The end of an epic battle - but who won?

So who won in the end?

Just before midnight on Wednesday, the Royal Assent was signified to the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, putting a full stop on a saga stretching back to last November, when the Lords first debated it.

And after all the filibustering, brinkmanship and general bad temper the changes have, in fact, been rather modest.

In its final form, the bill allows for the public presentation of arguments about the re-drawing of parliamentary boundaries, although these do not amount to actual hearings, still less to public inquiries. And the Isle of Wight has gone from being under-represented in a Commons of 650 MPs, to being over-represented in a Commons of 600. Er, that's it.

The final "ping-pong" process removed the other major changes the Lords had pushed through - the 40% turnout threshold for the referendum on the voting system, and the exceptional 7.5% leeway from the standard size for Commons seats. Hmmm.

The government got its way on everything that mattered to it - but there were a few casualties along the way. Foremost among them is Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Lords, who, it is murmured, should have spotted the developing deadlock and acted on it rather earlier than he did. His reputation for existing in mystic communion with the mood of the Lords has taken rather a knock - but perhaps unfairly.

The real problem was that the shape of the bill - now an Act - was set in stone in the Coalition Agreement, and there was very little flexibility for concessions to ease its passage through the Lords, despite the entreaties of the Coalition leadership in the Upper House. Incoming governments often take a while to realise that the business of getting legislation past their lordships is not always straightforward. The late Dennis Carter, chief whip in the Lords under Tony Blair, resorted to creating a form for ministers to fill out, explaining how they proposed to get bills through the Lords, in order to force them to think out a strategy. Maybe Lady Anelay, the Coalition's chief whip in the Lords, should do the same.

Mark Harper, the minister overseeing the progress of the bill, has also emerged with a few contusions. As I blogged yesterday, some of the comments he made in the Commons were sued in evidence against him in the Lords - and helped fuel their continued defiance over the referendum threshold. Mr Harper, an impressive Commons operator, will have absorbed some painful lessons.

Meanwhile, Lord Falconer, Labour's constitutional spokesman, has won plaudits from his colleagues for some determined street-fighting, which threatened to derail a bill vital to the Coalition. And with the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill due before the Lords on 1 March, and the draft bill on Lords reform due to be published soon, he will have plenty more to chew on. Former Lord Chancellors are normally rather dignified figures - Lord Falconer shows no sign of wanting to go gently into that good night, and could yet eclipse Labour's official leader in the Lords, Lady Royall.

I'm not sure whether to put the crossbenchers into the winners or losers column. Their convenor, Lady D'Souza, worked hard to break the deadlock that brought proceedings to a halt in mid-committee stage, and several other crossbenchers put compromise amendments that moved debate forward. In the end most of these compromises were rejected by the Commons - and there is some muted concern that the crossbenchers were forced, by the threat of a government guillotine being imposed on the Lords, to act as honest brokers between Labour and the Coalition. The crossbenches hold the balance of power in the Lords, and there is some concern that that uncomfortable position is turning them into a kind of non-party party.

And finally, there's the Lord Speaker, Lady Hayman. She was unable to play any public role in resolving the biggest crisis in the workings of the Lords since her position was created. The question is now being asked, should her post remain a mainly ceremonial one? There's no appetite at all in the Lords for a Commons-style Speaker with sweeping powers over procedural issues. Yet. But a working party under the chairmanship of the former Commons chief whip, Lord Goodlad, is reviewing the procedures of the Lords.

Might it - or, more likely, some high-powered special committee - now suggest some safeguards against future filibusters; perhaps even an emergency timetabling procedure, should the Lords' normal self-regulation break down again?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?