House of lords

The Lords reform rebels held a debrief today following David Cameron’s offer to the 1922 committee, I understand. The meeting, which took place mid-afternoon, was about what the rebels ‘need to do going forward to ensure that the Bill is dead’, one senior source told me. The rebels were not at all impressed by the suggestions that the Prime Minister put to backbenchers last night, and the meeting decided that offering the Liberal Democrats a smaller elected element in the upper house was a ‘Trojan horse’ by which more elected members could be added over time. The source explained that the MPs involved ‘did not want to be awkward’, but

Jesse Norman became the hero of the hour yesterday afternoon when the government admitted defeat against the Tory rebels and dropped the programme motion on Lords reform. Norman was keen to claim the victory for his rebel operation, making an early intervention to say: ‘Let me make it clear from the Conservative benches that the very substantial opposition from within the Conservative party, not just that from Labour, was responsible for the withdrawal of the motion. That should be perfectly clear and reflected in the record.’ As leader of the rebel camp, and a member of the 91 who voted against the second reading of the Bill late last night,

‘Shouldn’t we just go home?’ the SNP’s Pete Wishart asked Sir George Young this evening after the Leader of the House revealed the government was dropping its programme motion on the House of Lords. ‘You know it’s all over. They know it’s all over,’ he added. But they didn’t go home, and the Commons has just voted in favour of the second reading 462 votes to 162. Early reports suggest that there were 86 Conservative MPs who defied the whip, which would make this the biggest rebellion in this parliament. Nick Clegg paused from trying very hard not to grimace on the front bench to cheer as Mark Harper told

Charlotte Leslie becomes the latest star of the 2010 intake to come out against the coalition’s version of Lords reforms. Explaining her decision, she emphasised to The Spectator her concerns that while the new Lords would be elected ‘they would not carry the great benefit of democracy, accountability’. As Leslie points out, this means that a Lord ‘could get elected on a myriad of populist promises, then fail to honour any of them’. She also has worries about the loss of expert knowledge from the chamber when it is elected. But her objections are, perhaps, best summed up by her attack on the argument that Tories should vote Lords reform

One instructive way to think about Tuesday’s vote on Lords reform is, do you want to have proportional representation used to elect people to the Westminster parliament? I suspect that most people on the centre-right would answer no to that question, and with good reason. In the current British system, PR would work against the centre-right’s political interests.   It is for this reason that the term rebel is a bit of a misnomer for those Tories trying to thwart the coalition’s plans for Lords reform. The likes of Andrew Griffiths, an adviser to Eric Pickles when he was party chairman, and Angie Bray, a former Central Office staffer, are

That the Liberal Democrats might try to scupper the boundary reforms if they don’t get their way on Lords reform has been the talk of the tearooms in Westminster for months. But today the threat comes to the fore as Nick Clegg’s departing head of strategy Richard Reeves warns the Independent that there will be ‘consequences’ if Tory MPs try to block reform of the upper chamber by voting down the Government’s programme motion for debating the legislation. This is what he told the newspaper: ‘There would be broader consequences for the Government’s programme, particularly around political and parliamentary reform. The idea that a failure to deliver a government commitment

Last night a group of Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs met to discuss Lords reform. Public outbursts from the Conservative backbench have so far focused on opposition to the bill and the programme motion that the whips are trying to impose on the legislation, but the group of pro-reform MPs, who have informally dubbed themselves the Democratic Majority, are optimistic that the legislation will make a successful passage through the House of Commons. There are 27 Conservatives on board at the moment along all the Lib Dems, standing up the list of 100 MPs that the rebel leaders claim to have among their number. Ringleader Jake Berry, a member of

House of Lords reform? Most politicos are debating whether to elect senators or maintain the status-quo. Not so the Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham Conservatives, who held an evening discussion about whether the Lords should return to the hereditary principle. Mr Steerpike hears that it was a popular motion. Leading the charge was James Bethell, head of Westbourne Communications by day and 5th Baron Bethell by night. Lord Bethell stated that his great-grandfather bought his peerage for £10,000 in 1922. He said that the sum works out at over three million pounds in today’s money, which appears to be much more than the asking price for an elected seat.

At the first meeting of the 1922 Committee following the 2010 election, I was the only new MP to speak. I used my time to set out why I would support a coalition: the country was in an economic crisis and at war; we knew what needed to be done – deal with the debt and radically reform education, welfare, local government, healthcare and defence; and we knew no one else was going to do it. In the following two years my rebelliousness has stretched as far as two abstentions on votes against opposition amendments. The first was on a Labour amendment to extend national insurance contribution holidays for start-ups

The concessions that David Cameron has reportedly offered the Conservative backbench on Lords reform are really not sufficient to keep them out of the no lobbies. Switching from a salary to a daily attendance allowance, which would keep peers’ earnings below £60,000 in most cases, is hardly going to set the benches alight. The reason for this is mainly that Tory MPs are opposing Lords reform as much for reasons of principle as they are for personal reasons. This is a deeply personal row with the Lib Dems that was a bit awkward and grumpy a month or so ago, but has turned to full-blooded revenge over the party’s refusal

The coalition’s plan for House of Lords reform will go to Cabinet on Tuesday. It could have a trickier time there than expected: some Tory Cabinet ministers who favour an elected Lords are deeply unhappy about the idea of using regional lists. But, even before Cabinet, one active Tory big beast has come out against the proposals. Boris Johnson savages the idea in his Telegraph column, declaring it to be ‘a bunch of tidy-minded Lib Dem nonsense.’ He makes the standard Tory arguments against it: the Lords works as it is, two elected chambers would inevitably clash and reform will just expand the numbers — and cost — of the

Opponents of an elected House of Lords have been flexing their muscles in the last few days. Yesterday, Archie Hamilton, a Tory peer and former chairman of the 1922 Committee, and a sceptic of the coalition’s plans for an elected Lords, put down a manuscript amendment on the Financial Services Bill, on which the government was defeated. This means that the bill will have to go through a full committee stage. This is just a little indication of how much more difficult the coalition could find getting its legislation through the upper house once the Lords reform debate has started in earnest. So much of the proceedings in the Lords