It was widely reported, in those few places it was reported at all, that David Freud's antics last Wednesday were stopped when crossbench and opposition peers realised what he was doing. Unfortunately, that would not have stopped Freud, who it appears is on the cusp of giving up all but the thinnest pretense of decency and respect for Parliament.
What stopped Freud? He went ahead and told us, perhaps one of those famous Freudian slips: 'procedural muddle'.
Freud had jeopodised his plan before he even got the chance to act on it, earlier in the evening when the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill was just beginning. One news outlet said that Freud's behaviour where he moved an amendment to reverse an earlier passed amendment and then opposed another amendment which was a crucial procedural amendment to one of those earlier 'Hat-tricks', was allowed because Freud had earlier stated that the government would insist every single opposition amendment would need to pass a division in the house, and by stating so he had made his intentions clear from the start and Freud even argued when his behaviour was challenged that he had made the government's view and his intent clear from the start. Where did Freud go wrong?
He also said that the government accepts that those amendments were 'consequential' to each other, meaning once the house had agreed on the principle amendment, way must be given on the technical amendments that insure the will of the house is consistently applied to different parts of the bill. You can not say that you accept amendments are consequential to each other and also insist they must all individually pass a division.
That was Freud's 'procedural muddle'; he was outright admitting rather than his behaviour being explained by confusion, his plan was stopped by him being confused much earlier because he accepted the amendments were consequential to our Hat-trick ones without knowing what that means.
He will not make that error again this week.