Lib Dem peers, ably led by Kath Pinnock, tried to get rid of the Government’s regulations for Voter ID last night. If Labour had voted with us, we might have had a chance of defeating the Government, but they abstained and the so-called fatal motion was defeated by 210 votes to 63.
While Kath Pinnock conceded that the principle of voter ID had been passed in the deeply flawed elections Bill, she found quite a few devils in the detail that could cause problems for voters. She told her fellow peers:
There are 240 pages of regulations in this statutory instrument. They must have plenty of time to be introduced and understood so that, when it comes to elections, they can be done fairly. This is not just about communications to electors. It is about the training of the staff: how do you determine whether the likeness of a photo is acceptable? Those are decisions that polling staff will have to make, and they need to be trained properly so that there is consistency across the country. There is a lot more to it than communications.
I remind the House that those who do the practical delivery of elections are very anxious and concerned, and some of them are opposed to the implementation of these regulations for the May elections. The Electoral Commission has grave concerns: it wants six months and will get under four. The Association of Electoral Administrators—the returning officers and elections officers—is very anxious that it will not have time to properly prepare for delivery in May. From local councils, as we have heard, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association gave a very strongly worded statement, unusually so, expressing grave concerns about the delivery of this measure fairly and equitably across the piece.
Other options were open to the Government for the introduction of photo ID. They could have chosen to introduce it in a by-election to test it out and see whether it works, or asked local authorities to be pilots, instead of trying to introduce it across a whole set of elections.
William Wallace raised an interesting point – that there would be no such checks on overseas voters:
Yet, in the Elections Act, we have extended overseas voting rights for British citizens from 15 years to a lifetime, without any serious checks on or verification of identity either for those who will give donations once they are on the register or for those who will use postal and proxy voting, which they of course have to do. I hope that, in Committee on the National Security Bill, the Minister will engage fully on the changes to the Elections Act that this will make necessary, because the gap between this emphasis on much greater verification and checks for voters who vote in person and the almost total absence of verification or checks for overseas voters is astonishing, is too wide and needs to be addressed.
After the debate, Kath accused the Government of voter suppression:
British people have just lost their unobstructed right to vote. This is nothing short of voter suppression by the Conservative Government.
Thousands of people likely won’t realise this until they turn up to the ballot box.
Liberal Democrats will not stand idly by as the Conservatives lead our country down this destructive path. We will continue to fight for the democratic principles that make our nation great.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Remembering Liz Truss and her dogs that barked at drones
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
23 Comments
….”motion was defeated by 210 votes to 63…..
The official count was 208 to 61 and Labour peers must answer for themselves.
However, only 49 of those ‘No’s’ were LibDem peers. We have 83 peers; where were the remaining 34 LibDem peers?
“However, only 49 of those ‘No’s’ were LibDem peers. We have 83 peers; where were the remaining 34 LibDem peers?”
On the lash?
A good question that requires a good answer. More drift I fear.
“If Labour had voted with us, we might have had a chance of defeating the Government”
That is a very cautious statement indeed. Almost certainly if Labour Peers had not 100 per cent abstained the Government would have been defeated. With a Parliamentary party of 175 Peers even a turnout of just over two thirds of the Labour Peers would have secured the right vote.
https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Lords
Yes, i would have liked to have seen a higher turnout from Lib Dem Peers and perhaps an update from one of our Peers on the vote and the wider issues would be appreciated. Personally, I can understand when the actions of Labour Peers was clear many hours before the vote that it was hardly surprising that we did not secure a higher turnout from our Peers, but I would still like a clarification on the issue of the turnout of votes and indeed wider issues relating to what the vote was about.
But let’s be clear who at fault over the Government not being defeated – Labour. It really is as simple as that in my mind. I have certainly not seen or heard any arguments which justify their actions (or lack of actions).
Labour Peers also have form on key issues, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/tim-farron-pathetic-labour-peers-not-fight-against-tories
and Labour Peers could have also helped ensure a key government defeat on this issue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34652008
In relation to the above comments I would also add that some of the comments about actual voting by Peers are not entirely accurate. According to Hansard these were the actual votes cast:
Members voting Content
Crossbench (8)
Green Party (2)
Liberal Democrat (53)
Members voting Not Content
[Party not recorded] (1)
Bishops (2)
Conservative (170)
Crossbench (28)
Democratic Unionist Party (4)
Non-affiliated (5)
So can someone enlighten us as to why Labour decided not to support this?
@Nigel Quinton “So can someone enlighten us as to why Labour decided not to support this?”
I can’t help but wonder if, in a week when Keir Starmer has been in the news declaring that Labour would abolish the “indefensible” House of Lords, he would look more than a little disingenuous if they used it to “kill off voter id regulations”!
It’s just about the unattractive side of politics. Maybe Labour thought that by ignoring the bill they would suppress a potential Lib Dem news story. Maybe somebody doesn’t like the Lib Dems presenting the motion.
There is a Convention that The Lords don’t vote down measures that were in The Governments Manifesto, as this was, technically. I should imagine that Labour don’t want to give The overwhelmingly Tory Lords an excuse to vote down their measures when they enter Government in a few Months or Years time.
So no attempt to answer why 30 odd LibDem peers were ‘missing-in-action’?
Expats. You are flogging a dead horse. Even if every single LD Peer had been present the result would have been the same. No getting away from the fact that with Labour the amendment would have passed and without them it failed.
Paul Barker. The Lords are not overwhelmingly Tory any more. They can and have been defeated.
Mick Taylor 14th Dec ’22 – 6:49pm……Expats. You are flogging a dead horse. Even if every single LD Peer had been present the result would have been the same…..
By that reasoning none of our peers should have bothered and our 14 MPs are, in most parliamentary votes, an irrelevance and needn’t bother turning up..
Labour often have a curmudgeonly attitude to LD initiatives.
“Progressive Alliance” boosters, please take note.
It suggests that Labour isn’t serious about reforming the HoL. If Labour are planning to get rid of it, then it shouldn’t matter what Tory Lords do under the next Labour government because they won’t be around to do it as one of the first acts of the new Labour government would be to remove them with a “so long suckers”. It’s the system, you have to use it whether you like it or not. Otherwise what are the Lib Dems doing contesting elections under FPTP?
I pity the Presiding Officers in the May elections.
As an industrial safety trainer I have to check the identity of participants, personation being more of an issue here than the illusory problem in elections.
Usually I get a driving licence or passport photo to check (and we know how good they are). The number of times I have to double check due to hairstyle and/or beard changes is often 50%+ of a group of 12 or so.
Multiply that up to hundreds going to a polling station and the staff are not going to have an easy job. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are exposed to verbal or worse abuse, I wonder if the Police will be called in to protect staff in extreme circumstances.
Crazy scheme!
May be I am being a little naïve by asking this but, does anyone know whether or not there is any sharing of ideas ahead of Amendments on subjects such as these being lodged?
I say this speaking from my own experience as a Councillor where, after many years of the Lib Dem and Labour Groups being suspicious of each others motives we began to share our thoughts on certain issues of mutual importance. It wasn’t an easy move for either of us to make as for years Labour and ourselves had been at each other throats fighting one another over the same territory.
The effect was dramatic, the controlling Tory administration were exposed for what they were by a much more effective opposition prepared to join forces in the fight against the real enemy.
If we are serious about change, PR for instance, then we are going to have to get used to cross-party working because seriously folks, that’s how Coalitions work. May as well start practicing what we preach.
Carrying on as we are plays straight into the Tories hands.
I would like to know just why Labour didn’t vote with us – or what their official line was. i vaguely recall reading somewhere that they said they wanted to review afterwards? anyway helpful to know please.
What ever the Labour party’s’ intentions are for the HOL if they are elected at the next GE ,it is a disgrace that they and so many Lib Dem peers did find it important enough to vote against another ploy by the Tory party to manipulate our voting system to favour themselves?
@Ian Shires: It’s not us refusing to co-operate in this instance, it’s Labour. For whatever reason Labour chose not to vote for the Lib Dem motion to kill the voter suppression bill, and so let it pass. Absence of some Lib Dem peers is irrelevant as even if all of them turned up it would still have passed. It was unlikely to have been deliberate abstention. It’s really rather self-defeating for our ostensible supporters to be trying to spread the blame to us, and end up repeating the sort of rubbish that’s normally confined to our partisan enemies in their social media echo chambers.
Cross-party co-operation is a two-way street. Labour refused to play ball. Simple as that.
Sorry should have read “did not find” , and in my view it did not look good with so many Lib Dem peers not voting ,whether is was irrelevant or not, unless there were valid reasons.
In terms of LibDem absences, please bear in mind that snow and strikes had made it very difficult for some peers to reach London that day, that several of our peers are even older than I am and find it difficult to come to London at short notice, and that at least one was in hospital for an operation. We do our best, and work hard! Much harder than those on the Labour benches…
William Wallace; Thank you for your explanation regarding the absence’s!
It’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that the introduction of ID cards for voting is voter suppression. Other democracies use it and their turn-outs prove voters are not suppressed. I am all in favour of voter ID and ID cards. It will succeed with clear education and information. I agree it should be piloted at a by-election of at local elections first before a set of blanket elections so any minor issues can be ironed out. When I briefly worked as an exam invigilator, we used to have to check the photo ID of students to ensure that there was no cheating at exams. It can be done and there were no major problems. There was substantial voter misrepresentation in elections at one London borough not so long ago so it’s only right any abuse of the system or corruption is weeded out.