Having obfuscated with rare style over the future of Miliband, the conversation turned to Lords Reform. As a senior Labour Peer, his opinion undoubtedly matters. He is rather well-connected in Labour circles. So, we can expect his arguments to be echoed in future debates, which makes his comment that the Coalition has introduced more than one hundred new Peers all the more depressing.
Regardless of which side of the debate on Lords Reform you find yourself (and I'm sitting on the fence marked 'conflict of interest'), it would be helpful if Labour didn't distort the facts in support of an argument which opposes a manifesto pledge of theirs. Yes, more than one hundred new Peers have been introduced, but as half of them were appointed by the outgoing Labour administration on a list which was repeatedly delayed by the inability of Gordon Brown to sign it off, Charlie's comment is, to put it mildly, misleading.
And so, when he calls for the sort of minor changes that he saw no need for when on the Government benches, you can safely assume that he has slipped comfortably into Labour's stance that everything on the Government's agenda is wrong, unnecessary, or being done too fast.
And yet, didn't his mob abolish all but ninety-two of the hereditary Peers, attempt to unconstitutionally abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, and use the Lords as a retirement home for aging Labour MPs to create vacancies for the chosen friends of the leadership and their Union boss friends? You know, I think that they might have done.
Was it unnecessary then? Did it contribute to the reduction of child poverty? Did it create a single new job (apart from for Tony and Gordon's mates)? No, but it was the right thing to do at the time. Or was it just another cynical act designed to attract the votes of those who seek constitutional reform? You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange