The Lords' Filibuster: Undignified and inefficent?

We never got through this whole short entertaining video in class about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is part of the UK coalition government's bill that would call for a Voting Reform Referendum to be held. Labour is against the measure, because it would reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons from 650-to-600.

From Ken Wedding's Comparative Government blog, the Lords are doing the delaying for Labour in a less than traditional way:

Undignified and inefficient?
Nearly 150 years ago, Walter Bagehot (in his book The English Constitution) drew a distinction between the dignified and efficient parts of the British regime. The dignified part represented the nation and "excited" the loyalty of the people. The efficient part of the regime did the "work of government."

The monarchy obviously was "dignified." Commons was "efficient," even if it got bogged down in political wrangling sometimes.

In the last 150 years, the House of Lords became more and more an element of the dignified part of the UK regime. However, its ability to "excite" the loyalty of the people has been questionable. Questionable to the point that there are suggestions floating about to abolish the Lords or to make it an elected body.

Recently the debate about alternative voting in the UK has dragged the House of Lords directly into the political fray. Observers like the New York Times' Sarah Lyall wonder whether Lords is dignified or efficient. How dignified can it be when peers drag out cots for naps during all-night debates like common state legislators in the US? And how efficient can they be when legislation is stalled by what amounts to a filibuster?

Election Bill Erodes Decorum in House of Lords

It was nearly midnight on Day 12 of the most grueling debate in recent House of Lords memory, and not all the Lords present were, strictly speaking, awake. But the Right Honorable Lord Davies of Oldham was warming to the question of the hour: a proposal to change “may” to “should” on Page 10, Line 7, of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill…

Give him points for enthusiasm, at least. With the coalition government and the Labour opposition both refusing to compromise on a measure that has severely divided them, the debate had already ground on for 98 hours across several weeks. The peers are not the youngest group of people ever to populate a legislature, and on Monday, after several all-nighters, some Lords were reaching the outer limits of coherence, patience and stamina…

The bill would trigger a referendum May 5 on whether to change the way election votes are calculated, and it would redraw Britain’s parliamentary boundaries, reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons to 600, from 650. The coalition government wants it, because it would fulfill the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to enact voting reform, and because the Conservatives would benefit from the boundary changes.

Labour is resisting because, while it supports voting reform, it vehemently opposes the redistricting proposal. The measure must become law by Feb. 16 in order for the May 5 referendum to proceed, and Labour is determined to delay the bill so that it misses the deadline.

Normally, opposition parties adopt a spirit of compromise and bonhomie in the House of Lords. Not this time. The government seems unwilling to budge, and Labour has resorted to virtually unprecedented delaying tactics.

These include proposing picayune amendments — more than 270 so far — discussing them for hours, and then, because they have no chance of passage, withdrawing them…

At one point during last Monday’s all-night session, Baron Trefgarne, a Conservative, drew gasps from other Lords when, saying he was fed up with the “abuse of the procedures of this house,” set in motion a procedural tool to bring an end to debate on the amendment in question — the first time such a tool has been used in 40 years, and only the sixth or seventh time since 1900...

//www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/europe/26lords.html