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.”
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is often accused of getting close to, and even conspiring with, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There are certainly good reasons behind these accusations, yet the confounding truth is that it makes neither historical nor logical sense for it to do so. Whether one believes that the Chinese civil war fought between the KMT and CCP in the previous century has ended or has yet to be resolved, the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan in 1949 resulted in the CCP governing China and the KMT taking root in Taiwan. For years, the KMT refused to even
RSS