Was this the moment Cameron doomed Lords reform?
Cameron's past description of Lords reform as a "third-term issue" has encouraged the rebels.
By George Eaton Published 09 July 2012 9:11
David Cameron's 2009 description of House of Lords reform as a "third-term issue" does much to explain why so many Conservative MPs will rebel against the government in tomorrow's vote. Reform of the Lords was, Cameron suggested, something a Conservative government would only undertake once it had implemented the rest of its programme. For Tory MPs, his words are a reminder that the bill was only introduced to placate the Lib Dems and that Cameron failed to win an election he should have won. That there is little prospect of the Tories winning a third term (or one term, come to that) is, in their view, even more reason for Cameron to use his time in Number 10 wisely (i.e. to get Britain out of recession, not waste time on liberal fetishes like Lords reform).
The danger facing Cameron as the parliamentary debate begins is not that the bill will be defeated on its second reading (since Labour will support the government) but that the programme motion, which would place a 10-day limit on debate, will be rejected (since Labour, which wants more time to scrutinise the bill, will oppose the government). This would be the first time the government has been defeated on its own business in the Commons and would, in the words of one Lib Dem aide, put the coalition in "uncharted territory". The absence of a time limit for debate would allow MPs to filibuster the bill and would delay the rest of the government's legislative programme.
If the bill does become marooned in the Commons, one possibility is that the government will agree to a referendum on the subject. Labour has already called for one and at least some of the Tory rebels (such as Nadhim Zahawi and Rory Stewart) also support a public vote. For the latter, flushed with success from the AV campaign, a Lords referendum is another chance to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose.
Clegg has always insisted that a referendum is unnecessary since all three of the main parties supported Lords reform in their manifestos. But he would find it hard to argue that the people should not decide if parliament is divided. One suspects that Cameron, who has left the door open to a referendum, will look again at this option if the rebels carry the day.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















10 comments
Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji
Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji
We've waited over a 100 years for House of Lords reform, can we be persuaded to wait another 100?
We stand alongside Lesotho as the only country with an unelected second chamber, should we desert them now?
Perhaps the Commons could have a look at the novel concept of democracy for the common electorate - like the ability to recall your worthless, self serving, parasitic M.P.
without having to wait five years to do so.
Like having a say in what they are paid, what their working hours are, what their holiday entitlement and pensions are.
Some chance?
This Government's two flagship pieces of legislation are both measures that were "Loony Left" 30 years ago, namely the abolition of the House of Lords and the redefinition of legal marriage to include same-sex couples.
The first was most associated with Tony Benn, while the second was most associated with Ken Livingstone. Both are now the policy of the successor to the SDP. Both are now the policy of the Conservative Party. The only party that remains less than convinced is Benn's and Livingstone's own.
The third leg of the stool, bringing the IRA into the government of Northern Ireland, was accepted in principle by all three parties all the way back when John Major was Prime Minister.
Why am I the only person who finds this mind-boggling shift remotely worthy of notice, never mind of comment, investigation or analysis?
Because we all know already.
It is among the matters examined in some depth here - http://www.lulu.com/shop/david-lindsay/confessions-of-an-old-labour-high...
Spam.
I hope the Lib Dems now block the gerrymandering of the constituencies in revenge. That would pretty much put a kibosh on Cameron getting a majority at the next election...
And isn't assuming you will get a third term very arrogant? So typical of 'born to rule' Cameron.
Lord's reform is a release vent which Cameron uses to get rid of some steam boiling under the angry Conservatives.
It’s not really an issue that needs sorting at the moment. The major aspect that needs democratising at the moment are the banks.