Last week during a rather tense debate on Police Reform, a distinguished Crossbencher mentioned that he spoke from the ‘relative neutrality of the Cross Benches’ at which some peers snorted – a touch derisively.
In the last Labour administration I was called in by the Front Bench to “explain the role of the Crossbenchers” which unfortunately became a session of ill-concealed irritation that the cross benches from time to time voted against the government of the day. The fact that we are still sometimes considered as partisan by a different government of the day surely illustrates that the crossbenches do NOT vote consistently for one party of another or for Government or Opposition. They VOTE for those arguments that appear to make sense.
In the last few months there have been several bills before the House of Lords which unquestionably required scrutiny and revision. This was duly done by means of amendments laid mostly by the Opposition and on many occasions Crossbenchers supported them – this is what the work of the House involves. It does NOT mean that the Crossbenchers are anti-government – far from it.
But just to make the point abundantly clear the Crossbench voting record from May of last year, ie during the term of the Coalition Government is as follows:
May 2010 – May 2011
Crossbenchers voted against the Government in 1591 times (52.1%)
Crossbenchers voted with the Government 1460 times (47.8%)
The Crossbenchers are what makes the Lords worth having. In an ideal world, there would be a small government presence to introduce and explain proposed legislation and deal with questions, and a corresponding balance from the opposition, and the rest of the Lords would be impartial scrutineers with no real party affiliation. If the government proposes something bad then throw it out, if it’s a good idea but flawed in implementation then amend it, if it’s been done properly and is good then support it.
However, the Lords appear to have improved since the election and are holding the government to account, it’s just a shame that they seem to have had their eye off the ball for a period preceding that. I’m thinking in particular here of all the police-state legislation that got through and still needs to be repealed.
These aggregate figures may be quite misleading. Consider the whole House. It too may have voted with/against the government on a roughly 50:50 basis. But we can probably partition the House into Labour peers, and Cons/LibDem peers. Might we not be able to do the same for the cross-benchers?
Chris, Independents are usually well to the right although they vigorously deny it.
It is clear to me that some kind of inexorably-insidious ‘Evil’ possesses both our Governance and Lifestyling – probably Worldwide.
I understand that
the crossbenchers are ‘non-party’
(unbiaseds, ‘independents’, disinteresteds)
and vote for those “arguments that appear to make sense”
and do not vote consistently for the government, nor for the opposition, nor for any particular party (nor group, faction, nor individual-member).
Parliament is not the only governance-level at which both Honesty & Duty, and Sense & Factuality, are being consistently- (and therefore constitutionally- )corrupted, by the Power-People and therefore by both the Monarchy & Judiciary and The Government & The People.
Similarly avoidant and corruptive are The Media, the Civil-Service including both NHS and Police,
and “by default” both NGOs such as the C.A.B. & AgeUK and Sectorial-Bodies such as The Religions, Educational-Establishments including U3A, all Universities, Colleges, Academies, Schools, and Private-Tutorships, and all Community and Neighbourhood Bodies;
corruptive that is of Factuality, Honesty, Sense, and the three-principles of good-communication & honest-argumentation, which are
1. Clearly state the facts, factors and reasonings
2. Charitably recognise the good-intention in Others’ different submissions
3. Publicly correct yourself where you see yourself, or are shown to be, wrongly-informed, omissive, wrongly-inclusive, or otherwise mistaken.
Evidently neither the Government, Opposition, Parties, nor Independent-Representatives are being fully Factual, Honest, and Win-Win-Win-Inclusive
(within which latter The Earth’s Non-Renewable and Renewable Lifesupports has to be given both pride-of-place and unstinted-protection).
Human Governance needs to undertake Radical-Reforming, into Comprehensive-Factuality, Good-Communication, and Honest-Argumentation & Moral-Reasoning;
because it is plainly and historically evident that The People are neither willing nor able so to do;
and it is as plainly evident that neither Nature & the Earth, nor God, has any power to prevent themselves from being Extincted.
0127T24May2011.JSDM.
I have an instance of such corrupt-neglect, just arrived from the UK DWP, completely avoiding all four questions that I am having to continually submit to them (and to the Australian Government; and to the UK C.A.B. none of which has yet addressed nor comprehended them, and substituting a blindly one-sided and dangerously-ill-budgeted question that must surely have been handed-down to them not simply via Parliamentary Legislation, but from the Constitutional-Monarchy itself, and from the European-Parliament, and there-above from the United Nations.
(I think “my” four questions are apposite; and therefore that they may be seen, already or within a day or two, via non-profit democratic e-sites http://www.lifefresh.co.uk http://www.75l25w.com or johnmiles1.wordpress.com .)
I presume that all Cross benchers are against the Lords Reform draft Bill, since there would no longer be a Cross bench? Or would there?
Er no, Gareth Howell, just a quiet few of us crossbenchers would like to see the second chamber an elected one; whether this bill is the right one is another matter. It all depends on the mechanisms for electing the second chamber. I would have preferred a gradual shift over some years, introducing elected peers and working steadily through the constitutional implications about the functions and governance of the House. The current bill allows for up to 20% appointed but that doesn’t necessarily mean independent. But I’m very doubtful this Bill will ever get through.
Chris Hanratty, surprisingly no! As far as I can tell there might be one, or at a stretch two, crossbenchers who ALWAYS vote for or against a given government or with or against Tory or Labour. Most flip-flop all over the place depending on the issue.
Interesting how we are advised here that this bill may not pass. Which in plain speak means it won’t.
And the reason, we are told, is the nation is not interested in whether the Lords is modernised or not. And that the voter doesn’t care one way or the other whether they are elected.
What an out and out fancy foot dance that is. I have yet to find one person who wants what we have, in the way of a second chamber, to continue as it is. Most, including taxi driver’s, are sick to death of inefficiency and equivocation in both Houses. But, especially in the Lords.