Category Archives: Parliament

Anything connected with business in the Houses of Commons or Lords (eg, PMQs).

++Second government defeat – Lords vote for parliamentary veto on final Brexit deal

The BBC reports:

The government has suffered a second Brexit defeat in the House of Lords as peers backed, by 366 votes to 268, calls for a “meaningful” parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal.
Backing the move, former deputy PM Lord Heseltine said Parliament must be the “custodian of national sovereignty”.

Also posted in News | Tagged and | 53 Comments

Meet Paul Tyler’s (almost) unused cooker…


Paul (Lord) Tyler shows the nation the oven he has only used once (to warm up a pizza that “was a bit flabby”).

The second episode of “Meet the Lords” aired last night and is available here on BBC iPlayer for the next 29 days. I mentioned, in my review of last week’s opening show, that our own dear Paul (Lord) Tyler was popping up in the programme. Well, this week I am delighted to say that the great Cornish Liberal is featured at some length. The film crew visit him in his little flat and follow him on his daily journey to the Lords.

Tagged and | 1 Comment

Sarah Olney holds first Westminster Hall debate on Heathrow expansion

There’s a lot of firsts when you are a new MP. Your first Early Day Motion (like a House of Commons petition), your first speech, your first question, and your first Westminster Hall debate. These debates, held outside the main chamber, concentrate on one subject and allow an MP to raise an issue directly with the Minister.

It will be of no surprise that Sarah’s first Westminster Hall debate was on the subject of Heathrow expansion and the effects in terms of road congestion and pollution of a bigger airport.

You can read the full debate – including the Deputy Speaker’s rebukes to both Sarah and a colleague for breaking the rules and a fairly patronising response from the Minister – here. Below is Sarah’s speech in full.

And she shouldn’t worry about a minor rebuke from the Speaker. Others have done worse and survived. Willie Rennie forgot to turn his phone off before one debate in 2007 and got a right telling off when one of his staff (not me) rang him during a Westminster Hall debate.

This is what Sarah said yesterday:

Tagged and | 1 Comment

Meet the Lords – or at least two Lords and one Baroness….

Manderston House 2005

BBC2 started a new series last night called “Meet the Lords”. In the style of last year’s documentary series about the House of Commons, the film crew wondered around the corridors of the House of Lords, and produced some interesting sights.

In fact, it centred on three peers:

Also posted in The Arts | Tagged , , , and | 15 Comments

What is the collective noun for peers?

 

If you didn’t drop into LDV over the weekend you will have missed Caron’s marathon effort in reporting on all the speeches made by Lib Dem Lords last week on the Bill on Article 50.  There were 32 of them, amounting to over 30,000 words.

You can find all the speeches listed here.

It was an excellent reminder of what an important job our peers are doing and how important the second chamber is. In the Lords the decisions in the House of Commons are subjected to in-depth scrutiny and challenge, and we don’t hear enough about the impact this has on virtually every Bill that goes through Parliament.

Of course, we want the House of Lords to be reformed, but we can’t allow it to stagnate while we wait for another opportunity to bring in a directly elected second chamber. We have an excellent cohort of active peers, who between them have immense experience in politics, business, social action, law, academia and diplomacy.

Tagged | 33 Comments

Lib Dem Lords vs the Article 50 Bill: Sarah Ludford: Brexiteers fear the people realising the disastrous truth

The Lib Dem Lords have made some cracking contributions to the debate on the Article 50 Bill. Ahead of its next Lords stages, we’re bringing you all the Lib Dem contributions over the course of this weekend. That’s no mean feat. There were 32 of them and cover more than 30,000 words. You are not expected to read every single one of them as they appear. Nobody’s going to be testing you or anything. However, they will be there to refer to in the future. 

Our Lords excelled themselves. Their contributions were thoughtful, individual, well-researched and wide-ranging and it’s right that we present them in full on this site to help the historian of the future. 

After two days of debate, it fell to Sarah Ludford to sum up for the Liberal Democrats. She brought together all the strands of the debate. She took on the two days of vitriol that had been directed at the party from the Brexiteers. What were they frightened of, she wondered. They were, she said, so keen to stamp on dissent for fear of the disaster of Brexit being realised by the people. She summarised the massive negatives to business, to jobs, to prosperity, to EU nationals and their British families and made the case for a referendum on the deal.

There were times during this mammoth task of putting all the speeches up that we wondered what on earth had possessed us to think that it was a good idea, but we now have in one place a comprehensive rebuttal to everything the Government says on Brexit. Our lot did us proud as they drove a coach and horses through the Government’s arguments. The sheer vitriol they took from the Brexiteer zealots shows that their arguments were very effective.

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House, and perhaps the Daily Mail, to the fact that my receipt of an MEP pension is in the register.

We have had a long and intense debate, with many excellent speeches. I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in thanking Gina Miller for the fact that we have had this debate. It has been a marathon rather than a sprint, just as the Brexit process itself will prove to be over possibly a decade of blood, sweat and tears. Those who swallowed the myth perpetrated by some Brexiteers that it would mean “With one bound, we are free” are going to be cruelly disappointed. This is just one of the many disillusionments to come. Another is the unravelling of the notion that leaving the EU will solve all our problems. There are in fact many sources of valid dissatisfaction, grievance and frustration among the people of the United Kingdom today. To most of these problems, Brexit will bring no relief but there is no spare capacity in this Government to focus on anything but Brexit. As Tony Blair so rightly said in his recent speech:

“This is a Government for Brexit, of Brexit and dominated by Brexit. It is a mono-purpose political entity”.

Tagged and | 9 Comments

Lib Dem Lords vs the Article 50 Bill: Andrew Stunell: Hard Brexit will cripple the construction industry

The Lib Dem Lords have made some cracking contributions to the debate on the Article 50 Bill. Ahead of its next Lords stages, we’re bringing you all the Lib Dem contributions over the course of this weekend. That’s no mean feat. There were 32 of them and cover more than 30,000 words. You are not expected to read every single one of them as they appear. Nobody’s going to be testing you or anything. However, they will be there to refer to in the future. 

Our Lords excelled themselves. Their contributions were thoughtful, individual, well-researched and wide-ranging and it’s right that we present them in full on this site to help the historian of the future. 

Andrew Stunell started by pointing out one irony. The Lords making the most noise about democracy and how the Lords had to do what the Government had said because it was the will of the people were the very ones who argued against the Lords being reformed and elected.

His main point was about the effect on the construction industry of Brexit. Government plans require it to grow by 35%, yet the many combined effects of Brexit would cause it to shrink.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has given me a wonderful introduction to what I was going to say in any case. Leaving the European Union is strongly against the long-term interests of the United Kingdom and it will hit hardest those citizens who rely most heavily on public services for the well-being of themselves and their families, and for whom economic prosperity is crucial for their job, the roof over their head and the money to pay for the services on which they depend. Several noble Lords have urged us to surrender the best interests of those hard-pressed citizens without a fight, misusing words like “democracy” and “accountability” to do so. But it is not anti-democratic to speak up for the views and interests of the 16 million people on the remain side of the debate, and it would be anti-democratic to leave their voices unheard in Parliament.

However, I also note a paradox. The same noble Lords who complain so bitterly about those of us in the House who have the temerity to speak up and say that Brexit will leave Britain weaker and poorer, diminished abroad and shrivelled at home, are also, almost without exception, against this House actually being representative of public opinion. While my noble friends have consistently advocated and fought for the democratic accountability of this place, our critics in this debate have argued over the years that a representative and accountable second House is the last thing they want to see.

Tagged and | 1 Comment
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 29th May - 7:16am
    My mental arithmetic isn't as good as I thought either! That should be 10,000 police officers!
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 29th May - 7:14am
    The IFS yesterday stated that nether Tory or Labour figures add up The "stupidity" is to expect that it's possible to do full costings (savings)...
  • User AvatarManfarang 29th May - 6:57am
    Corbyn and McDonnell had nothing to do with the peace process. Not a single person involved in the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 29th May - 3:49am
    @ expats “Corbyn was ‘grilled’ last night by Andrew Neil and there is a general consensus that he came out of it far better than...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 29th May - 2:13am
    Dave Simon is correct here, but to you , I say, as candidate Reagan , said to president Carter , in the 1980 debates ,and...
  • User AvatarSimon Shaw 29th May - 12:03am
    Thanks, Dave Orbison, but I'm not sure that is really a response to what I asked you. The issue was whether Corbyn sometimes turned a...