Inquests into some deaths could be held in secret in future after Parliament approved the controversial proposal.
It went through the Commons on Thursday after a series of concessions led to Tory peers dropping their opposition in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
Here's how Lord Tyler saw this on the Lords of the Blog...
David Davis MP, former Conservative Shadow Home Secretary and leading campaigner against attacks on civil liberties, previously described Minister’s attempts to hold inquests in secret as a “sinister threat”. Conservative MPs consistently supported moves to stop this change in the law – intended, no doubt, to protect officialdom in the case of soldiers’ deaths – in the Coroners and Justice Bill.
Last night, despite all this principled opposition, Conservative Peers were told by their Whips to abstain when the Liberal Democrats maintained their attack on this “sinister threat”. Sadly, a number of Crossbenchers who should know better followed their lead, although those most associated with civil liberties issues joined the Liberal Democrats. With only a very brave few Conservatives defying their party, the Government won by 175 to 70.
Unkind colleagues muttered that the Tory Peers had wanted to speed up the ping-pong process, putting “dinner before democracy”. I think that was unfair. It was only too obvious that they wanted to get on to the more excitable issue of sexuality. Significantly, they piled into the Chamber for that debate: I saw Peers who haven’t been present for months, and one or two that I didn’t recognise at all. A total of 314 Members voted in the Division just before 8pm, and so those already dressed up for formal dinners were able to get away in time for the soup course.
The only casualty in the rush for the door was the reputation of the House of Lords as a responsible revising chamber, using this priceless opportunity to force the Government and the Commons to think twice before undermining our civil liberties.
Quite right, Lord Tyler. This is entirely indicative of the Tories' attitude—they talk the talk but entirely, utterly and shamefully refuse to walk the walk. In other words, they are more than happy to drop their high-minded objections in return for a load of meaningless concessions.
Look, you fuckers—either it is wrong for the government to hold an inquest in secret, or it is not. No amount of concessions is going to change that—so why don't you fucking well stick to your principles?
Or is it that you simply don't have any?
Oh, wait: what was I thinking? These cunts are politicians: of course they don't have principles...