Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

It's a bit like one of those flashbacks you got in the Rambo movies - the Lords are debating the constitution. Again.

Yesterday I watched a bit of the second reading debate for the , and there was Lord Falconer thundering away for Labour, usual suspect Labour backbenchers weighing in, Lord Rennard for the Lib Dems reminding Labour that they were, at least partially, in favour of what the Coalition is proposing, and clashing sharply with Lord Rooker; and even a Conservative ex-Cabinet minister (in this case Geoffrey Howe) sounding very dubious about the bill. DΓ©jΓ  vu...all over again.

Watching their lordships in action, I was struck by the quite un-lordly nastiness of some of the exchanges. The hostilities which grew so venomous during the endless debates on the have not abated - even if they have not yet resumed the fever pitch reached at the height of the deadlock. But this bill should not produce a similar level of crisis, because it is not up against a tight deadline, so there is little point in a naked filibuster.

That is not to say that the proposal to fix the lifetime of a parliament at five years is guaranteed a straightforward journey into law. From the tenor of the debate so far, it is quite possible that peers may vote to change the fixed term from five years to four. The crossbencher and constitutionalist Peter Hennessey has been arguing that four years is more in tune with what he called the "bio-rhythms" of British politics - an argument that drew strong murmurs (a phenomenon I've only really encountered in the Lords) from across the House.

And there's an interesting technical issue lurking here: this is not a bill which the Commons can ultimately force through in the form MPs want, by invoking their power to over-ride the Lords, the Parliament Act. Bills to extend the life of a parliament are exempt, so the Lords can stop a House of Commons perpetuating itself. It's an arcane point, but one which could matter very much if the Lords amend the bill in a way the Coalition doesn't like - because the Lords cannot be over-ridden, even though MPs might think it a bit impertinent for the non-elected house to interfere in a measure about elections.

Lord Falconer concluded his speech with a clear warning that the Lords were "the guardians of the right length of parliamentary terms" and his party, at least, would not simply roll over. And judging by the debate, there are plenty of crossbench peers and quite a number of Conservatives who might support him. So brace yourselves - here we go again.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?