Hopes fading for Richmond Park parking charges challenge (From Wandsworth Guardian)

It would not surprise me if the Lib-Dems refuse to back the more reasonable Conservative peers' amendment and thereby let the government get its way on parking charges. The Lib-Dems would then blame the Conservatives for allowing the charges to come in. This would be a classic example of their putting their clinging to power in Richmond Park constituency above the wishes of (most) residents. With luck, it won't matter, as the Conservatives have promised to abandon parking charges should they win power in Westminster.

Well, that's politics for you, Martin!

I thought the Tory amendment was perfectly reasonable, and the Liberals are playing 'silly fellows' again.

Phillip Taylor

Since my previous posting, I have been rather cincrned by the latest Liberal reaction so I asked PPC Zac Goldsmith what his view now is and he sent me this reply:
"I would like to put the record straight and to clarify a few things. The
Conservatives are resolutely opposed to the introduction of car parking
charges in Richmond Park. Visiting Richmond Park should never become a
budget decision.

So, how can we stop the Government¹s proposals to do just that? First, I
want to reiterate that Justine Greening and I have persuaded the
Conservative Party to scrap the plans if we win the election. However, if
the different political Parties put politics aside, we have an opportunity
to stop the charges sooner.

Yesterday, Susan Kramer sent out an email claiming that the Conservatives
are refusing to back a vote in Parliament that would stop the car parking
charges. This is deliberate nonsense, but it has caused unnecessary alarm
among some residents. I want to clarify our position.

Nationally, as I have said, we will scrap the charges if we form the next
Government. In the meantime, we have tabled an amendment in the Lords that
calls on the Government to withdraw its Order and resubmit the Royal Parks
proposals without the plans to charge for parking.

This is an alternative to the Lib Dem fatal amendment. There have only
been three fatal amendments in history. It hardly ever happens because the
unelected House of Lords does not reject outright legislation presented by a
government. The peers will not agree to cause constitutional havoc for the
sake of Richmond Park, and the Lib Dems are well aware of that. Besides,
even if the Lords did vote down a Government Order, the Government could
simply present the same thing the next day.

Susan Kramer's idea is guaranteed to fail, and many people believe it is
actually designed to do so, in order to allow the Lib Dems to score
political points. In the run up to the election, some politicians will try
anything to attract votes.

If Susan Kramer is genuinely determined to stop these plans, she must
support our alternative. If she continues with her kindergarten politics,
she will have allowed these charges in. It is as simple as that. The ball is
in Susan¹s court.

Countless people have been badly misinformed by our MP, and I strongly urge
you to forward this email to as many people as possible to put their minds
at rest, and to minimise the chance that political smears play a role in the
forthcoming election.

I am happy to answer any questions at all regarding this or other issues."....This covers the points I feel has to be made that the Liberals are now trying to twist things because Zac and the Tories have made the right decision over the issue.

Phillip Taylor

The parties should act together on this. The first motion happens to be the Lib-Dem's. The Tories should back it. Were it the other way about I would expect the same.

Could someone please tell me what the wording of these two motions is - or point me in the right direction to read them for myself.

Sue, I can't find the text of the motions online, but essentially this is a 'negative resolution', a piece of secondary legislation which passes without a vote unless a party objects to it and gets a vote. The Lib Dems objected to it and have got a vote. It's true that it would defeat the resolution, but I see nothing to stop the Government coming back next week with a new resolution which includes the parts of the old that no-one objects to.

The Conservative motion would not formally defeat the parking charges. My understanding is it just calls on the Government to withdraw the parking charges from the motion. The Government could ignore it but hopefully won't.

The Lib Dem motion will be voted on first, I understand, and then, if it is defeated, the Conservative one. In a sensible world both parties would vote for the others' proposals. I simply don't understand Zac Goldsmith's argumnent, which seems to amount to 'this hasn't been done much before' and 'it probably won't succeed'. Surely that's no reason not to try, or for Tory peers not to support it?