House of lords

The Lords have lost it. They’re out of control. They have taken a wrecking-ball to the government’s plans for Brexit 14 times in recent weeks, putting themselves on a war footing with the people we actually elect. They are behaving like they did in the first decade of the 20th century when they arrogantly vetoed the Liberal government’s People’s Budget. ‘The House of Lords regards all our liberties and political rights as enjoyed and as enjoyable only so long as they choose to let us go on having them’, fumed Winston Churchill back then. Where’s the modern Churchill to put these ermine-robed loathers of the largest democratic vote in British

Labour’s decision to whip against the EU withdrawal bill might well have more of an impact in the Lords than the Commons. In the Commons, as I wrote on Monday, the number of Tory rebels might well be offset by Labour ones—and I suspect that Labour’s decision to whip against the bill at second reading will make it easier for the Tories to peel off Labour rebels on amendments later on. But in the House of Lords, the government doesn’t have any sort of majority. If Labour whip against it there and team up with Liberal Democrat and cross-bench peers,  the bill could end up only passing with significant amendments.

John Bercow’s decision to allow MPs in the House of Commons to dispense with ties has been hailed by some as a great liberation, and by others as an insult to tradition cast by a man who ought to be wearing a wig. But Tina Stowell, who joined the government as a secretary and ended up Leader of the House of Lords, has a different view: that ties (and, indeed, standard dress code) are a social leveller. She writes on her blog:- ‘As someone without a degree who travelled a long path myself, I can see now that one of the most insidious ways those of us in powerful positions have diminished

The government has successfully defeated the two Lords amendments to its Article 50 bill. MPs voted down the first amendment, committing the government to guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals, by a majority of 48 — which means the government managed to increase its majority of 42 from the first vote. On the ‘meaningful vote’ amendment, this was defeated by 331 to 286. The clean bill will now return to the Lords where it is expected to pass tonight with no further amendments — after Baroness Smith, the shadow leader of the Lords, promised there would be no protracted game of ping pong. The fact that the meaningful vote amendment was defeated by

Tonight the government suffered its second Article 50 bill defeat in the House of Lords. Peers backed an amendment calling for a ‘meaningful’ parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal from the EU by 366 votes to 268. Heralding the result, Lord Heseltine said Parliament must be the ‘custodian of national sovereignty’. The bill will now return to the Commons where Theresa May will hope to overturn the amendment, along with the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens. The government had been braced for defeat on both of these issues but regardless this now presents them with a headache — convincing pro-Remain MPs not to rebel. It’s thought May will face the

If Britain really is still a nation of shopkeepers, the Government seems to be picking its enemies rather unwisely with its plans to ramp up business rates – in some cases by as much as 400 per cent over the next five years. The policy – and the somewhat bungled attempt by Communities Secretary Sajid Javid to defend the plans – has already sparked a big row, which shows no signs of calming down. The Daily Mail is clear who we should point the finger at: Sajid Javid. The paper says the Communities Secretary made a ’magnificent’ arrival on the frontline of British politics with his speech in 2015 in which he

The government has no majority in the House of Lords and a majority of peers were pro-Remain. But despite this, the Article 50 Bill will get through the Lords I argue in The Sun this morning. Why, because the reason that we still have an unelected chamber in the 21st century is that the House of Lords has a strong self-preservation instinct: it knows its limits. If the Lords were to try and block something that had been backed in a referendum and had passed the Commons with a majority of 372, then it would be endangering its very existence. Indeed, I understand that the Labour front bench have already

‘A Bill to confer power on the prime minister to notify, under Article 50(2)…’. When it comes to the House of Lords, some of those trying to amend or delay the bill will be paid pensioners of the European Commission. Peers are obliged to declare any interest that ‘might be thought by a reasonable member of the public’ to influence the way they discharge their parliamentary duties — unless it is an EU pension. In 2007, a Lords subcommittee said that because their contracts oblige them to support the EU, an EC pensioner who made ‘intemperate criticism of the commission’ would have contravened their obligations under the Treaty of Rome

Labour’s confused stance on immigration riles the tabloids in today’s papers – with the party’s position described as ‘bone headed’ in the Daily Express. Meanwhile, prison reform is on the agenda elsewhere, as the Guardian says Liz Truss should release the thousands of prisoners still locked up despite serving more than their minimum sentences. But whatever is done to sort out the mess of Britain’s prisons, it’s no time to make them more comfortable for inmates, says the Daily Mail. Here are what the papers are saying this morning: The Sun hits out at Labour in its editorial this morning, saying the party’s policy on immigration shows what a mess the opposition

Although David Cameron’s resignation honours were widely criticised for cronyism, it’s fair to say that Jeremy Corbyn’s one appointment to the House of Lords caused just as much upset. The Labour leader was accused of a conflict of interest for giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage after she chaired his anti-Semitism inquiry. Apparently unfazed by the negative publicity, Baroness Chakrabarti of Kennington was introduced into the Lords today. Alas, it seems she couldn’t find reason to smile.

One of the big political rows of the autumn will be over the proposed changes to constituency boundaries. Labour is unhappy about this (and everything else) because the proposed changes could lose the party around 30 seats which it could ill afford at the best of times. And this is the worst of times. But though the recalculation will help the Tories, there are nerves about whether every Conservative MP who wants to stay in Parliament will be guaranteed a seat. There are also grumblings that this change is not being proposed alongside a reduction in the number of ministers, which will make the executive loom even more powerful in

Another honours list comes and goes and yet again my name is not on it. I don’t think either the Prime Minister or Jeremy Corbyn realises the hurt that this flagrant oversight engenders, both in myself and of course in my public. For countless years I have tried, selflessly, to make the world a better place, to illuminate the poor and the downtrodden with the light of love. I have endeavoured, wherever I can, in my own way, to bring comfort to the sick — not only those who are physically infirm, but also mentals. And yet — nothing, nix. More pertinently, with regard to the latest honours list from

We could be heading for a colossal constitutional showdown. Earlier this week, Baroness Wheatcroft told the Times that she and other peers are hoping to muster up a Lords majority against the invocation of Article 50, even if the Commons votes in favour. This would be extremely dangerous. Confrontations on this scale can be resolved in three ways. All end badly for the remainers, the Lords and the country. First, there’s packing. The government can fill (or at least threaten to fill) the Lords with sympathetic peers to get its legislation over the finishing line, provided the monarch agrees. The most fractious and feverish confrontation between the chambers, over the Great Reform Act