Great news that the House of Lords Reform Bill appears to be dead in the water. I can well understand why most people will be left wondering how a Bill which passed at Second Reading by hundreds of votes, far more than most Bills, should fail to make progress. The reason is time, without agreement to limit debate on future stages it would have taken months of Parliamentary time to get the Bill through the Commons and of course it would still have faced almost certain defeat in the Lords. It would then have had to be brought back in again next session with the same process – more months of debate, and no guarantee of success. The Government simply did not want to waste that amount of Parliamentary time on an issue which is regarded as absolutely irrelevant by the vast majority of the British people and I quite agree.
As for the Liberal Democrat threat to vote against the new boundary changes, so be it. I think it just demonstrates the problems with coalition government, something we would probably have permanently if the Liberal Democrats had their way and we introduced proportional representation.
David Nuttall 
Why has my post re warsi and her cronies and who paid for it been removed.
Hello Mr Barber,
One thing you have failed to notice is that we DO NOT have a representative Government in Britain. Our less than representative Goverment in the House of Commons bolsters it self up by appointing people such as Warsi and Uddin to the Lords. Many of them have morals less than my dog. Many of them rip us off. We have extreme over representation – around 650 MPs for around 60 million people in the commons and and many unelected Lords and Ladies . With four times our population the Americans manage with about 450 Congressmen and 100 Senators. We have a whip system so we don’t need them all – most don’t have a mind of there own and only, when asked, spout the contents of a party manifesto, a monkey could do that – perhaps 150 would be more appropriate, and of course more economic. As far as I can see a lot of them are intectually challenged.
In short our legislitere is Medival.
The Swiss system of asking the people is vastly superior
I have to agree with Dr. Tom Paterson, that the political system in this country is basically a medieval beaurocracy, run by lords and ladies and a number of elected MP’s who all tow a party line, rather than representing what the people want or need. So a bill or law can be forced through, whether or not an MP agrees, because he is whipped into submission.
the lords should be scrapped a.s.a.p. because they are a bunch of freeloaders and hasbeens and have no power at all to pass legislation because of the act which gives the commons the final say in all matters. I would like to know why my post re warsi and her cronies was removed so i will ask you again, who paid for this bunch to go to america and support Mitt Romney?
Hello Mr Nuttall,
I have just read the posts on your website. I notice that you are not in favour of coalition goverments. I am offended, as many people are, because coallitions are part of democracy. You should know this better than most, as you were returned to Parliament with a derisary vote – around 40% if I rememer rightly, and only because Mr Chaytor retired in disgrace. The Third World could teach us a lot about democracy. It has not reached the UK yet.
Best wishes
Tom Paterson
What i want to know is, who paid for this junket by warsi and a rake of freeloaders to the US?
Hi Alan,
Sorry, this post was not deleted I had simply not yet passed it.
Don’t know answer to your query but if you are keen to know I am sure Baroness Warsi will tell you if you email her.
David
Hi David, thank you for you reply but i was under the illusion that if a constituant asked YOU a question YOU would give an answer. I am sure you would agree with the principle that MPs are answerable to their voters and i hope you can find the answer to my query, i should not have to email someone who should NOT be in the government who i know would not give a satisfactory answer, if any. Warsi was only given her honour so she could be in the government and was not elected to be in the government. If you wish to do something positive instead of trying to bring in or change new legislation why not start with the honours list and scrap it. If you think it should remain i would like you to put my name, along with millions of others, who have done more for this country than people like warsi, forward for a knighthood because without truck drivers this country would grind to a halt overnight, this also goes for the medical professionals and numerous other people but as i would not like to be classed along with a bunch of freeloaders, i.e. the house of lords, i could not possibly accept it. I do hope your reply will be more positive and we can find out who paid for this junket.
David,
I come back to the contrast between your repeated bland refusals to espouse any opinions other than to parrot conservative policy before the election and your post election incarnation as serial rebel.
I seem to remember you saying that you thought that “people will expect me to support the manifesto under which I am elected”. Your manifesto included a commitment to Lords reform.
I am still just about a supporter of the coalition, despite knowing from day 1 that it was electoral suicide for my party and the many subsequent missteps by my leadership and the many awful policies that the coalition is pursuing and having to see Cameron’s smug face on my TV far too often (I suspect you agree with that one), but if you and the rest of the lunatic fringe of your party wag the dog that will change and I won’t be the only one urging the party to pull the plug.
Hi Ewan,
Thank-you for your comment. The problem is that on many occasions the Coalition is not pursuing conservative policy!
The Conservative Party manifesto did NOT contain a commitment to House of Lords reform it simply stated the Party would seek a consensus on the issue and there certainly is not a consensus about the current House of Lords Reform Bill. For one thing since when was it Conservative Party policy to have elections based on Proportional Representation?
Best wishes,
David
A nice bit of spin there. If my memory serves me well, the country voted the Lib-dems into 1st place and Con (very suitable) into 3rd place. The Libs foolishly gave leadership to the biggest Con of all, but as more of the people had voted for Libs, there manifesto should be more of a priority. Most people rejected the Con manifesto. Just goes to show this country is not a democracy, but a Palimentary dictatorship…
Mr Nuttall the Queens speech is written by the tory government and in that speech the Queen said ‘ my government will bring in a bill to reform the house of lords’ so do not try to wriggle out of your commitment. What the Queen should have said was ‘ my government WILL get rid of this bunch of timewasters and freeloaders who have no powers AT ALL’.
About time you grew up, Parliament is a like a bunch of kids in the school yard fighting over a toffee. Your Government are treating 1,000’s of sick people like cattle, whilst protecting Lords (who cost millions). You need to grow up and join the real world.
My wife is currently on ESA (reduced to £3 a week whilst under appeal). She has the full backing of her GP and pychatrist, she is so mentally ill that she is unable to answer the phone, talk to anyone she does not know well, leave the house most of the time and thats just the tip of the ice berg. You are willing to treat people like this like crap, yet protect the Elite (lords), you are supposed to represent the people.
Time to stop towing the line and acting like the rich spoilt kids most polititians are and start helping your constituents and actually voting the way the majority of them want you to, not the way the party demands (that is not democracy).