A thundering revolt, very politely delivered
The House of Lords sits just a corridor away from the House of Commons, yet in tone the two are miles apart. In the Lords you’ll hear none of the orchestrated jeering and thigh-slapping derision you get every day from MPs. The Lords is so much more civil, so much more sedate. In place of baying hostility, there are just the gentlest stirrings of protest, murmurings of unrest, coughs of disapproval. You might take them for commuters, mumbling their frustration at a mildly delayed train.
Even when debating the most lividly contentious issues, rarely do they let their manners slip. Some of them sound almost apologetic for disagreeing with their opponents. “The minister, for whom I have the utmost respect… I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect… I think I owe my apologies to the noble Lord, whom I greatly respect…”
Last night, peers debated the great controversy of the moment: George Osborne’s cuts to tax credits for the low-paid. Plainly, the Government was taking seriously the threat to block the cuts altogether.
Apparently, Conservative whips had even gone to the trouble of flying Lord Lloyd Webber, the Tory life peer, back from New York purely for the vote; there he was, arms folded, frowning grimly. (As well he might. That’s some commute.)
In the manner of a parent pleading with a difficult child, Baroness Stowell, Tory Leader of the Lords, promised that if peers were all good and didn’t vote against the Government, the Chancellor would “listen very carefully” to their “concerns”. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, another Conservative, added eagerly that Mr Osborne was “very open to considering the detail on this”.
Their opponents didn’t sound convinced. The cuts were “morally indefensible”, declared the Bishop of Portsmouth. Ministers had made “considerable efforts to conceal” their plans from voters before the general election, complained Lord Richard (Lab). “The public cannot take this scale of lying,” harrumphed Lord Campbell-Savours (also Lab).
Even Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former chancellor, joined in. Looking as ever like a hawk that has just detected an unpleasant smell, he urged Mr Osborne to rethink his plans. Yes, the Chancellor had said he would listen. “But it is not listening that is required, it is change.”
The most memorable speech came from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab), who read out emails she’d received from tax credit recipients. One was from the wife of a fireman, who said her husband stood to lose more than £2,900 a year. Peers – who receive £300 every time they clock in – sat silent. Perhaps the fireman was the clincher, because in the end they voted to delay the cuts. Mr Osborne’s defeat was received with a cheer in the Commons – and murmurs of interest in the Lords.
Even in victory, manners come first.