Kick The Bums Out!... Err Well Try.

Tomorrow everyone's favourite punchline (Try it with 'What pisses off Heather Mills?) Nick Clegg unveils the last bit of his constiutional reform type thingy. A magnificently bizarre piece of legislation that tries to make the House of Lords bigger before it gets smaller, redraws constituency boundaries while neglecting 3.5m potential voters and prepares us for the Lib Dems ungallant loss in the forthcoming AV referendum. There is though one last cherry on this massive reform cake. The proposal to allow us to throw an MP out if he has committed serious wrongdoing and 10% of his constituents wish it so.

Here's where the NUS are added to the cake mixture, just before this metaphor fails to rise in fact. Spurred on by Nick Clegg's remarkable decision to redefine the word 'pledge' to mean 'We might do it in the only situation which is never going to happen.' and a love of sentances containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' they are going to try and get 10% of Nick Clegg's constituents to sign a petition to recall him and hold a by-election*. It's a great idea. Those with a genuine grievance against Nicholas William Peter Clegg (i.e. those constiuents who voted for him believing him to be for the things he said he was for on May 6th) will be able to hold him democratically accountable. The rest of us can sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the word 'pledge' isn't just good for cleaning up dust off mantelpieces and/or indulge in the most poetic bit of justice possible unless Carol-Ann Duffy is planning to take a golf club to Piers Morgan's face. Or will we? In short, no.

The long version of this answer could however still be interesting. The wording of the proposal makes clear that it is for cases of 'serious wrong-doing'. Like setting fire to a fellow MPs duck house or pissing in the Chief Whip's moat then. I am of course being flippant, but the point is it's not for making politicians promises. Anyway I'm sure Nick, honest politician that he is, can point to 'looking at the books', 'the nature of a coalition' or 'Dave said he'd lock me in his new IKEA cupboard' as a perfectly legitimate reason for his change of opinion. The most important point however will lie in the detail of the proposal. Will it a) Allow constituents to collect the 10% of signatures then refer the MP to some form of tribunal (more democratic) or b) Mean that MPs have to get caught doing something naughty by a parliamentary body before the signatures mean anything in law. If a.) then then this could cause massive problems for Clegg. The Deputy-PM would have to answer questions in some sort of tribunal with the constituents being able to make a representation about why they think he should be recalled. No doubt Clegg would win but having your broken promises splashed all over the papers for days doesn't help people's trust in you. Seondly on this point Clegg is the worst at looking convincing ever. He has an obvious facial tick when struggling to justify himself and can barely conceal his anger when someone has the temerity to question his integrity or fallibility. Tony Blair he ain't.

Still in all likelihood this isn't going to happen. I doubt very much that the proposal will be worded as a) as its an obvious beartrap, not just for Nick Clegg but for his fellow politicos. Went on a rally to 'Save our Hospital'? Government shutting it? We'll see your Rt. Honourable arse at a tribunal then pal. All very embarrassing. No chances are it'll be b.) so it won't change much. You'll have to be incredibly stupid as an MP to trigger it I'm sure. However even if Clegg is never questioned it will still be incredibly politically damaging and embarrassing to him. Got your 10%? Ok, well next ask him 'what he's afraid of? Too much democracy? I thought this was the new politics of accountability? We're only trying to make you accountable Nick. Why won't you let us?' (Cue TV interview, pained expression, the phrase 'I understand frustrations but what people have to understand...' Never good. Next step, 'well your reforms mean nothing then Nick.' 'What was that about the 1832 reform act?' (Cue pained expression 'This is real meaningful reform...'). All pretty embarrassing. Lastly how will fellow Lib Dem MPs react to knowing that at least 10% of people in their leaders' constituency don't just want him out, but want him out now. I know what I'd think. I'd want to bake another cake, this one's just been burnt.

*The NUS are also trying to recall Stephen Williams and Don Foster, but they're not nearly as tragically comic.

My Week: What Recent Developments Tell Us About The Coalition

The sound and the fury this week has surrounded has surrounded student protests against tuition fees and Nick Clegg's struggle to justify the unjustifiable. Firstly I find it strange the way that the 'riots' have been covered and discussed. It seems that protestors can only either be peaceful marchers or violent anarchist thugs. No mention what-so-ever of the importance of direct action in protesting. The reason for this is we know that merely marching doesn't work. This was shown by the juxtaposition between the exchanges in the commons between Clegg and others and what was going on outside. Nick Clegg as all politicians do claimed privelige access to facts while respectfully disagreeing. However his disagreement with those outside is imposing fees of up to £45,000 on future students. By his own definition he won't think again if all people do is march and say 'I don't agree with Nick.' This isn't to condone lobbing fire extinguishers at coppers, but occupation, disruption and disobedience is vitalto showing government how angry we are and that people will not stand for Nick Clegg and David Cameron's constant disagreement with themselves

Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the Lib Dems were prepared to ditch their pledge in the only likely scenarios which would see them in government. This being the case, why sign a pledge saying that you will oppose ANY increase in fees, by ANY government. Not intelligent, unless you have a real disregard for the poor saps pushing this pledge and other swiftly ditched policies and opinions. Other developments this week make this painfully obvious.

These are the repealing of animal welfare standards and the putting of fast food companies in charge of aspects of health policy. Not huge issues compared to £80bn in cuts and massive changes to higher education, but this is the point. There can be no defence of these proposals as important for cutting the deficit, they are purely ideological policies of the most extreme type of Conservative thinking. So why are they happening? The government claims that it is moderate and the Lib Dems are its moderating influence. So why are extreme policies being introduced here? Because they can be. They show that the Conservatives are doing precisely what they want with Lib Dem collusion and I rather think we should see the coalition's larger policies in this same ideological context instead of buying the line that these are difficult decisions taken for our benefit. If a government thinks cutting chickens beaks off is 'In the national interest' then its claim to think that harsh benefit cuts and trebling tuition fees to be carries no wait what-so-ever. Time for direct action to stop a government from doing what the hell it wants against popular will.