House of lords

Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right not to resign as Leader of the Labour Party. Those calling for his resignation – including those members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who supported the vote of no confidence against him – betray an astonishing misunderstanding of what the project called ‘The Labour Party’ is all about. Here’s the history lesson they all need to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest. The project now called ‘The Labour Party’ owes its origin to a conference called in London in 1899 to discuss the palpable erosion of trade-union rights as a result of a succession of legal judgments. Out of that conference something called ‘The Labour

Here is a thought for all those Tory MPs calculating their personal advantage in the forthcoming EU referendum: unless the vote is an absolutely overwhelming Remain, the next leader of the Conservative party — whose day is no longer so far off — will come from the Leave camp. This will happen, obviously, if Leave wins, but also if Leave loses but does well, because most party supporters will only back someone who feels their pain and can reconcile them afterwards. Another thought: why would Nigel Farage want Britain to vote Leave? Then he would be redundant. Study him in the light of this thought and you will see that it explains

The Strathclyde Review into the power of peers to block legislation sent up by the Commons reports today, and it is expected to strip the House of Lords of its ability to kill off secondary legislation. And the way the government will bring in this reform, which will enshrine the primacy of the Commons, is by primary legislation, which means that if peers try any funny business, ministers can deploy the Parliament Act and force the change through.  Labour says this is a ‘massive overreaction’ to the tax credits row earlier in the autumn. But this reform, naturally, won’t change two major problems with secondary legislation that have very little

The House of Lords has tonight rejected a Labour amendment that would have given 16 and 17 year olds the vote in the EU referendum. This removes the largest potential obstacle to getting the EU referendum legislation into law quickly. This means that, if the government can get a deal at the EU summit in February, a June referendum is still possible. The government’s victory in the Lords tonight was not expected. Most observers, including myself, thought that the opposition’s in-built majority would be enough to get the Labour amendment passed, and so start ping pong between the two Houses. But the Lords has backed down from a confrontation with

The government’s reaction to Monday night’s vote on tax credits was to institute a review of the Lords’ powers. The temptation to take a swipe at those who had thwarted them is understandable. But the real problems lies less with the Lords than the way we make budgets. The day after his July budget, the Chancellor was lauded by many. Not only had he pulled off an unlikely election victory, he had produced a budget which delivered a surplus, introduced a living wage, met the manifesto commitment to cut inheritance tax, raised tax thresholds and the 40 per cent starting rate – all with seemingly little pain. This was a

An enjoyable aspect of parliamentary rules and conventions is that almost no one understands them. This has become acutely true in an age when the media no longer regularly reports proceedings in Parliament. So when the House of Lords threatened to derail the government tax credit cuts this week, no one, that I spotted, foresaw what actually happened. Knowing that the measure came forward as a statutory instrument, not a Bill, and was therefore (in both Houses) unamendable, its opponents in the Lords voted not to reject it but to delay considering it. They set conditions which had to be met before they would do so. Thus they defied the government

On Monday night the Tories were narrowly defeated in the Lords by 289 to 272 on their plans to cut tax credits. With not even Lord Lloyd-Webber’s last minute flight across the pond to vote enough to prevent the government’s defeat, it only adds insult to injury to note that a number of the newly appointed Tory peers were not introduced into the house in time to have a say. As William Hague is one such peer, the former foreign secretary has been left seething at the result. Writing for the Telegraph, Hague has launched a scathing attack on the Lib Dem peers who voted against tax credits. In a cutting remark he likens them

It is difficult to exaggerate the fury in the Tory party at the House of Lords after last night’s double defeat. MPs I have spoken to today want swift and damaging retribution from the government for the Upper Chamber’s behaviour that goes far beyond what ministers are likely to propose, with some suggesting that the bishops should be the first to take the hit because they should understand the constitutional delicacies involved in votes like this given their ‘privileged constitutional position in the Chamber’. Mind you, the Bishops weren’t as turbulent last night as they could have been: only the Archbishop of York supported the Baroness Hollis amendment that delayed

Tonight has not been a good one for George Osborne, with peers refusing to take his word that he was in ‘listening mode’ about tax credits. He didn’t look particularly happy about the matter when he gave a pooled clip to broadcasters a few minutes ago. He complained about an unelected group of Labour and Lib Dem lords voting down a matter passed by the House of Commons, and added: ‘I said I would listen and that’s precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to save to secure our economy while at the same