Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
May to Create More Peers to Swing Lords' Brexit Votes
The House of Lords doesn't have quite as much power in 2018 as it did in 1818, but it can still throw a spanner in the works of a prime minister. Their Lordships have defeated the government 15 times on the EU withdrawal bill, including on issues such as a customs union with the EU, the Irish border and removing March 29, 2019, as the official Brexit date from the bill. So as early as today, Prime Minister May will advise Her Majesty to create 10 Tory peers, one from the Democratic Unionist Party (which is keeping the Tories in power on a supply and confidence basis), and Labour will get 3. The pro-EU Liberal Democrats will not add to their 98 peers. She is packing the Lords, and it's unconscionable.
Dan Sabbagh and Lisa O'Carroll wrote in this morning's Guardian, "Party political peers are periodically created when No 10 indicates that it wishes to do so, although this round had been delayed for months. In February, May said she wanted to end the 'automatic entitlement' to a peerage for holders of high office in an attempt to reduce numbers in the upper house to 600."
They also noted, "Constitutionally, there is supposed to be a rough balance between the two main parties in the Lords, although at present there are 244 Conservative peers, including 49 hereditary peers, and 187 Labour peers. However, the Conservatives are far from a majority in a chamber that has a total of 780 members and has become the principal parliamentary opposition to Brexit."
The last defeat for the government, on post-Brexit environmental protections, was on a vote of 294-244. So, it is difficult to see how the extra 11 pro-government votes will make a sufficient difference. At the same time, the three added Labour peers may well be pro-Brexit; the party has been conflicted over where it stands, divided between protecting the British working class and protecting the international working class and European solidarity.
The other point one can derive from that vote tally is that about 250 peers weren't present to vote. Increase the number of absences among those against the government by a bit, increase the government bench size, and suddenly, the government will start to win those Lords votes.
The outcome of votes in Lords matters because if there are changes to a bill in the upper house, then Commons has to vote on that change. In the long run, the House of Commons will prevail, but on a bill as controversial as the EU withdrawal bill, letting Commons vote on amendments from Lords may result in the government having to given in on some terms where it would rather not.
This brings to the fore the necessity of Lords reform. It may well be too big, and it is certainly undemocratic because 92 of its members inherited their seats. There are 22 members of the Church of England who sit in Lords (the Lords Spiritual as opposed to the Lords Temporal), and that raises all sorts of issues with religion. However, the real problem at the heart of the current arrangement is that a Prime Minister leading a minority government has the power to create new peers and pack the House of Lords. That Labour is going along with this for its 3 seats just proves that, were they in power, they would do likewise if necessary.
This is a big week-end in Britain. There is the FA Cup final between Chelsea FC (Blue is the Colour) and Manchester United (Satan's team) at Wembley Stadium. There is a royal wedding as the warm up to that. Moreover, the weather in London and environs is sunny and 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while up in Edinburgh it will be only slightly cooler and cloudier. In short, if one wanted to ennoble a few political chums while no one was looking, this is the ideal time to do it.
© Copyright 2018 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.
Kensington Review Home
|
|
|
|
