House of lords

This government has just suffered its first defeat of the parliament in, unsurprisingly, the House of Lords. The Lords voted for the Oates amendment which entitles EU nationals to a physical document attesting to their right to stay in the UK after Brexit. In truth, the government and the Lords aren’t that far apart on this question. The government thinks that a digital database is sufficient while peers want a physical piece of paper. But it is the willingness of the Lords to defeat the government on this question that is most interesting. The word from the House of Lords is that peers will back down once the Commons strips

It was announced last night that the government’s recently appointed ‘anti-Semitism tsar’ John Mann would be given a seat in the House of Lords. Mann resigned the Labour whip over the weekend after 18 years as an MP, blasting his former leader as unfit to govern following the party’s risible attempts to remove anti-Jewish members. The move will see the recently appointed Lord, who probably would have lost his seat of Bassetlaw at the next election, continue to hound the opposition over the party’s anti-Semitism problem. However, his elevation to the Lords – and the £305 daily allowance that comes with it – will no doubt have caused Lord Mann much

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.