Tied up in knots
Charlie Falconer has succeeded in tying the Coalition in knots. Again.
Last night's government defeat in the Lords, inserting a "threshold clause" into the bill for a referendum on the voting system would effectively wreck the bill as far as the Lib Dems are concerned. The requirement that 40% of the electorate should turn out, before a vote to change the electoral system could be valid, looks unattainable.
There's solid polling data on this. A big ICM poll by the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign found that 49% of respondents in areas due to hold elections in May were certain to vote. But only 36% were certain to vote in the referendum - which the government wants to hold alongside those elections. If that was born out by events, the attempt to change the voting system would flounder then and there. Students of history will recall that a failure to meet a threshold was precisely what defeated the Callaghan government's proposals for Scottish devolution in March 1979 - and ultimately led to the fall of that government.
So if this vital part of the Coalition Agreement is to be implemented, the threshold has to be removed from the bill. I gather that it is at least technically possible to attempt this at the next stage of consideration - Third Reading. But it is more likely that the government will simply ask the House of Commons to remove it when it comes to consider the amendments made by their lordships, probably on Monday. There, they expect backing from a huge majority in the Commons - not least because Labour opposed a similar amendment on thresholds from Conservative Bill Cash in the Committee stage there on 2 November last year.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
This was what Labour's spokesman Chris Bryant had to say when he debated the issue with Mr Cash:
"I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea. As these amendments have shown, it is difficult to know whether the threshold should relate to the turnout - the number of people who vote -or the turnout of those who express a preference. In other words, should it leave out or include those who spoiled their ballot paper? Alternatively, should it relate to those who vote yes to change."
But even assuming Labour don't switch sides on this issue (and Mr Bryant did leave himself some wriggle room), the need to reject, rather than simply accept, a Lords amendment takes the bill perilously close to the wire - it has to be signed into law by the Queen by next Wednesday (16 February). Two days margin would normally provide sufficient time for this kind of thing - but I wonder; if the Lords remain obdurate, the bill could bounce between the two Houses for quite a while, and possibly miss that deadline.
Meanwhile, less angst is predicted today as the report stage continues, with the government putting down some compromise changes to provide for public hearings on controversial changes to parliamentary boundaries. (The Coalition side remain distinctly nervous about the possibility that they have just handed Labour a weapon with which they can disrupt the process and prevent new constituency boundaries being in place in time for a 2015 election - while the amendments include safeguards to prevent abuse; but in this fallen world, they sigh, opponents of the changes may find a way.)
But controversy may resume on Wednesday, when the amendment proposed by the Crossbencher Lord Pannick comes to the wicket. He wants to allow a little more leeway in redrawing constituency boundaries in exceptional circumstances. At the moment, the bill insists on no more than 5% variation from the standard size. Lord Pannick proposes allowing 7.5% in exceptional circumstances. Could the result be a host of further arguments about what constitutes exceptional circumstances, complete with applications for judicial review? The result could be another late-night sitting, while the issue is fought out.
Which brings me back to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer. He has made the government's life immensely difficult and he hasn't finished yet. The AV bill has yet to get through, the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill arrives in the Upper House soon, and the long-awaited draft bill on Lords reform is waiting in the wings - all guaranteeing further opportunities for Lord Falconer to make merry. There are murmurings that he is set to eclipse Labour's official leader in the Lords, Lady Royall - but the party leader in most trouble may be the Conservatives' Lord Strathclyde.
The one-vote majority for the threshold amendment last night will not have gone unnoticed, and will doubtless be regarded as a failure of whipping. If the bill does get delayed or wrecked, Lord Strathclyde and his team could end up carrying the can.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I honestly think concerns about the boundary changes being delayed are unfounded - Lord Woolf confirmed when the amendment was initially laid that scope for judicial review is extremely limited and even if a boundary commission's decision was being judicially reviewed, they are still bound by the Act to produce a report detailing their reccommendations by September 2013, after which the matter is in the hands of Parliament. As for causing trouble over fixed term parliaments, I doubt the Lords would accept another filibuster and any attempt to limit the length of a Parliament to four years rather than five would be defeated by the Commons. In relation to House of Lords reform, aren't Labour meant to support an elected second chamber?
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the idea of rejecting need for the 40% turnout will not necessarily be as difficult for the Commons to pass as I had thought
-------
Mark D'Arcy: There are murmurings that [Lord Falconer] is set to eclipse Labour's official leader in the Lords, Lady Royall
---------
Heh, You mean he hasn't already? I suppose among Peers is different to the general public in fairness.
--------
Jack: In relation to House of Lords reform, aren't Labour meant to support an elected second chamber?
--------
It is such a contentious issue, and it never got fully implemented in 13 years of Labour government, so my guess would be that they might agree in theory but object to specifics of the government plan, when it arises.
-----
Mark D'Arcy: The one-vote majority for the threshold amendment last night will not have gone unnoticed, and will doubtless be regarded as a failure of whipping. If the bill does get delayed or wrecked, Lord Strathclyde and his team could end up carrying the can.
------
Who would take his place I wonder? He was about the only experienced Tory Peer I could name before May, but there must be others in the frame. I don't envy them the job in the coming months though - Lords reform could end up even more of a nasty fight.
Complain about this comment
It's all part of the horsetrading. If the government were to introduce an amendment to allow for a 10% variation in the size of constituencies, rather than 5%, then they might find that when the 40% turnout threshold amendment is reversed in the Commons, the Labour Peers will suddenly have no objections to its removal. And Tory Peers who backed the 40% threshold, such as Lord Lamont, will look very silly indeed as they will have inadvertantly given the opposition exactly what they want.
Complain about this comment
My understanding is that the amendment only means AV is not compulsory if the threshold is not reached not that it is mandatory that it is reached for AV to be put in place. If that makes sense. Interestingly the combined turnout for the 2007 elections including the NI elections which were held on a different day was 39%. Not that this was why noble lords chose 40%. Of course you might say that if you can't even get a 1% increase on an important issue like this then you don't deserve to win or you could take the view that since 19% of England (16% of the UK) has no other elections that day turnout is likely to be lower.
Complain about this comment
There are no elections in London which is 32 Boroughs which is a small % of the numbers of Local Authorities but a whacking % of the total electorate.
The issue of differential turnout will be a factor in this election and I can see the turnout will be lower in London than it will elswhere where elections to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament will un doubtedly increase turnout.
Complain about this comment
If the Tories & Lib Dems really do disagree with the lords on this issue, than they still retain the right to use the parliament act and wait for 1 year before the referendumm. And, looking at the opinion polls, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea
Complain about this comment
Although delighted to see the Tories suffering a little in the Lords over their gerrymandering combined bills, I am nonetheless not a big fan of threshholds. All it does is provide recognition to the lazy or self-righteous who dont bother to vote. Sorry folks if you dont vote then you've disenfranchised yourself and you can accept whatever the result is.
Anyway, AV is dead in the water - none of the parties come close to fully supporting it and the one that does the most, LibDems, are such a busted flush in the country right now that anything remotely associated with them has no chance. With or without a threshold.
Complain about this comment
If the Tories & Lib Dems really do disagree with the lords on this issue, than they still retain the right to use the parliament act and wait for 1 year before the referendumm. And, looking at the opinion polls, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea
-----------
Waiting for the Coalition polling numbers improve wouldn't help much - since the Tories are encouraging people to vote no anyway, and assuming party political support will effect people's decision on AV, then better to hold it while Labour are in the lead, assuming its supporters broadly follow the party leader in this (which could at least in theory offset the idea that because the LDs want it it will suffer). Then again, I should think in a year, during the heart of the cuts, Labour will be riding even higher than they are now.
Complain about this comment
Well the Government today defeated Lord Falconer's amendment to retain Public Enquiries by just four votes - 266 to 262.
This was a much higher turnout than yesterday when the Government lost 219 to 218.
It was only so close today because of strong Crossbench support for Public Enquiries. This suggests that the AV threshold amendment will easily be overturned next week when there is bound to be a much higher turnout like today (but without such strong Crossbench support for the AV threshold).
Listening to the debate today the Government certainly has not made a concession which will increase the risk of Judicial Reviews. The Public Hearings which have been conceded will have no specific outcome - ie the Chairman will not make any recommendations - ie there is nothing to challenge.
So there will be just one decision made by the Boundary Commission. The Labour amendment to retain Public Enquiries would have resulted in the Enquiry Chairman making recommendations which the Boundary Commission would then either accept or overturn. This would have meant the continuation of the existing two stage decision making process which the Government wanted to avoid as they think that increases the risk of a Judicial Review if a Chairman's recommendation is overturned.
Conceding the Public Hearing doesn't do anything as it just amounts to the oportunity to make representations orally as well as in writing.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS