Comments on: To vote or not to vote?

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:51:28 +0000

Berliner is a nice size, important to us ladies, plus the Telegraph crossword is too easy.

By: Bedd Gelert

Bedd Gelert — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:37:50 +0000

Crikey, ladytizzy, I would have had you down as a Telegraph babe.
I must admit I am losing patience with the Guardian, which is becoming more magazine like by the day, and not really newsy enough. But this is a feature of the Times and Telegraph as well.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:27:10 +0000

Thank you for that answer, and I don’t think it’s corny at all. I rather respect that, and it’s probably why the Lords seems to work, despite its anomalous makeup.

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:08:06 +0000

Thanks to all for their replies and thoughts. In particular, Stuart, I guess if it doesn’t sound too corny that some peers feel accountable to their consciences. This includes for many a long history of pursuing a particular cause or viewpoint. For example, there are amongst the Indpendent Crossbench peers many who are, and have been for many years, entirely committed to the plight of young children in care or in custody. Others have a lifelong concern with the issues surrounding immigration, or scientific research, or human rights, or care of the elderly, or particular countries. It is this commitment that drives them to challenge draft legislation and to vote.

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:40:21 +0000

Bedd, The Guardian is the printed paper of choice at Chez Tiz, though I also browse through several other titles online. It was no more than a remark on finding other comrades

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:19:35 +0000

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t suggesting that we don’t record the outcome of the vote (‘x’ peers voted in favour and ‘y’ peers voted against), which does reflect the strength of feeling, as you suggest, but why record the names of which peers voted which way?

I accept that this is a silly, flippant suggestion. I guess what I am really asking is: for whose attention is an individual peer’s voting record recorded? To whom do peers feel themselves to be accountable?

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:05:59 +0000

Stuart,I suggest one reason is that it is important to convey to the government of the day the degree of support or the lack of it for a given policy?

Of course you are right that peers have no constituents but the strength of feeling about amendments can and does have an effect on the way in which a Bill is shaped in its journey between the two chambers of Parliament.

Finally, to state the obvious, the House of Lords does have a considerable power not only in revising legislation but in delaying enactment; this necessarily requires votes to be recorded, wouldn’t you agree?

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:59:33 +0000

Jenny S-T makes a pretty unassailable point: there should be an obligation to vote, whichever way. On the administrative difficulties – well this brings up a whole lot of other issues.

Consider this one: the Independent Crossbenchers (as is the case with many party peers) are not full-time politicians, they have outside jobs often at very senior levels – for example, leaders of industry, heads of universities, scientists, doctors, lawyers. These outside careers add immeasurably to the informed debates that take place in the Lords.

Sometimes there is a conflict of duty and it is impossible for even the most conscientious peers to attend all votes. So to be fair these people who would BOTHER to turn up if they could should have some other mechanism to record their votes. This would separate out those who take their legislative role seriously from those who make a habit of not voting.

However this would be seen as a major upheaval in House of Lords procedure and would not in any case be popular with the political parties who may not wish abstentions to be so publicised.

ladytizzy, I am going to leave it to others far better qualified to explain the possible voting system for elected peers. All I will say is that the expected Government White Paper on House of Lords Reform, due soon, will undoubtedly put forward alternative systems.

By: Bedd Gelert

Bedd Gelert — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:44:15 +0000

Tiz, and what, pray tell, is wrong with reading the Guardian ?

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:22:39 +0000

I can see the argument for being able to vote to abstain, as it were, in the Commons, as it’s helpful to an MP to be able to prove to his/her constituents that they were present in Parliament, but just not moved to vote either way on a particular question. In the absence of a vote to abstain, an MP could have been in the House or s/he could have been asleep at home, and it’s presumably helpful to the MP to be able to prove that they were ‘at work’ in the House.

In the Lords however, where there are no constituents to worry about, what would be the point of a vote to abstain? Who is the audience to whom this recorded vote would be addressed?

That makes me think, actually, what are the point of parliamentary records? One point is so that individuals can be held to account – an MP votes a certain way on an issue and it is a matter of public record on which s/he can be judged. This does not apply to members of the House of Lords. Do we actually need to record who votes for what in the Lords? Obviously I am being flippant, but just as an academic exercise… why record how individual peers voted if they are not accountable for their votes?