The media keep reporting that the coalition government enjoys a majority in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. I am not sure what figures they are using! The combined strength of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers is just under 260 in a House with just over 700 members. There are 211 Labour peers and 186 cross-bench peers. The figures exclude those on leave of absence (or disqualified). I suspect the Government will be able to mobilise a majority in most divisions, but that is by no means guaranteed.
While I take your point – and thought the same – is it actually correct in the real world. The XB peers tend to split fairly reliably between the parties. Without naming names you know quite often which XB peers are likely to vote with which main party. Added to that the Lab peers seem a touch off their whip in recent times. The most contentious issues are likely to be cuts where the Lords has minimal power. The issues the Lords has most defeated the government on don’t seem likely to be an issue for the coalition (civil liberties, sentencing & new offences) What issues do you think the Lords might really cause any trouble – even L-reform looks to have a comfortable majority?
PS Is there any scuttlebutt on if there is going to be a ‘great repeal’ bill. Much talk, few details?
Croft: I agree that in practice there is likely to be a majority, assuming the XBs continue to split as they presently do and that parties vote cohesively (as they normally do). As Meg Russell’s research has shown, the Lib Dems used in practice to hold the balance of power. The point I was making is that on paper there is not an overall majority for the coalition. Media reports imply that there is. Now, if they had introduced the necessary qualifications…
It seems to be another example of someone in the media making a mistake and then the rest simply repeating it, without having checked the facts. Much like the line about Michael Martin being the first speaker forced out in 300 years.
I assumed before the election that Lords Reform meant changing the numerical proportions to ensure a majority, in the event of a Tory win.
Perhaps I am right in that surmise.
Any Tories about,sign in.
Lord Norton,
Do you favour a House of Lords by election, or do you favour a House or Lords by appointment or heritage? What do you think is the best way forward, to stay as things currently are, or reform the House of Lords?
Sue
Why not a different choice?
How about no house of lords?
No troughing. No expenses fiddles.
More democracy. Allow the electorate a yes no say on the bills.
Lord Blagger
“do you favour a House or Lords by appointment or heritage”
Going by my new MP in South Dorset it is HofC by heritage, so such commentators ain’t seen nothing yet! Do pardon my indecorous language.
Self selected too no doubt, just like Lord Cranborne in the 80s-90s, for the said seat.
It is amazing what deference does to a democratic vote. We don’t need it. We do need democracy in the House of Lords.
Just gone through the coalition agreement there really are some head banging statements. I see I’m not the first to notice but still:
10) A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
11) make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence
🙄 🙄 🙁
Croft:
11)
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/import_illegal_timber.pdf
10)
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1427347456/tt0113492
Lord Norton,
It would take a second or two longer and several lines of newsprint more to describe the situation you represent then it does to say, “the government have a majority among the Peers”.
We must accept that we live in a post veracity era. I have been treated to years now of hearing how each of the health plans in my country will raise, lower and maintain the budgetary allottments which will shrink, increase and not affect our overall deficits and which will weaken or strenghten and also not affect our currency. That I am told will greatly or not at all hurt or help the world to move out of its fiscal slump. The important thing I think is to use numbers one likes.
Lord Blagger, More democracy means more rule by popularity contest, more social division, and less sense.
I don’t think More Democracy is a good idea.
Frank, We are int he Age of Veracity in media. Why, I learned a lot. Did you know that Barack Obama is a Muslim? We all know Muslims are all terror sympathisers too. He wants to Impose Sharia Law here in the US, and will soon allow the evil Muslim rule to take all our rights away. He’s already build concentration camp for Christians and Jews.
Oh and he was Born in Kenya, which is a Muslim nation!
You need to worry as after this he’ll try to take over the UK.
But then, you have the Lizard people in Buckingham and in Parliament. David Ike did a nice job exposing this. These Aliens want to solely dominate the world and use up our resources.
So maybe you have more to worry about…
Zarove,
Indeed we have manyh fabrication and bizarre theories throoughout the world. Many of the relate to some real anxiety about a real factual nexus poorly understood by their proponents. While my post was an attempt at humor it is born of real facts. Story legth went through a great shortening in journalism about 25 years ago. The standard for numbers was only one part of the affected subjects. I do believe that since then numbers have been undefined and unexplained. The mere fact that one could explain how the numbers were right became enough. The nature of numbers is such that people really cannot know what is meant (because it is axiomaticaly undefinable) by many articles which discuss numbers.
This is disingenuous surely ? Cameron is going to create a lot of Tory peers ? Okay, you are right that the newspapers are wrong, but isn’t it only half the story ?
I could well be wrong though..
Given their 55% weighted majority idea for dissolution, the answer seems very simple – just 33% or whatever it is needs to be slipped through to ensure passage in the Lords.