You wanted a legacy Prime Minister, so they say...

Loz Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:36:57 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

....and for me, you perhaps wasted your greastest opportunity at one.

He will be the prime minister that helped oversee the most radical democratic reform is centuries, yet at the time it mattered most, the vote, he chose an option his own party near enough unanimously rejected.

You all know by now that I am one of the few Blairites around here, but I just find it so hard to believe that Tony Blair could be stupid enough to have taken a stand on 50/50.

He needed to personify all those buzz words more than ever in this. 'Bold' and 'progressive' spring to mind.

Whoever helped make those decisions needs to be sacked with immediate effect or resign in disgrace.

I'm delighted by this news, its a historic day, but I am massively gutted that the government itself didn't collectively go all the way.

This doesn't strike me as 'reverse gear' it strikes me as leaving you car on an escarpment and taking the handbreak off.

The Tory leadership went further by supporting an 80% elected house and come the next election, should Gordon Brown try and laud this historic move, the Tories will quite rightly remind us all.

That said, I don't yet know which option he voted for, although I would assume he went with the government. Anyone know?






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
You wanted a legacy Prime Minister, so they say... | 26 comments (26 topical)

Re: You wanted a legacy (#1)

by JR on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:41:54 PM GMT

It's an absolute disgrace that Blair voted for 50/50. I am bemused as to why he wouldn't want to create a better legacy for himself. What on earth was he thinking? And Straw as well.

Brown wasn't quite as bad. He voted for 50%, 60% and 80% elected (but not 100%) according to the Guardian.

Excellent result though. The government must surely push forward with 100% elected now. If they don't it will completely undermine the democratic process of the Commons and the people.


Re: You wanted a legacy (#2)

by Loz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:47:19 PM GMT

If thats the case, for me, Brown is no better.

Why the hell didn't he go for 100%?

If anything, it makes him looked extremely undecided.

What about front bench tories? Anyone got that info?


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#3)

by JR on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:36 PM GMT

Exactly. Why not 100%? I fail to see how any member of the Labour party cannot support 100% elected. I would have thought this would be a principle which every Labour member would support and be in agreement with. This represents what we stand for better and unites us better than any economic policy can.

I think Cameron and Letwin supported 80%, not sure about 100%. All LibDems backed 80% and 100%.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#6)

by Andrea on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:05:08 PM GMT

"Brown wasn't quite as bad. He voted for 50%, 60% and 80% elected (but not 100%) according to the Guardian."

Brown voted against the fully appointed option. He didn't vote at all in the 50% and 60% division and then he voted aye in the 80% elected division


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#25)

by MM on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:30:38 PM GMT

'The chancellor voted for an 80% elected upper chamber, but failed to vote for 50% and 60% elected elements, as he intended, because he was waiting to hold a short meeting with Mr Blair about a cabinet away-day tomorrow.' (according to this morning's Guardian).


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#26)

by MM on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:34:10 PM GMT

Blair has always felt that if the House of Lords is fully elected or largely elected it will undermine the House of Commons, you only have to read Robin Cook's 'Point of Departure' to realise this.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#4)

by DenDen on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:53:52 PM GMT

I think you will find a number of 'no change' supporters voted for the 100% option to bugger the whole process up.

There is not a hope in hell that the House of Lords will go along with anything that received majority support in the various votes this evening - therefor deadlock.

The three main parties will have to agree a form of words and put it in their manifestos at the next General Election for there to be movement.  


Re: You wanted a legacy (#7)

by JR on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:42:26 PM GMT

If the Lords don't agree to it, then an Act of Parliament should be used without hesitation. The Lords aren't exactly going to vote to get rid of themselves and therefore their decision should not be considered.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#8)

by DenDen on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:58:57 PM GMT

Even using the Parliament Act 1911 to force a Bill into law the House of Lords could delay it by upto 2 years. Given there isn't any such Bill, and will not be one before the next session of Parliament beginning in November, it's very likely the situation will remain as it is until the General Election.

Which is why I suggested the 3 main parties having the same wording in their manifestos so the Lords would have to accept. The convention states they have to go along with the governing party's manifesto committments.


[ Parent ]

Divisions List.. (#5)

by Andrea on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:02:34 PM GMT

Division list on the vote to keep a second chamber:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/17.htm#hddr_1

Division list on the vote to have a fully appointed House
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/18.htm#hddr_2

Division list on the vote to have a 50% elected House
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/19.htm#hddr_4

Division list on the vote to have a 60% elected House
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/20.htm#hddr_2

Division list on the vote to have a 80% elected House
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/20.htm#hddr_2

Division list on the 100% elected vote coming soon....


Re: Divisions List.. (#9)

by doctordunc on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:10:08 PM GMT

Some surprises for fully appointed!


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#10)

by Andrea on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:17:06 PM GMT

Who are the surprises in your opinion?

Btw, the link for thr 80% division was wrong. Here's the right one:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/21.htm#hddr_2


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#11)

by doctordunc on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:45:53 PM GMT

Margaret Beckett?  Dawn Primarolo?  Ronnie Campbell?  To name a few.


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#14)

by Andrea on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:50:11 PM GMT

I notice that those 3 also voted to get rid of the whole second Chamber in the first vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#16)

by doctordunc on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:52:30 PM GMT

Ah right.  That makes a (little) bit more sense...


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#12)

by Andrea on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:47:10 PM GMT

and finally the 100% elected House division list:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/22.htm#hddr_2


[ Parent ]

Re: Divisions List.. (#13)

by doctordunc on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:48:04 PM GMT

Here's the full elected:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/22.htm


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#15)

by Loz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:25:42 PM GMT

Remember, mps have craftily voted here. Mps opposed to any change voted for 100% elected for a reason.


Re: You wanted a legacy (#17)

by swatantra on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:07:23 AM GMT

Tough. Its the last vote that counts. 100% it'll have to be.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#18)

by HenryG on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:56:23 AM GMT

I see that of all the deputy leader candidates, only Alan Johnson voted against a fully elected House of Lords.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#19)

by Parishpumpspin on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:09:13 AM GMT

IT WAS A FREE VOTE....whilst I personally support 100% I do think this whole thread is pathetic, If TB wants to vote for 50/50, its his right, if Clelland for wholly appointed, that's his right, Brown and Johnson 80%, Benn 100%, they all are exercising A FREE VOTE.

Non existant omnipotent being give me strenght!


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#20)

by Andrea on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:31:06 AM GMT

I don't find anything pathetic in this thread.

It's a free vote and so what?
Posters here can have a personal opinion on the House of Lords and I don't see anything wrong in checking what MPs voted and commenting on it.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#21)

by JR on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:43:28 PM GMT

Well of course MP's have a right to choose which ever option they want, but similarly, we have a right to criticise them for it.

In my opinion, any MP who voted against (or abstained on) the option of 100% elected was wrong.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#22)

by Glass House on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:16:43 PM GMT

JR's completely right. Nobody is saying that MPs have no right to vote whichever way in a free vote. But also have every right to vocally disagree with their stances.


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#23)

by Glass House on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:17:03 PM GMT

BTW Johnson didn't vote against 100%, he abstained


[ Parent ]

Re: You wanted a legacy (#24)

by MM on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:24:45 PM GMT

From looking at the voting list's for 'fully elected House of Lords' Alan Johnson's name does not appear so I think he just abstained rather than vote against.  But that is his choice, it is a free vote after all.


[ Parent ]

You wanted a legacy Prime Minister, so they say... | 26 comments (26 topical)