MORE THAN a few members of the British upper house looked weary yesterday morning after an all-night Labour filibuster to block plans for a referendum in May to change the first-past-the-post voting system, cut the number of MPs and equalise the size of Commons constituencies.
Camp beds had been brought in late on Monday when it became clear that Labour would not back down on its demand to split the legislation into two pieces: one dealing with the numbers of MPs and the size of constituencies; and the other to let the referendum go ahead on May 5th.
Faced with the prospect of another all-nighter last night, the peers thought better of it, with Conservative leader in the Lords Lord Strathclyde saying he was hopeful a way could be found to agree a compromise.
The all-night debate that lasted until after 1pm yesterday tested the resolve and creativity of the lords on the Labour side, with one, Baroness Ford, going off on a tangent in the early hours to talk about Alexander “Sawney” Bean, the head of a 15th-century Scottish clan who is alleged to have killed and cannibalised 1,000 people before meeting a grisly end.
Lord Harris of Haringey, meanwhile, questioned how the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had come up with the idea that there should be 600 MPs in the UK after the next general election, rather than 650 now. “So what were the reasons for choosing 600 as opposed to 650, 630, 575 or 585? I was tempted to say that there was some sort of arcane numerology about this.
“Noble Lords will be aware that 650 is the product of three prime numbers: two, five squared and 13; 630 is of course the product of four prime numbers: two, three squared, five and seven. I defy anyone to find a similar formulation or number that involves five prime numbers,” he said.
Interjecting, another peer said: “Could we maybe go for 666?”
Behind the filibustering, which some believe could poison the atmosphere in the usually collegiate House of Lords, there is a serious political point. Labour, which controls many smaller, inner-city constituencies with small populations, is concerned that it could lose out from the Conservative-Lib Dem plans to ensure that all MPs are elected by roughly equal numbers. Currently, there can be differences of tens of thousands.
Time is not on the side of prime minister David Cameron, or his deputy Nick Clegg, since a May 5th referendum on the alternative vote system – which does not go as far as the Liberal Democrats would like, since they want proportional representation – was a key part of the coalition pact between the two.
The legislation must pass all stages in both houses by mid-February for the May 5th deadline to hold.
A compromise on splitting the legislation seemed unlikely last night, though House of Commons sources hinted that the existing Bill, which says that all constituencies – bar a couple in remote Scotland – should have 70,000 votes, plus or minus 5 per cent, could be eased, while the government’s demands for speedier redrawings of constituencies could be limited by a stronger appeals process.
