needed reforms finally being passed, I find myself less than comfortable with the way in which they have been passed.

There are two factors that rankle a bit with me, with regards to the way in which this result was reached.

First, was the decision of many Liberal Democrat MPs (including their leader) to renege on promises made during the General Election campaign (promises which could well have resulted in their election in the first place) and vote in favour of the reforms.

Second is the fact that 77 MPs, the constituents of whom would not have been affected by any change in the law, were allowed to vote on this matter when, fairness would dictate, they should have been excluded from doing so.  In fact, as I will show, had the West Lothian Question been answered the rank hypocrisy shown by Liberal Democrat MPs need not have occurred.

Nick Clegg: Bad for politics

In a way, a promise from a politician has long been anything but a promise.  It has been proven to voters time and time again that once elected, Members of Parliament look upon their election promises as little more than suggestions as to things that they might do should they feel so inclined during their term in office.

The problem here, though, is that what the Liberal Democrats did is completely and utterly different.  They didn't just break a manifesto promise, they broke the one key promise upon which their entire election campaign was founded.  They went to great lengths to prove that they were going to stand by this promise, and one would argue that it helped tip the balance in their favour in closely-fought university seats; my own constituency of Norwich South being a prime example, where the Liberal Democrats beat the incumbent Labour MP by a mere 310 votes.

The Liberal Democrats argue that the fact that they entered a coalition with the Conservative Party renders their manifesto null and void, and instead creates a new manifesto based on a series of compromises between the two parties.  I accept and understand that.

The issue I have here is with the MPs who made a personal pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.  This transcends party politics and, instead, the focus is on a personal covenant between the individual MPs and their own constituents; the constituents who may well have voted for these MPs based solely on this promise.

But... this whole sorry situation need not have ever occurred in the first place.  As it has done before in the debate over tuition fees, the West Lothian Question again raises its ugly head (the previous cap of £3,000 was only introduced on a majority of five votes).

Had the vote been restricted only to Members whose constituents would be affected by the increased cap, Liberal Democrat MPs would have been free to vote whichever way they promised they would vote back in May 2010, as the following explanation will show.

The vote passed by 323 votes to 302, included in this vote were a grand total of 77 MPs whose constituents were not affected by the outcome.  Of these 77 MPs, five voted in favour of the reforms, sixty-three voted against the reforms, and nine MPs abstained.

If we recalculate the result of the vote, imagining that Scottish and Northern Irish MPs had not been allowed to vote, then the outcome would have been as follows:

For - 318

Against - 239

Majority - 79

This situation would have allowed the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises made in May and would not have scuppered the Coalition's objectives, as even had all the Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the proposals, the legislation would still have been passed with a majority of 31 (still higher than the majority gained with all members voting!).

So, whilst I make no attempt to justify the behaviour of the Liberal Democrat MPs who so callously broke the promises that they made to their constituents, I contend that this situation need never have arisen should the House have taken a common-sense approach and restricted voting only to MPs whose constituents would have been affected by the reforms.