Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Baroness D’Souza: The vote against Lord Dear’s fatal amendment was a ‘massive defeat’ for him

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 2:55pm

    They can play “ping-pong” all they want, the won’t succeed. I dare say the final vote will be a much smaller majority but they all know that the real power is in the Commons if they try to derail it over the next few days with such huge majorities supporting the Bill already. I think it will pass with a respectable majority, but nothing earth-shattering.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 2:56pm

      ….they won’t succeed….

      1. If it is, indeed, a “massive massive” defeat for Dear, let’s hope it’s so massive it may crumple his will and he’ll give up his embarrassing resistance.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 3:36pm

          Eddy, he won’t give up. He already said after his defeat that he intends to persist in an attempt to cause division. He can try but I don’t think he’ll get anywhere. Hasn’t managed to get one amendment passed yet and nor have the others.

          1. Robert, Dear’s determination seems to me no different from that of the bearded jihadis. Just a different backward-leaning motivation, that’s all. I agree that we can feel fairly certain he’ll get nowhere and that the larger number of peers are probably heartily sick to death of him.

  2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2013, 3:17pm

    Trouble is, with people like Lord Dear they just get more and more bitter and it gets to look like revenge. That means his arguments become more personal loosing the matter of the subject debated.

    I question if attitudes stuck in the 1950 are really relevant to today’s debates in 2013. Sadly their age lets them down and they don’t think about the modern day and what’s best.

    Though to be perfectly honest it isn’t all older people. Many are supportive as this positive vote is seeing. It just demonstrates the need for an elected House of Lords.

    However with an Elected House of Lords we would loose the Parliament Act….still I feel elected is best.

    1. I think a monocameral system is best

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 3:39pm

        As do I just like New Zealand. It would also diminish the influence of the CoE, not that an elected body wouldn’t either, but I doubt if we’ll ever see abolition of the upper house in our life times, an elected one yes.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 3:51pm

      To some extent yes, the Parliament Act would probably be abolished but it doesn’t mean that it would have to rule out another way to overturn a Bill if there was thought to be considerable harm done to some in society if a Bill were to pass in the Lords, provided it has passed in the Commons of course. There would have to be another means by which to overturn a Bill. I assume having an elected chamber might mean that they’d all have to be prepared to campaign in the way MPs do to get elected. I don’t see elderly people in their 70s and 80s doing that do you? If that weren’t the case, then we’d need to know exactly what they believe in, their past experience and history of voting in elections all of which would be incumbent on them to provide. Failing that, the number of them ought to be cut back to half with term limits of five years and a retiring age limit of 70 if I had my way. No more hereditary or life peers allowed, ever.

  3. GulliverUK 23 Jun 2013, 3:33pm

    If you follow the links at the top of

    http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/category/same-sex-marriage/

    i.e. “here”, “here”, and “here”

    most amendments were withdrawn or not moved. Some were introduced as wrecking amendments, possibly most, but they got nowhere. Baroness D’Souza is quite right that some of those people who voted against Lord Dear will vote against equal marriage rights, but as long as it passes … I don’t care. I don’t care if there is a massive majority for .. obviously I’d be over the moon if there was, but the most important thing is getting it past.

    They won’t reject it – they dare not. They are already on notice that nobody wants an unelected 2nd chamber, and most people don’t want Bishops from the Church of England in there either, including most Christians I know.

    I’m so glad Lord Dear is wounded by this, although if he had any decency he’s hand back his title and leave the Lords – having brought the House in to disrepute. His behavior has been disgusting.

    1. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one, the expenses for attending the House are an incentive for thinking that one’s contribution is of significant importance.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 3:55pm

        Hansard states….”Most members do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties.

        Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House. This daily allowance replaces the separate overnight subsistence, day subsistence and office costs in the previous system. Entitlement is determined by attendance, not residence criteria.

        Members who receive a ministerial or office holders’ salary are not entitled to claim the allowances based on attendance.”

        I wouldn’t say they get that much out of financially seeing as they’re not salaried, thankfully.

        They shouldn’t even get allowances in my view not when they try to vote against my rights. We never get a chance to vote against them do we?

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 3:56pm

        Hansard states….”Most members do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties.

        Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House. This daily allowance replaces the separate overnight subsistence, day subsistence and office costs in the previous system. Entitlement is determined by attendance, not residence criteria.

        Members who receive a ministerial or office holders’ salary are not entitled to claim the allowances based on attendance.”

        I wouldn’t say they get that much out of financially seeing as they’re not salaried, thankfully.

        They shouldn’t even get allowances in my view not when they try to vote against my rights. We never get a chance to vote against them do we but our tax pounds allow them to draw allowances and such.

  4. The resort to under handed ping-pong tactics raises the question of the legitimacy of having such a chamber in Parliament, particularly when it becomes the last ditch defence of a discredited group of reactionary individuals.

  5. I wonder if Lord Dear is amongst those who bemoaned so much time being spent on this issue, when as they say there are so many other matters for our costly parliament to be dealing with?

    1. Midnighter 23 Jun 2013, 6:29pm

      The fun part is that those against this bill have variously complained that too little time has been spent and at the same time others have claimed too much time has been spent on the issue. Meanwhile others like Dear have only acted to table childishly naive points that only serve to waste time and thus taxpayer money.

      At the very least we need an accountable system so that bumbling time wasters like Dear are given the boot, whether or not you agree with the HOL in its current form.

  6. “It’s a very contentious issue,” she said.”

    What on earth could be ‘contentious’ about the basic human right of two consenting adults to get married? Crazy!

  7. The issue isn’t contentious, it’s just that some people are bigots.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 8:09pm

    I remember before the third reading in the Commons, there was an article at PN saying that there was a planned rebellion of 175 in the Lords to deny a second reading. Yet, on 4th June, 2013, only 148 of them voted against. So a vote of 390 for the Bill was a rebellion?

    1. Christopher Coleman 23 Jun 2013, 8:35pm

      Robert: No, not the vote “for”, but those who voted against were “rebels’ and, as a pure matter of fact, there was a “rebellion” by the nay-sayers.

      1. GulliverUK 23 Jun 2013, 9:27pm

        Student fees increase vote passed in the Commons by 323 to 302, in the Lords it passed by 283 to 215, so some issues come quite close. I can’t remember which critical votes they were but there has been legislation which has passed by just 1 vote !

        Equal marriage passed 2nd reading 400 to 175 – a massive pro-equality move. I don’t care if it passes 250 to 200 in the House of Lords, as long as it becomes law, and soon.

        There are pretty much always rebels on every vote – this isn’t Russia, it’s a democracy ! When every single lawmaker votes for anti-gay laws you know there is no representation of the people in their parliament.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jun 2013, 10:01pm

        I don’t think you realised I was being facetious. As long as it passes by a rebellious ‘one’ vote, I’ll be content.

  9. PeterinSydney 23 Jun 2013, 9:58pm

    Oh Dear!! Lord Dear!! Is there a vacancy for the Old Dear in Mr Bean’s show?

  10. I am quitly confident the bill will go through. The Baronnes may be right in that many Peers who voted against the amendment could be against equal marriage. But they know the way things are going and don’t want to be seen on the wrong side. The ones who are bothering to try and scupper it are either malicious bigots or are just doing it because their malicious bigot priests told them to.

  11. I really have to say Baroness D’Souza has a pretty good grasp of the situation in the HOL. She really has made me feel she is one of the few of the many who are realist and focused on rational and reality. She seems to have a good feel for the way the “why’s and wherefore”s” are playing out in the house!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all