House of Lords Reform - 70 Tory Rebels Sign Letter Opposing

[0a]

70 Tory rebels have signed an open letter opposing House of Lords reform, with the first vote on time limiting debate due to take place tomorrow. This may well be the first defeat for the government by rebels on a three line whip.

Links: Guardian, Telegraph. The full letter has been uploaded by Guido so you can check if your MP is on it. The Wikipedia article on the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 is worth reading.

I'm with the rebels. The proposals to elect lords on 15 year terms means they will claim a mandate but not be accountable. We will lose their current expertise and constitutional balance.

In addition, the proposal retains 12 Bishops. The house will move from 26 Bishops out of 800 members (3.25%) to 12 Bishops out of 450 members (2.67%) after 2025 - and the church still won't let women be Bishops!

Labour are playing politics and voting against a motion to limit the debate time, but say they will vote for the motion, so the Tory rebels need to win the first motion with Labour, and then filibuster until the bill is scrapped to get rid of it. Good luck to them, it will be interesting to watch the politics play out.

Various MPs have stated on Twitter that the whips have not been putting the pressure on at all due to the size of the rebellion. Cameron may be very happy to lose and see Clegg with egg on his face.

Overall, I agree the House needs some change, but this isn't it. I also think that major constitutional change should be put to a referendum.

[thinfourth2]

Oh goody

General election time

Tories to loose spectacularly
Labour to win
Lib dems to take a hammering
UKIP to have a great proportion of the votes then lib deems but still no MPs
Scottish indépendance to be kicked into touch by labour as they won't want to loose their majority
Pistonheads to explode in rage

[elster]

It is a pointless waste of time that will add unnecessary cost to the country.

A 15 year single term election shows they want to give a seat to failed politicians for their retirement, you can't hold someone to account for a 15 year single term.

At the end of the day the House of Lords is a giant scrutiny committee, nothing more. You could do damned site worse with a entirely nominated house made up of people from all professions.

Not an expensive retirement home.

[baz1985]

It appears to function as required...why reform 'the other place'? Mantra: If they do not conform, lets perform reform. Clegg, your 'legitimacy' argument possesses the robustness of a July 2012 Spanish bond.

[Riff Raff]

baz1985 said:

It appears to function as required...why reform 'the other place'?

But does it? Anytime the Lords want to flex their muscles, the Commons invoke the Parliament Act.

Give me a properly constituted second chamber with real power any day.

[0a]

baz1985 said:

It appears to function as required...why reform 'the other place'? Mantra: If they do not conform, lets perform reform. Clegg, your 'legitimacy' argument possesses the robustness of a July 2012 Spanish bond.

I think there is an argument for gradual change - remove the Bishops and the hereditary peers for a start.

[Haggleburyfinius]

Riff Raff said:

baz1985 said:

It appears to function as required...why reform 'the other place'?

But does it? Anytime the Lords want to flex their muscles, the Commons invoke the Parliament Act.

Give me a properly constituted second chamber with real power any day.

I'd like to see the Lords have more power.

More elected nonentities is the last thing we need!

Clegg is holding the Conservatives to ransom in a most unpleasant way over a matter of the most importance.

[Slaav]

Riff Raff said:

But does it? Anytime the Lords want to flex their muscles, the Commons invoke the Parliament Act.

.....

Any idea how often the PA has been invoked prior to the last lot? HAve a guess - without looking - how many time sthe previous TEN Parliaments invoked the PA to 'force through' politically driven ideology? Go on; how many?

Then have a look - especially look at the stuff that it was used to force through! Interesting reading

[0a]

Interesting, I knew Labour were big fans compared to previous governments, but only because previous governments didn't use it.

However there is of course the threat of the parliament act and how it makes the Lords behave.

[Riff Raff]

Slaav said:

Any idea how often the PA has been invoked prior to the last lot? HAve a guess - without looking - how many time sthe previous TEN Parliaments invoked the PA to 'force through' politically driven ideology? Go on; how many?

Then have a look - especially look at the stuff that it was used to force through! Interesting reading

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that we have an effective revising chamber in the Lords.

What we don't have - which lots of other countries do, is a chamber which is part of an effective system of checks and balances in the democratic process.

[martin84]

My my, Clegg got a bit of a bumpy ride today didnt he?!

Anybody hoping for a general election soon will be disappointed, an election will not be called due to a failed House of Lords bill but it looks to me that Labour are trying to isolate the Lib Dems and drive a further wedge between Cameron and Clegg.

The reforms detailed by Clegg today are bad, but Labour seem to more or less support them but are happy to vote them down because enough Tory MP's will join them in order to kill the bill. It'd be a defeat for the Government, but a defeat the Conservative's actually want. There's Tory MP's willing to both side with Labour and give up Government jobs in order to vote against this, that tells you how strongly they feel about this.

It does show the Lib Dems simply don't get what Government is about though. HoF reform is something people don't care about, we've got more important things to do.

[0a]

martin84 said:

My my, Clegg got a bit of a bumpy ride today didnt he?!

Anybody hoping for a general election soon will be disappointed, an election will not be called due to a failed House of Lords bill but it looks to me that Labour are trying to isolate the Lib Dems and drive a further wedge between Cameron and Clegg.

The reforms detailed by Clegg today are bad, but Labour seem to more or less support them but are happy to vote them down because enough Tory MP's will join them in order to kill the bill. It'd be a defeat for the Government, but a defeat the Conservative's actually want. There's Tory MP's willing to both side with Labour and give up Government jobs in order to vote against this, that tells you how strongly they feel about this.

It does show the Lib Dems simply don't get what Government is about though. HoF reform is something people don't care about, we've got more important things to do.

I listened to some of the debate yesterday and quite enjoyed it. You're quite right that people don't particularly care about Lords reform. This is partly because if you watch a Lords session on BBC parliament and compare to a commons session, the Lords seems so much more intelligent and rational.

I hear there are more rebel Tories on top of the 70 declared yesterday. If the government is defeated on the programme motion tonight, Clegg will be asked if he wishes to continue as the sight of the government spending weeks or months debating something no one is interested in and potentially failing to conclude isn't an attractive one. The lib dems will be blamed.

It is indeed telling that Tories are happy to side against the government. However as you say Cameron is quite happy with this. There is an interesting Guido piece entitled where are the whips?:

Guido said:

Conor Burns might be fearing for his job when he votes against the government over Lords reform tomorrow, but Guido is starting to suspect that Tory whips’ hearts aren’t really in it. For 70 Conservative backbenchers to voice such open dissent – including loyalists that still actually harbour career ambitions – there is clearly little anxiety over the consequences of rebelling. And as for those LibDem boundary review threats…

Peter Lilley has gone on the record saying that no whip has got in touch with him, while Jacob Rees-Mogg told the BBC: “I speak to the whips regularly but I haven’t come under any pressure“. Tories have been briefing the Lobby that their party capos have been nowhere to be seen...

Dave ordered a three-line whip on Lords reform, but neither his backbenchers nor his whips seem to care. The power now lies with Ed…

They are getting all excited about the Coalition being about to fall over at The Guardian. I can't see how that would happen myself. We are on fixed terms now, and the lib dems are too involved and too unpopular to go it alone now.

I suspect the defeat may be fairly clear cut on the programme motion tonight. Quite right too, hopefully Clegg sees sense and scraps the bill.

[0a]

BBC saying 100 rebels now...

[Slaav]

Riff Raff said:

Slaav said:

Any idea how often the PA has been invoked prior to the last lot? HAve a guess - without looking - how many time sthe previous TEN Parliaments invoked the PA to 'force through' politically driven ideology? Go on; how many?

Then have a look - especially look at the stuff that it was used to force through! Interesting reading

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that we have an effective revising chamber in the Lords.

What we don't have - which lots of other countries do, is a chamber which is part of an effective system of checks and balances in the democratic process.

Not having a pop

My point was that there was a system in place which allowed for outrageous decisions by the Lords to be over ruled via the Parliament Act. A recent givernment rode rough shod through this and started using it for things like Fox Hunting!!! FFS - hardly the reason why PA was set in law?

Any system can be abused if the will is strong enough. People seem to forget that HoL has safely and succesfully overseen the Lower House for many many years. It did keep it in check and I personally do not want a wholly elected Upper house. I want some old timers in their who don't give a damn who is in 'power' and simply do what they think is right.

[Derek Smith]

martin84 said:

Anybody hoping for a general election soon will be disappointed, an election will not be called due to a failed House of Lords bill but it looks to me that Labour are trying to isolate the Lib Dems and drive a further wedge between Cameron and Clegg.

The danger is not in the failure of HoL reform. If Cameron makes no effort to support this bill, as the actions, or rather inaction, of his whips demonstrates, he is risking the coalition. One might assume he is thinking that the LibDems can't afford an elections at this time, but then, going by his lack of popularity and the 1/3rd reduction in party membership, nor can the tories.

If the LibDems take umbrage at Cameron's behaviour then cooperation might suddenly become a thing of the past. That is what will bring down the government. Whilst it will hurt the LibDems that's never stopped a political party in the past. For examples: the labour leap to the left bringing in Thatcher, and the tory's infighting which gave us the sainted Blair rather than Major.

Labour will, of course, try and exploit the fracas. That's what political parties do. Actually running the country is way down on all their 'to do' lists.

[0a]

What is the current process should the lib dems decide to leave the coalition? We are on 5 year terms and as I understand it needs a 2/3rds vote to dissolve parliament?

Both parties need each other at the moment so i think there is little chance of the lib dems leaving the coalition. The only way would be leadership elections in the lib dems but i can't see anyone wanting to take over from Clegg at the moment.

[0a]

The Tories have 4-5% waiting for them for UKIP when they announce an in/out EU referendum, this may also tip a few floating votes over to them as well. Tough challenge for the Tories though, they needed growth to show their policies were working and we don't have any yet.

Polling data below from UKPollingreport.co.uk

[rs1952]

Derek Smith said:

Labour will, of course, try and exploit the fracas. That's what political parties do. Actually running the country is way down on all their 'to do' lists.

This encapsulates the reason why I personally oppose the notion of an elected second chamber.

In the lower house we have politicians of all parties apparently spending more time slagging each other off and trying to make life difficult for the other lot than they do spend in actually doing something worthwhile. The root problems are the political party system itself, and the tribal nature of the population, where far too many vote for one party because the family always has or because of misguided ideas of "class loyalty" (add your own reason if you prefer - there are plenty of them)

We are now faced with the real possibility that the party machines will be able to take precedence in the upper house as well.

If political affiliation was banned in the upper house and it was full of independents I might consider an elected chamber to be a better idea.

[Derek Smith]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Saying that - Derek, I would be interested to know how the country would feel, or moreover vote, if a snap election was to take place in 6 months time.

Labour have hardly offered anything in the way of ideas and policy - backbone so to speak - in the direction and actions they would take. And to be honest probably wouldn't thank you for being passed the reigns.

Lib Dems, are damaged goods.

Cons, might not be popular, but the country might just see that they are digging the country out of the hole, and continue to back them - especially if one was to look over the waters to the cluster fks our continental brothers are in. The UK is not in comparative bad shape under stewardship.

I don't think Cameron is scared of a General Election. I don't think Cleggy and Co want out of their shared power - as it is the only power they will see for a long time.

My feeling is that the next election will be one of the most unpredictable I've seen.

I accept that labour haven't said what they would do - a deliberate tactic no doubt - but then they don't have to at this stage. They are not in government.

The problem is that all parties have a core of voters which will vote for them uncritically. This is a big irritation for me as someone with no party affiliations. So the only ones who have to be attracted are the floaters like me.

What do I see? I see Cameron, so a big downer there for the tories. I see Milliband - ditto. So of the only two parties which stand a chance of getting in are, to say the least, uninspiring.

The tories are about to announce, I've read somewhere, that they are considering removing the OAP bus passes and prescription charge exemption. Not a good idea I would suggest. Labour has said nothing about it as yet.

The banking scandal is seen as a tory problem. Bankers/tories are bedfellows in many people's eyes.

Then there are women. They were, some suggest, the main reason the tories became the biggest party at the last election but it would appear that women are fickle and are not so keen.

The tory attack on the police has few supporters if my experience is anything to go by. I've been to a few dinner parties (one of the downsides to becoming a pensioner) and I have been accosted by people, some strangers, who are saying how frightened they are. Fair enough, I'm ex old bill and one would expect to receive some comments but even the Daily Mail reactionaries are anti the reductions.

Just drop into conversation the fact that G4S is a combination of Group 4 and Securicorps and see people's reaction.

I live in a middle class area, or as one DM reader put it, lower upper middle class area, and any political argument not headed off by hosts tends to be critical of the present 'tory' government.

Cameron has a lot of work to do if he wants to get an outright victory. I don't think he's the man for the job. Nor is Johnson. Milliband isn't either come to that but they have, at least in the minds of the voters, washed their hands of Blair/Brown and are trying to present themselves as new new new labour.

If Cameron is not wary of a GE then he's a bigger idiot than I gave him credit for. The best thing going for him is not the state of the continent but the state of the labour party. Milliband? What a joke! The only person who could possibly have been worse for them was Harman. But he does keep a low profile, maybe because that's all he can manage.

[The Black Flash]

rs1952 said:

Derek Smith said:

Labour will, of course, try and exploit the fracas. That's what political parties do. Actually running the country is way down on all their 'to do' lists.

This encapsulates the reason why I personally oppose the notion of an elected second chamber.

In the lower house we have politicians of all parties apparently spending more time slagging each other off and trying to make life difficult for the other lot than they do spend in actually doing something worthwhile. The root problems are the political party system itself, and the tribal nature of the population, where far too many vote for one party because the family always has or because of misguided ideas of "class loyalty" (add your own reason if you prefer - there are plenty of them)

We are now faced with the real possibility that the party machines will be able to take precedence in the upper house as well.

If political affiliation was banned in the upper house and it was full of independents I might consider an elected chamber to be a better idea.

Totally agree. The last thing we need is more party politics.
The HoL works rather well, I think. That's what matters, not if it's fair or democratic. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself, though most of our politicians forget that.