It is 1.50am. I am in my Lords office waiting to speak to my amendment to the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill which tries to link the decision on the number of MPs with the number of Lords. This is my own attempt to get some big picture coherence on constitutional reform.
The signs are that it will be a few hours yet and I suspect the quality of debate may suffer.
It is a shame that the Government didn’t want to do a deal on this bill to avoid this extraordinary stand off that is resulting in Lords being kept up all night tonight and maybe tomorrow and beyond. It doesn’t do any of us any good or aid the reputation of the House. Many peers appear a little bad tempered and the normal politeness and camaraderie is showing signs of strain.
Meanwhile I am left wondering whether officially in the Lords it is still Monday even though in Greenwich it is clearly now Tuesday.
The arguments for 10% variance are overpowering.
Congratulations on persisting.
http://www.lewisbaston.co.uk/2011/01/the-ten-per-cent-solution/n makes sense.
Quietzapple is right – Lewis Baston argues the 10% variation case and other sensible adjustments very well. The fact is that this Bill could achieve all party consent – in this area – with a little give and take.
In the USA, their Upper House, the Senate, has 100 senators representing nearly 300 million people.
Can you explain to me why the UK, a country of less than a third of their population, needs an Upper House with nearly 7 times more representatives?
I can not justify a second chamber as large as the Lords now is. I certainly think it bonkers that the Government is overseeing over 100 new unelected peers whilst cutting by 50 the number of elected MPs.
There is another way of looking at it.
Why does a large country need more laws than a small country?
Why does a country with a parliament that has been at it for over 300 years need lots of new laws?
If it needs lots of laws and revisions of laws, that’s a failure of the legislators. They didn’t get it right.
If they can’t get it right, why are we paying 1,700 a minute for the Lords?
In the USA, their Upper House, the Senate, has 100 senators representing nearly 300 million people.
This comment is facile in the extreme. Nearly EVERY state has a congress, and a senate, the same as nearly every European state. Several THOUSAND senators and congressmen
Don’t let me put Peter Morris away from commenting though.
My wife would not put up with me being out at that time of night, so I shall not be debating.
There is a very significant difference between Senators and Peers. Senators are without doubt dollar millionaires. And the six richest are Democrats.
Not much representation there for your average man.
I the Labour party stopped trying to talk the bill out, and playing silly games there would not be a problem.
Labour: Stand your ground.
This is so wrong, it should not be the job of Government to decide the amount of members of the Commons, this should be independently researched.
The true figure on the population of England is around 60million + so 75k per member doesn`t wash at 600 members.
An area of 1000 farmers will have an entirely different perspective than a city of 1 million but is just as valid.
If the Conservatives want equality of vote then they MUST put forward PR where every vote gets an equal amount of power in the House.
The Lords is asked to scrutinise Bills based on evidence based facts. There are very few of these. Parts of this bill perhaps should go through, other parts definitely not. It is being rushed and should not be in the form it is.
No retreat: No surrender
“In the USA, their Upper House, the Senate, has 100 senators”
Does that make it more or less democratic? There are some Countries where only one person holds the power, would you like to see that type of politics ?
There are vast differences between the USA and the UK. You could say the various states are more akin to the devolved powers of Scotland, Wales and NI. Comparison is not easy or as straightforward as some would have you believe.
The USA is scarcely a model to cite – 2 senators per state regardless of population means that California takes over 100 million population per senator in contrast to Arizona where it’s a load of tumbleweed per senator.
“… it should not be the job of Government to decide the amount of members of the Commons” – indeed not, it’s Parliament, but I expect that Parliament – even though tired by a long session which I expect to be guillotined shortly – is about to roll over like a spaniel and acquiesce. We get the Executive we deserve becausee our Legislature is pusillanimous.
when reading hansard online it stops at 2:oo am for further reading is says: For the continuation of today’s proceedings, see Official Report, 18 January 2011. However this is not published yet!
I hope this pathetic example of partisanship will be at an end soon. This blatant abuse of procedures, whatever the provocation, is absolutely unreasonable. I have lost respect for many of the political peers in the House of Lords and I hope they understand the Pyrrhic victory this would be. It simply makes the Lords look more partisan and is ammo to those who wish for an elected chamber.
While that may be no bad thing for some people (why can I see Lord Prescott campaigning for a seat?) it would destroy the expertise and experience of the Lords which are its main advantages. This looks terrible and even if the government is abusing the procedures, that’s no reason to abuse the procedures in response. That’s how you end up with a hyper-partisan chamber like the current US Senate and we would not wish to go down that route I trust.
By all means debate amendments, but don’t debate for the sake of debate. No more quoting Venerable Bede, football clubs or prime numbers. I accept that the Lords is no longer as easy a tool to use since the Coalition formed, but abusing procedures will only end in more restrictions on the power of members. My confidence in the Lords is being sorely tested, as are many of the Lords’ supporters – please don’t make this worse than it already is.
It was Monday until the House rose at 12.53 on Tuesday. Had the House still been sitting at 2.15, when Tuesday’s sitting was scheduled, then Tuesday’s business would have been lost and we would still be in Monday’s sitting until the House rose, even if that was Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. If the Monday sitting lasted until Thursday, peers would only be able to claim one day’s sitting allowance!
I`ll post this here as I know Lord Knight is Education minded.
“The Department for Education says this will mean the average sixth form college will be £40,000 better off”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12225622
So when leaving age rises and we have 3-4/ (or 6-8 over 2 years) more classes per school this £40k will pay for what exactly ?
There are 3,225 secondary schools in England and £30m for school and college places for 16 to 19-year-olds. That`s approx £10k per school.
Have the Tories managed to aquire a calculator yet ?
£30m will go to sixth form colleges, school sixth forms and academy sixth forms to help them to expand provision for an increased demand for places when the compulsory education leaving age in England rises to 18 in 2013.
You`ve £10k to fund upto 8 extra teachers, classroms and admin. Gove did you pass Key stage II ?