It was nearly midnight on Day 12 of the most grueling debate in recent House of Lords memory, and not all the lords present were, strictly speaking, awake. Nevertheless, the Right Honorable Lord Davies of Oldham was warming to the question of the hour: a proposal to change “may” to “should” on Page 10, Line 7 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
“If you have a criterion that says that you ‘may’ do something, that is not a positive criterion,” observed Davies, a Labour peer who once worked as a schoolteacher.
“It is the absence of a negative criterion. The phrase ‘may take into account’ means that, if you are minded to do so, if you really want to do so, we do not prevent you from doing so. We do not deny you the opportunity of doing so. However, there is no positive suggestion,” he said.
Give him points for enthusiasm, at least. With the coalition government and the Labour opposition both refusing to compromise on a measure that has severely divided them, the debate had already ground on for 98 hours across several weeks. The peers are not the youngest group of people ever to populate a legislature, and after several all-nighters, some Lords were reaching the outer limits of coherence, patience and stamina.
“These are old men and women who are pretty irritated at being here when normally they’d be tucked up in bed,” said Lord Hart, a Labour peer.
Fury is more like it. The situation has provoked so much resentment here that Lordly decorum has all but flown out of the chamber’s Pugin-designed stained-glass windows.
Things are so bad that when the government tried to buoy its members one night by offering a program of midnight entertainment that included talks by the Gosford Park writer Julian Fellowes and former Olympian Sebastian Coe, members of the Labour Party were strictly uninvited.
“It’s never been like this before, with such a palpable sense of anger,” said Baroness d’Souza, convener of the cross-bench peers, who have no party affiliation. “I believe that if this isn’t resolved quickly, what we’re seeing is the beginning of the unraveling of the House of Lords.”
The bill would trigger a referendum on May 5 on whether to change the way election votes are calculated, and it would redraw Britain’s parliamentary boundaries, reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons to 600, from 650. The coalition government wants it, because it would fulfill the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to enact voting reform and because the Conservatives would benefit from the boundary changes.
Labour is resisting because, while it supports voting reform, it vehemently opposes the redistricting proposal. The measure must become law by Feb. 16 in order for the May 5 referendum to proceed and Labour is determined to delay the bill so that it misses the deadline.
Normally, opposition parties adopt a spirit of compromise and bonhomie in the House of Lords. Not this time. The government seems unwilling to budge and Labour has resorted to virtually unprecedented delaying tactics.
These include proposing picayune amendments — more than 270 so far — discussing them for hours, and then, because they have no chance of passage, withdrawing them.
While the Lords might not filibuster in the grand tradition of the US Senate, they can debate until the cows come home, as long as the topic is relatively germane to the bill.
With each amendment, multiple Labour Lords rise to add their remarks to those of their companions. They reminisce about their experiences as young members of the House of Commons, discuss the rivers of Scotland, expound on how hard it is to drive around Wales when there is no cellphone coverage, talk about the demographic diversity of London and enumerate the communication problems faced by impoverished constituents without cars or computers who want to contact their legislators.
The government says that Labour is upending centuries of convention, but Labour says it has no choice.
“If you try to enact a constitutional change in this ramshackle way, without experts, without scrutiny, without study, then this is what you get,” Lord Hart said.
The debates have been marked by breathtaking insults and accusations on both sides, with much debate focusing on the issue of whether the Labour members are in fact conducting a filibuster or merely robustly scrutinizing the bill.
“He must think that we are a bunch of idiots if he thinks that those of us who have been watching what has been happening are not aware that there has been a filibuster,” said Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a Liberal Democrat, speaking of Lord Falconer, a Labour peer. “In the 16 years that I have been here, I have never seen conduct like this.”
On Monday night, the deputy leader of the house, Lord McNally, a Liberal Democrat, grew so annoyed by repeated niggling questions from Labour that he began ostentatiously ripping up what looked to be the evening’s order paper. Soon afterward, he fell ill and left the chamber.
At one point during last Monday’s all-night session, Lord Trefgarne, a Conservative, drew gasps from other Lords when, saying he was fed up with the “abuse of the procedures of this house,” he set in motion a procedural tool to bring an end to debate on the amendment in question — the first time such a tool has been used in 40 years and only the sixth or seventh time since 1900.
At one point, there was a long discussion about how the government had chosen 600 as the proposed new number of parliamentary seats, with Labour peers accusing the government of plucking the figure from nowhere. Some peers suggested other, random numbers, and one mathematically inclined Labour member mused on how the various figures could be expressed in terms of prime numbers.
“Perhaps I could postulate another figure, given the nature of the debate,” Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke said. “Could we maybe go for 666?”
She also said, speaking of the written transcript of parliamentary proceedings: “I will have to show my husband Hansard tomorrow to prove that at 2 o’clock in the morning I was listening to a debate about prime numbers, because he will not believe me. He will be sending for the men in white coats to cart me away.”
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS