Voting Reforms May End In The House Of Lords

A coalition plan to end debate with a ‘guillotine’ motion would have been defeated by crossbenchers. Photograph: Tim Graham/Getty

A two-week standoff in the House of Lords between Labour and the coalition over a constitutional reform bill was partially resolved today when ministers agreed to a key opposition demand on shrinking the House of Commons.

Labour agreed to abandon a filibustering campaign, which had forced peers to sleep on camp beds in committee rooms during overnight sessions, after the government announced that it would allow limited public inquiries when parliamentary constituencies are redrawn.

Ministers climbed down after it became clear that the government could not deliver on a threat made at the weekend to break convention in the House of Lords by bringing 15 days of debate to an end through a "guillotine" motion.

David Cameron, who had been spoiling for a fight with Labour, was advised that such a motion would be defeated after Baroness D'Souza, leader of the non-party crossbench peers, had said that peers "might as well go home and cease to exist" if a guillotine was imposed. D'Souza tabled a compromise amendment today which prompted Labour to say that it would allow the bill to complete its committee stage by Wednesday evening.

But Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former lord chancellor, said Labour could not guarantee that the bill would reach its third and final reading stage in the House of Lords by a deadline of Monday 14 February because the party was still demanding more concessions. "This is not the end of the cold war, it is more like detente," he joked tonight.

The parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill, which is one of the most important elements of the coalition's constitutional reform programme, contains key elements for the Lib Dems and the Tories. It is designed to pave the way for a referendum on an alternative vote, due to be held in May, which was the main Lib Dem win in the coalition negotiations last year. It is also designed to deliver a key Tory manifesto pledge by reducing the House of Commons from 650 to 600 MPs by equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies to around 76,000 voters.

The government had been prepared to take the unprecedented step of imposing a guillotine motion in the House of Lords because the legislation needs to reach the statute book by 16 February to allow a referendum on AV to be held by May. The Boundary Commission also needs early notice to redraw parliamentary boundaries to take account of a smaller House of Commons.

The government abandoned its attempt to curtail the debate after all sides accepted the amendment from the crossbench peers. This will allow a public inquiry to be held on the redrawing of a parliamentary constituency if the Boundary Commission declares that one is necessary.

But Labour is still threatening to block the bill during its next stages unless the government gives ground in two further areas by agreeing to:

• Vary the size of the new parliamentary constituencies by 10% above or below the electoral quota size of around 76,000 voters. This would mean that constituencies could vary in size from 83,600 voters to 68,400 voters. Under the government's plans, constituencies can only be varied in size by 5% either way of the 76,000 quota. This means that a constituency should contain no more than 79,800 voters and no less than 72,200 voters.

• Establish a commission to make an assessment after the passage of the bill as to whether 600 is the right size for the House of Commons.

Falconer, who described the possibility of a guillotine as "an abomination", told peers that Labour needed the extra concessions to guarantee the bill's progress.

"Focusing only on the key issues on report, and employing the economy and focus your lordships will expect at report and later at third reading, the further timetable depends on further agreement on substantive issues between the parties. The crossbenches have played a critical part in getting us to the good point we are on the substantive issues. We commit ourselves to work hard now to try to reach the necessary further agreement."

Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader of the house, told peers: "The government will be bringing forward a package of concessions at report stage of the bill and I'm sure that the whole house will welcome that. We are in the welcome position of having an agreement to complete committee stage by the end of Wednesday this week.

"But equally I am sure that I have no need to remind the house that we need to return this bill to the Commons by the end of Monday 14 February – this is two weeks today – if the referendum is to be held on May 5. From the soundings I have taken I feel confident the majority of members in all parts of the house share this aim."

The crossbench peers withdrew their amendment after the government accepted its premise.

D'Souza told peers: "It is perhaps unusual for a crossbencher to intervene at this late stage of a bill, particularly in a bill which has become so politicised. Crossbenchers are, in fact, independent and not politically aligned.

"However, something of an impasse had been reached towards the end of last week and I was encouraged by one or two people to see if there was any way in which we might play a useful role. I do so with great humility. The other thing that perhaps has moved me, certainly, and a number of other crossbenchers was the shadow or the threat of anything approaching a 'closure motion' in this house."

The agreement showed weaknesses on both the coalition and Labour sides. The coalition backed down after it became clear that opposition among its own peers and the crossbenchers meant that the guillotine motion would not pass. But Labour had to give ground and reach a deal because crossbenchers were losing patience with its aggressive tactics.

Article By Sonny Leong When you have a friend like Cameron, who needs enemies?

As we usher in the new lunar year, the Year of the Rabbit, Chinese families everywhere will be gathering for their reunion dinner to forgive each other and pay respect to our elders.

Will China forgive Cameron for his foolish rant about ‘authoritarian capitalism’?

In his recent speech in Davos, David Cameron launched an extraordinary attack on 'authoritarian capitalism' as he warned businesses investing in those countries at their peril. Though he did not refer to China and Russia directly, observers were left in little doubt which countries he was referring to in his attack on 'authoritarian capitalism'.

'If you're looking to set up a headquarters abroad, are you going to invest where your premises can be taken away from you? Where contracts are routinely dishonoured?

Where there's the threat of political upheaval? Or are you going to invest where there are property rights, the rule of law, democratic accountability?

Is this a case of sour grapes? China attracted record levels of foreign capital in 2010. The country's Ministry of Commerce revealed inward investment totalled $106 billion (£66 billion) last year, an increase of 17.4 per cent on 2009. In December alone, foreign direct investment (FDI) into China stood at more than $14 billion.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on his trip to China last October,

Cameron said:

“[The trip will] provide a further step forward in UK-China relations, adding momentum to our commercial relationship and cementing an economic and political partnership that can help to deliver strong and sustainable growth and greater security for us all in the years ahead.

“On this visit alone, Britain is set to sign new contracts worth billions of dollars involving companies across the UK and cities all over China.”

Apparatchiks in Beijing will not take lightly to Cameron’s Davos statement. On one hand he wants to do business with China, coupled with warm words encourage Chinese businesses to invest in Britain and with the other slaps China in her face. There is a well known Confucius saying, “If you drink with a friend, a thousand cups are too few; if you argue with a man, half a sentence is too much”. China must be feeling so.

A former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said, Western countries should be coming to terms with China: "(A) drift into escalating reciprocal demonisation" would be the worst outcome for Asia's long-term stability as well as for the China’s relationship with developed economies China has done more than any other economy to pull the world out of recession, and may remain an important engine of global growth for some years to come.

According to the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015), China will shift from export-led and investment-driven growth to a more balanced pattern of economic development. As a result, China's growth rate may be significantly lower, but more sustainable. At the same time, the rest of the world can expect China to play a more active role in areas such as fighting climate change, poverty alleviation, global infrastructure development, and reform of the international monetary system.

The essence of liberal capitalism is its propensity towards universalism. In the pursuit of profit, capitalism pushes beyond local boundaries, whether village, town, region or country. The rise of modern capitalism in the late nineteenth century erupted into the international conflict that dominated much of the twentieth century.

Capitalist development has a long history in China. Prior to the early modern period China’s embryonic capitalism was far more developed than that of Europe. China’s capitalist development took place within the context of a powerful state that, in periods when the system functioned well, shaped the pattern of capitalist development in numerous ways to meet common social interests. This was the foundation of its hugely impressive long-run economic and social development. Confucianism nurtured a deeply developed concept of ‘duty’ which was the foundation of collective action and social prosperity.

Confucianism was a complete philosophy. It combined a carefully thought out system of morality for rulers, bureaucrats and ordinary people with a comprehensive analysis of concrete ways of both stimulating and controlling the market. When the system worked well the government attempted in anon-ideological, pragmatic fashion to solve practical problems that the market could not solve.

The need for ‘constructive engagement’ is more profound now than ever. ‘Destructive engagement’ will lead to disaster. Has the global financial crisis hastened the ending of globalised capitalism?

In the search for solutions to the multiple threats there is no alternative other than to work together across national frontiers, cultures and levels of development, to find a pragmatic, non-ideological, cooperative way to overcome these threats.

Cameron might come to regret his words when China holds back on buying any future UK gilts or worse starts selling UK government bonds. As this is a period for forgiveness, let’s hope China treats his silly comments as coming from a silly boy.