We had the second evidence-taking session of the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill this evening. We had planned a relatively long session, but it did not quite go as intended. We came to a premature end. I have just done a post on Lords of the Blog to explain why: not enough MPs stayed in order to maintain a quorum.
A premature end
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Bookmark the permalink.
Lord Norton,
Perhaps it is time to reform the House — of Commons…
I’m ready, comrade. Please bring USS Ronald Reagan.
Lady Tizzy,
It would be nice if invading the UK were only beyond my reach for a few good reasons. Sadly, it is beyond my reach for many reasons good, bad and mediocre…
The (HoC) Speaker frequently upbraids MPs who refer to their brethren by given names rather than constituency affiliation, yet addresses MPs by their given names – mostly. What, when (and why) is the official form of address in both Houses?
Apologies for yet another o/t.
I am quite cross with the Pensions Bill (currently with the HoC), and the recent defeats in the HoL for amendments that affect women of a certain age. Costs are the reason why all working women are set to lose up to six years of state pension (£30K removed from her pension ‘pot’) with little warning because successive gvts have dodged the issue for at least 40 years. Of course, the younger the woman, the better her chances of doing something about it, the older the woman…
Deferred state pensions attract 10.4% pa (1% every 5 weeks), way more than the average savings rate, thanks to the last gvt. Am I the only one to see the appalling unfairness and a way to stagger the lead-in time for all women over 45, or 50 if necessary?