Any attempt by the Lords to block a bill backed by the Commons would breach long-established constitutional conventions because it would subvert the authority of the elected chamber.
The Lords can’t refuse a finance bill nor, in the end, a manifesto committment. A private members bill? Have at it, maties.
Peers’ delay of assisted dying bill ‘could lead to constitutional crisis’
Opponents are playing with fire with 1,100 amendments, critics say, as filibuster tactics to defeat Kim Leadbeater’s law ‘threaten the upper chamber’s future’
They’re lying.
They’re not going to need to continue to lie if Two Tier stuffs the Lords with Labour peers to get himself a permanent majority.
It’s actually insane that we have an Upper House which can be gerrymandered in this way.
“It’s actually insane that we have an Upper House which can be gerrymandered in this way”.
I would suggest it’s insane that we have an unelected Upper House at all………………
The insanity was limiting and then removing the hereditaries. Even worse was creating life peers: non-hereditary appointees should have been merely MHL – Member of the House of Lords – without pretend titles which encourage an absurd sense of entitlement in the bearer*, and also encourage prime ministerial patronage of the meritless.
*eg Lord Mandelslime of Fondleboys
Theo, you disgraceful modernist.
We shouldn’t have non-hereditary members at all. That forces them to really think about who is given a peerage.
I’m not convinced an elected Upper House would be any better. You would just get the same kind of tossers who are good at getting elected but not much else. We’ve seen this with Police and Crime Commissioners. Those who have contributed to society and still can have better things to do.
And the patronage of the Prime Minister is a big flaw in the current system. They tried something to widen the selection beyond the usual superannuated pols and doddery old union hacks but that seems to have died the death.
Do it like the dutch then….
*indirectly* elected, but you only get into our “Lords’ ” when you’ve actually been elected by the Unwashed at provincial level ( County/Duchy for the furriners) .
You can hold all the vermine and medals you want….. Not elected? Not in it.
Of course, that’d be several steps down for most “Lords” so they won’t even bother… Which would clear the board quite sufficiently.
I thought by constitutional convention the Lords roughly mirrored the makeup of the Commons, and thus we’re expecting a voluntary bloodbath in 2029 and a whole new swath of Reform and Green Lords?
You can blame King George V.
Reminder that the “Conservatives” are as useful as genital warts:
Tory grandees have echoed the concerns, claiming further obstruction in the Lords could turbocharge calls to abolish the upper chamber entirely.
If we don’t do what Labour say, Labour will do it anyway. Therefore we must immediately surrender to Labour.
Tory “grandees” are very smart, and if you don’t like NHS euthanasia or your country being turned into Cold Somalia, they still have war with Russia to offer you.
“Games are being played on an issue of such public importance,” one source said. “It is cruel and disrespectful to those who may not live to see the outcome.”
Are you aving a laugh?
Calling Andrew Mitchell and Kit Malthouse “Tory Grandees” …
Yeah, they’re having a laugh
Who else have they got though?
Is this the same “don’t worry about rushing it through the Commons, we’ll fix it in The Lords” euthenasia bill?
And there was me thinking the Lords’ was there to act as a brake on ….overly ambitious/ill-conceived/overly broad legislation…
Oh wait… they’ve failed at that for centuries… why change that now?
The question should be, “why this?”
Of all the cack-handed pieces of controversial, far-reaching, unfunded, hastily drafted legislation that wasn’t in any manifesto, wasn’t the subject of a referendum and was passed by the Commons at lightning speed so dullard MP’s could applaud themselves, this is the textbook example.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is exactly the sort of thing we have a secondary chamber to sanity check. But MP’s, powerful Tories, and most of the British media have already decided it’s illegitimate to subject Kim Leadbeater’s historically unprecedented and radical private member’s bill, which would transform doctors into licenced executioners, to the normal process of Lords scrutiny.
Why this?
What’s the hurry?
Gotta get the welfare bill down somehow, and it ain’t going to be by making Muslim children starve.
In Canada, they are extremely sensitive to all statistical disparities in racial outcomes except, curiously, the fact that MAID’s victims are mostly old white people… that’s one’s fine.
Some Tories, not many and not powerful ones. Don’t let the media sell you the idea but that this is an all-party agreed solution to a non-problem.
The effective opposition in the Lords is from: Baroness Finlay (crossbencher) , Baroness Grey-Thompson (crossbencher), Lord Carlile (crossbencher), Baroness Coffey (Tory), Lord Goodman (Tory), Lord Moylan (Tory), and Lord Rook (Labour).
But “Two Brains” Willetts thinks grannycide is a brilliant idea.
So, vocal opposition is 3 Tory, 1 Labour, 0 LibDem, 3 non-party – doesn’t look like an all-party consensus to me …
John, these appear to be a handful of Spartans and all the rest are Persians, or if you prefer, a merry few Spitfire pilots in a sky full of Messers Junkers and Schmitt. The Hideous Strength wants this to pass, that’s the point of the article.
This is extraordinary stuff:
This weekend an open letter, signed by three former cabinet secretaries, two former Lord Speakers, two ex-leaders of the Lords and the former head of the diplomatic service, accused the unelected chamber of “manipulating procedure” to frustrate the will of MPs and the country.
They appealed to their colleagues to use the remaining time available to improve the bill “while respecting the ultimate decision of the House of Commons”. The letter warns that any attempt to do otherwise “jeopardises the reputation of parliament as a whole”. It claims that the volume of amendments, with more being tabled each week, suggests “other motives than merely fair-minded scrutiny”.
Where, tell me, was this fawning respect for democratic processes or the primacy of the Commons after we voted to Leave the EU or when Prime Minister Johnson (perfectly legitimately) prorogued Parliament?
Separately, two former Tory cabinet ministers have also voiced concerns that the House of Lords itself could be at risk if the bill fails.
Tories: never able to do anything for you in government or opposition because reasons, but it’s so important to keep them in place as chocolate fireguards, according to Tories.
“It is clear this bill is the subject of a filibuster in the Lords,” said Sir Andrew Mitchell, a Tory former chief whip and Foreign Office minister. “For years, judges, the police and the medical profession have urged that those elected to parliament should bring this matter to a conclusion.
Judges, police and the medical profession want to kill your gran, apparently. I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
That is the right thing to do and the House of Commons has now done so — to the relief of the overwhelming majority of our constituents.
I haven’t detected much relief, mostly bewilderment at why it’s suddenly urgently necessary for the NHS to kill their gran.
Not that Assisted Dying is completely without public support, plenty of slow-witted, thoughtless people who haven’t considered any of the consequences are in favour. Perhaps Darwin will laugh last after all? But I don’t think this is a matter that has strong public support behind it, and suspect any “relief” will soon turn to “concern” when it’s time for NHS staff to actually kill grans. It’s not always the painless, dignified process they are imagining. But they’re talking about this as if it was Brexit or something else we had actually voted for.
This bill wasn’t even in the King’s speech. They’re desperate to make fetch happen by talking as if big dopey Kim Leadbeater’s vanity bill was a solemn government commitment to abolish slavery or something.
“If, through the actions of a tiny number of members of the Lords, this bill is now destroyed through procedure rather than improved through helpful amendments, the House of Lords will enter uncharted territory and will not be forgiven.”
Kit Malthouse, the Tory former education secretary, added: “Scrutiny from the Lords is expected. So are sensible amendments. But the small group of peers trying to talk the bill out because of their own views are playing with fire.
I remember the name Kit Malthouse from the tedious years when the Tories were pretending to “get Brexit done”. Why do I not have a surprised feeling that the ineffectual gobshite is now on the side of the grannykillers?
Gamecock is sure that after HoL is eliminated, commie dick Murphy will start working on elimination of HoC. Many against HoL are against all of it; eliminating HoL is just a start.
Kim Leadbeater. I really, really wouldn’t, even with two bags.
2020: You must wear a hanky over your face so you don’t kill Granny…
2025: … because that’s the state’s job