A test of the coalition?
After enduring much sound and fury in the Commons, but suffering no actual damage, the sails majestically into more dangerous waters, when it reaches the House of Lords on 15 November. While the coalition have defeated plenty of Commons rebellions, they have actually lost votes a couple of times in their Lordships' House... and they could lose again on a couple of vital components of this bill.
The coalition has a theoretical majority in the Lords - where the combined forces of the Conservatives (193 peers) and Liberal Democrats (79 peers) outnumber Labour (234 peers) by 38. But that leaves out the 181 crossbenchers, and takes no account of another crucial factor: the likelihood of peers turning up to vote. On a good day the Conservative whips are pretty chuffed if they can get about 135 of their peers into the right lobby - although most of the Lib Dem peers will normally turn out for their party. So we're looking at a likely coalition vote of 210 or so, if their whips dig deep. But Labour also have difficulties getting their peers to the wicket, so their likely vote is closer to 110.
In other words, a hotly contested vote will be 210 coalition peers against 110 Labour. And, for the government, all is well, so long as the crossbenchers don't tip the balance. Remember, they are not a party, they have no whipping or agreed policies. But there are occasions on which they may break in one particular direction - and the Parliamentary Voting etc Bill may provide a number of them, when the time comes for detailed amendments to be considered. I've noted before that the proposed process for redrawing constituency boundaries, in order to cut the number of MPs and equalise the electorates for most of them, is pretty brutal. It abolishes the normal public inquiries held by the boundary commissioners - and that is precisely the kind of process issue where peers, who see themselves as guardians of the constitution, may decide to weigh in.
Normally, government bills get some protection in the Lords from the so-called Salisbury-Addison Convention, under which measures which were promised in an election-winners' manifesto are not opposed at second or third reading - and, by implication at least, are not wrecked in between. But this bill emerged from the coalition negotiations in May, and can't claim any such protection, so peers who dislike it, or who just want to make trouble for the coalition, can let their remaining hair down. (And that could include a number of Conservative peers - because enthusiasm for the bill in Tory ranks is not exactly overwhelming).
And if they do succeed in reinstating public inquiries, the result might be to delay the constituency boundary exercise to the point where the changes cannot be put in place in time for the next election in 2015. Nick Clegg has warned he won't accept amendments which affect the "fundamental fairness" of the bill - but he could be presented with a very nasty choice, of either accepting the reinstatement of inquiries, or attempting to over-ride the Lords via the Parliament Act, which would itself delay matters for a year. This could be quite a severe test of coalition solidarity.
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
Comments
or to comment.