Very Proud to be a Lib Dem today

Every so often a little seed germinates into a glorious bloom.

I remember sitting with a few members of Liberal Youth Scotland a few years ago and talking about the possibility of what an equal marriage motion for conference should look like. We discussed how to overcome the religious objections and maintain the equality message that LGB and T individuals would be seeking. Within that group I was somewhat of the expert in both sides of the debate and able to help with the questions and difficulties that the Transgender community faced.

Initially this policy was only passed in Scotland but later a similar motion was passed by the Federal party and today it reaches the third reading in the House of Lords.

When I saw on Facebook the headline from Pink News that the Lords third reading may even pass without a vote I clicked immediately to read the article and was even more impressed by what I saw:

 

Yeah I'm a very proud Liberal Democrat today and delighted for the small part I have played in helping to deliver this to England and Wales. I know that Scotland is not very far behind but I do yearn for the day that the part of the UK I grew up in, Northern Ireland will follow suit. As it stands once Equal Marriage comes in across England, Wales and Scotland were I to get married to another man, whenever I take him home to see my family he would not be my husband but merely my civil partner. Along with many of the issues regarding Transgendered individuals this is one of my biggest heartbreaks about the passing of this Bill today, it is far from complete equal marriage across the UK on both counts and those of us who have fought to bring it so far must realise that there is still work to be done.

Blogged elsewhere: Those who didn't want to redefine marriage try to redefine marriage...badly

Remember how just the other week opponents of equal marriage were saying you can’t redefine marriage.
Well take a look at some of the amendments that they have been lodging in the House of Lords.

Clause 1

LORD HYLTON

LORD CORMACK

Page 1, line 5, leave out “Marriage” and insert “Union”

Looks like a redefinition to me, of course this only applies to those of same-sex couples as can be seen by a withdrawn amendment on the same line:

LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN

Page 1, line 5, at end insert “and shall be referred to as “marriage (same sex
couples)””

Withdrawn

Yup.
But apparently marriage as we know it now is no longer good enough for those that are married. It needs redefined and renamed....

Read the full list of redefinitions and comments about them on LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland

Why we need to elect the Lords - Bryant stumbles into a Labour induced reason

Earlier today it seems that Labour MP Chris Bryant's objection to a fair, egalitarian House of Lords, based on the result of the election result left him standing there in just his underpants. Oops, that's another thing altogether.

However, here is what he said in Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister:

The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords

"with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."

There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium? 

Now when the New Labour regime first got elected, with the most sizable majority of ANY Labour Government they promised to reform the Lords and get an elected element to it. In thirteen years, including a second term with the second highest majority of Labour members, the only elected element they managed to secure for the Lords was the remaining hereditary peers. 

What they did do was lead to the inflation of the size current second chamber, which of course was to bring it more into line with the votes of the people in the previous three general elections. The moratorium in appointed more peers would keep a disproportional number of Labour peers to their popularity in the last General Election.

Here is Nick Clegg's response:

Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords. 

So yes for thirteen years the only Lords Reform that Labour brought about was to largely get rid of the hereditary element, down to 92. Ironically if there hadn't been by elections to replace this number with fresh blood there would be only 78 hereditaries remaining. There are 512 creations of Life Peers since 1997 who are still alive, this is more than the 465 (187 of whom are still alive) who were in the House then. 830 Peers now compared to 616 (taking the Life plus 92 Hereditaries, 26 Spiritual and 26 Law Lords as of 1997).

As both Nick said and I agree, the fact that more 'appointments would currently be need to rectify 13 years of Labour creation of peers shows just why we need to Reform the Lords and do it NOW!

A closer look at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Since I blogged earlier about the draft House of Lord Reform Bill I've decided to look further into it.

First of all is what was said in the programme for government:

"We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers."

The committee met 7 times from June to December, reached agreement on a large number of issues, but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system.

So it is those two differences which may seem minor but are quite major as far as laying out primary legislation goes. The draft Bill is laying out that 80% of the second chamber be elected (this is in line with Conservative thinking) but leaves open the scrutiny of an 100% elected chamber in line with the coalition agreement (and indeed the Liberal Democrat manifesto). The system used for elected that system is laid out as Single Transferable Vote (in line with Lib Dem manifesto) but allows for scrutiny of other electoral systems such as a open list system (which the Conservatives and indeed Labour may well prefer).

The electoral system dilemma

 Looking at the electoral system first. STV electing multiple members in a constituency allows the people to choose on their preferences by their own preferences. Bearing in mind that some of the people who prefer the open list system said that they thought AV was a complex system, clearly don't understand how much more complex the open list is.

AV has one quota, 50% of the valid votes in whichever round you are in. There are two quotas in the open list. The first is the quota for acquiring a seat in that constituency. This will determine how many quotas and therefore seats are gained by each party.

The second is the quota within the list, this is first ranked by the party, but then there is a quota for the number of first preferences within that list. Any candidate who personally gains that number of preferences will be elected. If the number of seats are not filled then the empty seats will be filled by order on the list.

Let's say that this party secures 5,000 votes, the quota is 1,000 vote so therefore they secure 5 seats. Say the requirement for being elected off the list is 25% of a quota or else 25 votes.

• Candidate #1 3,500
• Candidate #2 65
• Candidate #3 75
• Candidate #4 450
• Candidate #5 175
• Candidate #6 200
• Candidate #7 350
• Candidate #8 35

Candidates 1,4 and 7 are elected from the list. Candidates 6 and 5 have the next highest first preferences but because they FAILED to  reach the quota it is back to the ordering of the list. Therefore candidates 2 and 3 fill up the remaining seats.

Therefore if the open list system is adopted at the behest of the people who told you AV would let losers into Westminster via a too complex system you will see just what hypocrites they are. STV is the system that like AV leaves the real, indeed only power, in the hands of the voters. Even bigger losers could get elected under an open list system, someone might actually hypothetically get no votes on the open list yet because of their placing by the party still get elected.

The size of the elected element

The number is set at 300 members (plus instead of 26 just 12 ex officio Lords Spiritual). However, whether that 300 is fully elected of just 240 of them are is an important issue. If the latter there are 20 seats that are up for appointment by the Prime Minister at the time of each election (bear in mind both the election to the 'Lords' and the Commons will be occuring at the same time). It may not sound like much until you think if one party wins each of the three elections that make up the terms. They would have, persumably a majority of the elected 2nd chamber and then have the appointments as well. It could well give the push over the 50% majority of seats in the second chamber, those extra 60 seats, that would be harder to achieve under a purely proportional system without any remaining appointments.

It is clear therefore that both the systems preferred by the Conservatives are actually the parties trying once again to grasp and retain as much power as they think they can get away with. Appearing to be progressive at one hand but giving themselves just enough retention of control to get who they want into the 2nd chamber.

Complementing the House of Commons

There is a section in the draft bill that talk about the second chamber complimenting the House of Commons, still deemed to be the primary chamber that the second chamber.

It says:

• A long term for members of three normal Parliaments;
• A single non-renewable term;
• An appointed element (in an 80% elected House of Lords)
• A different voting system for elections to the reformed House of Lords from that used for elections to the House of Commons.

Whoa!! I've just spotted something. That final phrase in a bill that comes to life after the AV referendum for the House of Commons. Remember the No 2 AV team tried to persuade some people, like the Unionist Parties here or some PR supporters that if they vote no to AV they are saying yes to PR. This Bill would seem to rule out the same sort of PR at any point in the future for the two houses.

This means that if we get STV for the second chamber you can wave that goodbye for the Commons. That is not what the Lib Dems, Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin or certain Unionist parties stood for in the Westminster elections. Nor is it why those parties supported the AV referendum. Failed though it may have been they have all said they will carry on the fight for reform.

More thoughts to come perhaps

There are 174 pages of the proposed Bill, but just are just some of my initial thoughts....for now.

It's only taken a century but we're getting to Elect the Lords

For a number of years on 10 August many bloggers, including myself, have remember the 1911 Parliament Act which stated:

"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."

Well it hasn't been immediate but  yesterday there was progress in a draft House of Lords Reform Bill which says:

• a reformed House with 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three parliaments
• elections using the single transferable vote (STV), electing a third of members each time with elections normally taking place at the same time as General Elections
• multi-member electoral districts, to be drawn up independently based on national and county boundaries
• a continuation of the presence of Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords, reducing their number from 26 to 12
• a transition staggered over the course of three electoral cyclesThe White Paper sets out three different options for the transition period and acknowledges that the case can be made for other proportional representation systems including the open list. The draft Bill and White Paper are clear the powers of the reformed House of Lords will remain the same, with it continuing to provide scrutiny and expertise, complementing the work of the Commons.

Apart from the retention of the Lords Spiritual (even at reduced numbers) this would appear to be a fully elected second chamber. The issue of their Lordship Spiritual is that they are not chosen by popularity but would be annointed appointedby some Bishop's Court no doubt, or at lest the 10 lesser places will be as I assume the two Archbishoprics of Canterbury and York would lay claim to two seats.

The Government yesterday stated that

"The draft Bill sets out firm proposals, while the White Paper considers alternative options on which the Government remains open-minded.

"The Government is committed to a wholly or mainly elected chamber and both options are reflected in what is published today.

"The draft Bill illustrates how a reformed House of Lords with 80 per cent of elected members could look, with the remaining 20 per cent appointed independently to sit as cross-benchers. Alongside this, the White Paper sets out the case for a 100 per cent elected chamber."

The 80 per cent figure mentioned is a pandering to the Conservatives who unlike Labour or the Lib Dems only promised a "mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords". I'm hoping that the other two main parties with otther of the smaller parties will join forces to ensure that the 100% figure is succcessful.

The three term limit, and the election largely at the same time with the genreal elections means that there will be a 15 year limit on their Lordships, or whatever they may be called, sitting in the Upper Chamber. Electing in thirds by STV will ensure that this chamber should always manage to be a chamber with no overall control and therefor maintain its legislative reforming role that it currently does without hyperinflation of the number of members.

It may have taken a hundred years, hopefully it won't be another hundred years before this substitution is madee. It should be complete within 14 years time. The will of this government must now be to get this change through both Houses so that the reform we have long be waiting for will come about.

The one downside is that here we will have Tories saying that is ok to elect one third of the members of the Houses of Parliament by a proportional system, one which isn't first past the post, just shortly after they were saying that the Alternative Vote was an unBritish way to do things.

If a Lord were to pass away, how would they be replaced, would there be a by-election in that constituency? If there were an STV seat by-election for a single position that is actually an Alternative Vote election, much like we currently have for by-elections for the 'hereditary' positions in the Lords.

13 Lords Rebelling - or muscle flexing in Ermine

Thirteen Lib Dem Lords rebelled yesterday in a vote to overturn the Conservative Party's plans to bring in elected police and crime commissioners. The election of commissioners would have led to an abolition of the police authorities that cuurently act as oversight on our police.

The Lib Dem manifesto last year had this to say on given the public a say over policing.

• Give local people a real say over their police force through the direct election of police authorities. Authorities would still be able to co-opt extra members to ensure diversity, experience and expertise.
•  Give far more power to elected police authorities, including the right to sack and appoint the Chief Constable, set local policing priorities,and agree and determine budgets.

While we wanted elections it was to the police authorities not to one individual commissioner who would have overall say and swat over what the electorate would do. Liberal Democrats do believe in power to the people, while me may have failed in delivering it with electoral reform our peers seem not prepared to standby to see it taken away over policing matter.

Maybe underneath the ermine lined robes our Lordships and Ladyships have been working those Lib Dem muscles.

Although apparently they did so against the instruction of the newly install Lib Dem fitness coach Nick Clegg, who had asked them to support another amendment that would have led to a three year moratorium while pilots were being held.

Blogged Elsewhere: There will be an AV Election in the Lords

As anyone who has followed proceedings in the House of Lords, with regard to the Bill that could bring about a referendum for a fairer voting system for Westminster elections, the Labour peers have dragged their heels.

There are still 92 positions for hereditary peers in the House of Lords. This was the number that was decided upon in 1999 would exist until all hereditary positions were removed. However, when one of that number dies, there is a by-election in the upper chamber...

Read the full story at Fairer Votes Belfast

Labour Lords a Sleeping

Now some may call it pillow talk as a result of the all night sitting of the House of Lords. But it does appear as if some of them weren't half talking some nonsense through the night.

While I was sleeping one of my friends posted on Facebook that some Labour Peer has said:

"[Labour] now claiming that no present or future seat crosses county/local government boundaries."

This echoes something that was written yesterday for the Guardian  by Lewis Baston:

"The new boundary rules, as I have written at length elsewhere, are likely to produce a complicated and flawed new political map of Britain. The government's insistence on constituencies being a maximum of 5% away from the average size of 76,000 electors means that county boundaries will be crossed, local government wards split between parliamentary constituencies, and seats drawn up in defiance of community identity and sometimes of common sense."

May I draw both of their attentions to the seat where I have lived for most of the past decade and indeed stood as a candidate in both times it has been contested; Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


It does actually reside across two local authority areas, West Lothian and Falkirk Councils, but the multiplicity is worse than that. In Scotland of course we have Scottish constituencies, there was a danger on the first draft of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundaries that there would be three different constituency MSPs to be dealt with. In addition we have members for the regional list, two of which Lothians and Central Scotland already cause a split in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


There are also two Health Boards (Lothian and Forth Valley), two police forces (Lothian & Borders and Central), the education is administered by Unitary Authority area so again two etc. So the hard working MP has to be sure just where in the constituency a constituent comes from to beware of addressing this matter to the right authority. Sadly the postcode of the constituents address is not going to be a guide. Though by in large the EH postcodes tend towards Edinburgh and Lothians and the FK ones towards Falkirk and Central, what about poor Bo'ness with its EH51 postcode?


Of course the fact that such confusion affects one of their own MPs fails to impress their Labour Lordships and Ladyships, as does the fact that this boundary review was carried out as part of Labour legislation. But it does seem to have interested them no end in the wee small hours as a reason to take up time to delay the 'Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill'.


If this is one erroneous argument being used by them that I have picked up in a cursory glance heavens knows how much else I might find if I actually look, that is merely time wasting and filibustering.

One Small Step for Rome

One giant step for Lord's reform.



The news that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is to take a seat with the Lords Spiritual on the red benches of the House of Lords should hardly be ground breaking news in our days of equal opportunity. After all Chief Rabbis have already had a seat (though not as a matter of course). However, the Cardinal will be treading where no Cardinal has trod since reformation times.



The ban on Catholics sitting in the Lords was finally lifted in 1829, at the same time as that on Jews and others was also lifted. But never has a senior Catholic Churchman been given a life peerage to add to the spiritual content of the upper chamber in those 180 years. There have been prominent lay Roman Catholics of course but none of equal standing to the 26 Anglican Bishops who earn their seat on appointment to their Diocese.



The 76 year old Archbishop of Westminster is setting another post-reformation precedent. He will be the first to retire that position, the rest have died in office. A move that is expected in the next couple of weeks after which it is expected he will be elevated (at least in the secular sense) to the Lords. He will therefore be the first member of the College of Cardinals to also be a member of the House of Lords since the 16th Century.

Lord Voldemort of Foy and Hartlepool

I see that further to my previous posting as well as Hartlepool the Lord Voldemort has taken the Barony of Foy as well as he stood clad in ermine yesterday. But just where is Foy in the county of Herefordshire and what is the new Baron's connection to it?


View Larger Map

You can try looking for it on Google maps but will find it just acrross the River Wye from Hole in the Wall, maybe this is the Lord's new source of money for property purchases. He owns or owned a cottage there apparently as you can see it is right next to Old Gore another politician who was destined to remain in the shadows and never assume the highest office. However, as it is within a large meander in the River it would be easily defendable by land, should he even need to.

However, it seems rather a sleepy place, well away from the preying eyes of muggles. No doubt somewhere that he could recuperate, regain his strength ready for another onslaught on the innocent.