Oooh we might get an electoral reform thread in the morning now
One in five peers could be sacked to help control the size of the House of Lords, David Cameron’s official reviewer into reforming the second chamber will suggest next month.
Lord Strathclyde, who was asked by the Prime Minister to look at the Lords after they blocked Tory tax credit cuts, is expected to give a “nod” to the idea in his report.
The Tory peer also will tell Mr Cameron to create a new law stripping Lords of their ability to veto changes to secondary legislation – his main recommendation.
The Tories would have to get the Lords to agree - and a party that only got 36.9% of the national vote would find it hard pressing for major change entirely in its own interest.
Blair didn't have any problems with 35.2% of the national vote.
Meh, not sure it matters that much. I am sure he chose it because he wants to be comfortable, rather than wearing a suit all the time. Someone else posted that link about him talking about manhole covers. For some insane reason it made me like him on a personal level a bit more... Disagree with his politics though...
I didnt know Cameron had effectively sacked Shapps in a Press Conference in Malta:
News of Shapps’ resignation was broken by the Prime Minister at a dramatic press conference in Malta. Mr Cameron effectively sacked Shapps after he was asked if the Minister had his ‘complete confidence.’ He pointedly refused to give it and coldly said a statement ‘would be released’ soon afterwards.
Wonder if Cameron's plan is to threaten the Lords with getting rid of some of them but he then compromises by "settling" for a new rule whereby they can't block Secondary Legislation.
That's my guess!
But whatever is proposed has to be agreed by the Lords. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
The LAB reforms in the 1997 parliament came off the back of a landslide victory and reform had been in the GE1997 manifesto.
Lords reform was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Reforming back to a hereditary chamber counts, right?
Wonder if Cameron's plan is to threaten the Lords with getting rid of some of them but he then compromises by "settling" for a new rule whereby they can't block Secondary Legislation.
That's my guess!
But whatever is proposed has to be agreed by the Lords. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
The LAB reforms in the 1997 parliament came off the back of a landslide victory and reform had been in the GE1997 manifesto.
Lords reform was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Had he tendered his resignation before this?
When that happens there's usually an exchange of letters published promptly - AFAIK that has not happened yet.
Wonder if Cameron's plan is to threaten the Lords with getting rid of some of them but he then compromises by "settling" for a new rule whereby they can't block Secondary Legislation.
That's my guess!
But whatever is proposed has to be agreed by the Lords. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
The LAB reforms in the 1997 parliament came off the back of a landslide victory and reform had been in the GE1997 manifesto.
Lords reform was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Had he tendered his resignation before this?
When that happens there's usually an exchange of letters published promptly - AFAIK that has not happened yet.
The letters are on the Telegraph website, although maybe you meant in the timescale of the press conference in Malta?
Wonder if Cameron's plan is to threaten the Lords with getting rid of some of them but he then compromises by "settling" for a new rule whereby they can't block Secondary Legislation.
That's my guess!
But whatever is proposed has to be agreed by the Lords. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
The LAB reforms in the 1997 parliament came off the back of a landslide victory and reform had been in the GE1997 manifesto.
Lords reform was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Was it? I don't have it to hand, mostly because itis 3am, but my recollection was there was a woolly sentence saying not much if anything but indicating no change was in the offing. eh, maybe that was in relation to electoral reform?
I've said it before, but PBTories complaining about the Lords vetoing government legislation, is like a burglar complaining about how outrageous it is that people install burglar alarms in their home. THE WHOLE POINT of it is to act as a check on the government of the day.
That's fine in theory.
The problem is that Peers are now voting almost entirely along party lines on every vote.
Lab + LD combined have 70 more Peers than Con so the Govt is certain to lose every vote - unless they get overwhelming Crossbench support and even then they have to get lucky by much stronger whipping and hoping enough Lab + LD don't turn up.
It's a complete farce. IF enough Lab + LD Peers turn up they can literally defeat everything.
You might find out, that is how democracies work ! The fact that this HoL is totally undemocratic has a lot to do with the current party in power.
The second chamber should be representative of the preferences of the population, in my view. But that is not the view of this government.
The peers voting along "party lines" is not a problem. The members of any party should vote usually with their party. That is why they are called Tory, Labour, LD etc. peers. They are not called, for example, "Labour peer who votes to help the Tory government"
Wonder if Cameron's plan is to threaten the Lords with getting rid of some of them but he then compromises by "settling" for a new rule whereby they can't block Secondary Legislation.
That's my guess!
But whatever is proposed has to be agreed by the Lords. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
The LAB reforms in the 1997 parliament came off the back of a landslide victory and reform had been in the GE1997 manifesto.
Lords reform was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Had he tendered his resignation before this?
When that happens there's usually an exchange of letters published promptly - AFAIK that has not happened yet.
The letters are on the Telegraph website, although maybe you meant in the timescale of the press conference in Malta?
Cameron:
I know you have much more to give in the years ahead.
Comments
The second chamber should be representative of the preferences of the population, in my view. But that is not the view of this government.
The peers voting along "party lines" is not a problem. The members of any party should vote usually with their party. That is why they are called Tory, Labour, LD etc. peers. They are not called, for example, "Labour peer who votes to help the Tory government"
I know you have much more to give in the years ahead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12022736/The-troubled-career-of-Tory-high-flier-Grant-Shapps-hits-another-obstacle-over-bullying-claims.html
Will the Shapps firewall hold?
You really want to discuss multiple identities in the Momentum Unite Labour Party?