In the last month, many Labour party members have felt mounting frustration at the government’s second stab at reforming the House of Lords. In the four years since the original reform package, expectations have been rising, only to be met with confusion and general disgruntlement once again. There are many reasons for the opposition that has greeted this white paper from the left, but the core issue is the same as ever: keeping a significant percentage of peers appointed as opposed to elected.
With the recent controversy over the role of political patronage in regards to the loans for honours investigation, and an electorate seemingly disengaged from the political process, the white paper could have been an opportunity for the government to be at its radical, boldest best. Instead, it has chartered the more familiar territory of tinkering at the edges, without dealing with the more fundamental questions of what the upper chamber is for, and what role it should have in the 21st century.
After 10 years in power, the government has made positive steps – removing virtually all hereditary peers from the chamber was one of the more symbolic. Yet a series of vacillations and half-measures on the future of the Lords has led to a raft of accusations that the Labour party is not yet entirely serious about the need for constitutional reform.
It is true that many of the public do not count the make-up of the upper chamber as a burning issue, and presumably this has played a part in relaxing government attitudes. However, what Labour must realise is that people’s lack of trust in politics is in part due to their suspicion of the political system, and recent controversies focusing on the Lords have not helped this. Patronage plays heavy on people’s minds, and – whatever the reality may be – many fear that large donations to a political party reward individuals in a way that is not fair and certainly not democratic.
Politicians are aware of this disenchantment, and in response have started to talk openly about the need for a change of style in government – one which is more collegiate, listens as much as imposes, and shows itself to be fresh and new. This sort of talk should be welcomed as a means of heading off growing perceptions of central political decision-making as opaque and clique-driven.
In tandem with this, there is much debate and discussion about the demand for a democratisation that hands power to people rather than politicians. Both the prime minister and chancellor have expressed their support for a system whereby power is devolved from central government down to people and communities.
The direction of travel on these core constitutional issues is the correct one, and the time is now right for a reassessment of where control and power lie within the political system. However, as with Lords reform, the worry is that, while Labour has got the rhetoric right, it has yet to put any viable flesh on the bones on such proposals.
The current situation around Lords reform is a salutary lesson for a party which needs to renew itself in office. For a long time, those in government spoke with passion about a new constitutional settlement, about the need for reform of the Lords, as well as other areas such as voting reform. This vision galvanised some of the 1997 coalition that brought Labour into power, as well as raising expectations across the party – this has ultimately led to a deeper disappointment around the government’s inability to come up with any workable proposals in these areas.
The worry for Labour now is that it will repeat those mistakes. Policy must be developed in as much detail as the rhetoric – the government cannot allow itself to talk a good talk and yet fail to make the tough decisions that are needed to prove that what it says is then what it does. The gulf that has opened up between the promises and the reality of constitutional reform is too wide, so when discussing handing power to the people, Labour must be prepared to do exactly that.
Moreover, the government would be foolish to think that the Tories would not leap on the chance to accuse it of being all spin and no substance. Labour cannot allow them to take this issue away, particularly as David Cameron could use it effectively to claim to the electorate that he has moved even further from the traditional Tories. Instead, Labour needs to develop the detail of these ideas, explaining to people what it means by handing over power, and ultimately developing the mechanisms where it will actually be possible in practise, as well as theory.
Labour can still achieve some important, and symbolic, constitutional reforms – it just has to remind itself every now and then, that is really is best when at its boldest.