There will be consequences for those Conservatives who voted against the Bill but that is a matter for David Cameron. Our (Liberal Democrat) response will be taken in the light of what happens further down the line.
But Labour – Labour should be ashamed of themselves. Labour believe in Lords reform (so they said). They have always believed in Lords reform (so they said). Last week they had the opportunity to make it happen. They could even have said that without them (given the size of the Tory rebellion) it would not have happened. They could have crowed about saving it. But no. They put their party interest way ahead of their principles. Real colours there on display. Next time Labour talk about being progressive………………
Anyway – on the side of the angels see this site for comment.
Lynne Featherstone 
Come off it Lynne – you chose to go into Government with the Tories – its no use blaming Labour if you can’t get one of your policies through the coalition that is ‘Governing in the national interest’
I wish the party were as vocal about the horrendous new immigration changes as they are about Lord’s Reform!
The blow to families on the income restrictions, and to women and children with the new five year probationary rule will no doubt, reverse all the work you have tried to do for so called “equality”. Shameful.
Pingback: Cameron's coalition healthcheck » Spectator Blogs
So now Nick says the Tories have “broken the coalition contract” on this.
The normal course of action in these circumstances is the end of the relationship but that doesn’t apply in coalition world where you are desperately clinging onto power. So you are going to play hard ball on the size of the Commons and constituencies. I wonder if you will do better sticking to that than say tuition fees?
It is indeed a new kind of politics. Infinitely worse. Go now, it’s in the national interest.
The idea of preserving the ‘rotten boroughs’ as revenge for not supporting this particular change to the Lords does seem greatly disappointing. The coalition agreement apparently pledged to develop a consensus on the appropriate reform – the very opposite of trying procedural tricks to ram something through.
Details seem thin on the ground, but the proposed “reform” didn’t seem like much of an improvement to me: keeping English bishops in the Lords like some sort of theocracy, keeping unelected members – why? (For that matter, where are the details? Googling turns up pages and pages of LibDems complaining about not getting whatever the proposal was, not a word of justification or explanation of it.) Personally? Make it *wholly* elected, put the reform to a referendum so it actually has the public’s approval for once – and get actual support, instead of trying to ram it through with back room deals for an eleven line whipping boy or whatever.