Their Lordships are getting into a right old lather over the stand-off between the Government and the opposition in the House – “filibustering is not cricket – not the way we do things in this House”, “if things carry on like this we will see a guillotine introduced and that would be the end of civilisation as we know it”, etc., etc.
In the Westminster bubble, this is quickly whipped up into an atmosphere of high drama, but returning home lends a sense of perspective. It features well down the news as just another spat between Government and opposition of the kind which inevitably develops into a war of attrition from time to time.
It’s true this is less common in the House of Lords than the House of Commons, but I can’t believe it’s unheard of. If I’m not mistaken it was quite a while before the stalemate on abolishing the hereditaries was broken, and there were certainly plenty of people who were prepared to engage in similar tactics on Lord Steel’s bill to reform the House of Lords had the Government only allowed it more time.
There are quite a number of peers, particularly on the crossbenches, who tend to run a mile as soon as politics rears its head, but at the end of the day the House is a chamber of the legislature, which inevitably involves politics, and not a gentleman’s club.
I have been advising people to avoid taking too apocalyptic a view and just wait and see what happens. Deadlines by when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill must complete its committee stage have already proved elastic. I would bet money there will be a deal before the sky falls in.
One canard can be laid to rest though: The suggestion has been gaining ground that it is all the fault of a new intake on the Labour side from the other end of the corridor who don’t know how things are done here. But I have seen quite a few old hands among the new boys and girls, so I don’t think it can just be put down to inexperience.
Lord Low of Dalston
a chamber of the legislature, which inevitably involves politics, and not a gentleman’s club.
Not only a peers’ club but also an interfering chamber of petty amendments, by old dodderers.
Finally, a Peer who sees this whole issue in context. The “not cricket” brigade need to move into the modern age.
Welcome Lord Low of Dalston.
Que sera sera. A typically public point of view not altogether out of keeping with the Crossbench voting statistics.
650,600, 400, or 1 does it matter ? A quarter of Hackney voting with Islington ? Who cares ? I actually do, not that I`m interested whether it’s Conservative or Labour policy or bills just the fact they are fair, just and based on evidence that has been researched and scrutinised thoroughly.
Tinkering with the system to achieve something that is beneficial to you, as I see this bill, is what achieved the expenses scandal. Tinkering with the constitution to achieve a possible one party system will result in far worse consequences as Tunisia and Egypt are finding.
If this is not manipulation of the system then there is no reason to sit and explain in great detail how it is fairer and show all the evidence you have accrued so that all parties can agree it is fair.
I have never played a game where one participant was allowed to change the rules of the game without the oppositions consent. It sets in motion a precedent I really do not want to see. Some are talking about the precedent Labour peers are setting but that is pretty minor stuff compared to what the Government are doing.
This Government are intent on altering the complete landscape of our political system into something unknown, untested without proper scrutiny and research. Peers are saying well Dave you didn`t get a majority and Nick actually lost seats but hey yeah we`ll go along with it. However don`t you just know when it comes to their turn and Dave say’s 600 peers they’ll want the evidence and research then. Infact I believe the boot will be on the other foot.
Should have read:
If this is not manipulation of the system then there is no reason “not” to sit and explain in great detail how it is fairer and show all the evidence you have accrued so that all parties can agree it is fair.
“an interfering chamber of petty amendments, by old dodderers” is a bit ad homines (I don’t know if my rusty latin is correct here). I think the HoL does do some good, but it would be better not to be self-righteous and always presuming that all that comes from one side is inherently evil and those those who utter it are upstart (or retired) oiks.
I think CarlH hits it on the head when he saus “This Government are intent on altering the complete landscape of our political system into something unknown, untested without proper scrutiny and research”
However with a bit of give and take some improvements to the Bill are possible and we could come out of this with some improvements, e.g.:-
– some reduction in the excessive variances of constituency size,
– some mechanism for permitting variation from a norm,
– some criteria for when such variation should be permitted, and perhaps
– some realisation that constituency sizes based solely on the numbers registered to vote (especially if that is the numbers registered to vote at a date away from a general election date) will be biased unreasonably against areas where population movement is high and population literacy is below 100%.
As to number of elected MPs., the issue is mainly one of the relationship of the legislature and scrutiny chamber with the Executive. Peers and MPs will have to form a view as to whether reducing the chamber will improve the quality of legislation and of scrutiny; there is also the more intangible issue of the human dynamics of a less numerous chamber.