The Labour party has supported House of Lords reform since Keir Hardie. A legislature based on the hereditary principle and patronage should be an affront to all democrats. I remember as a Foreign Office minister encouraging democratic reforms on Middle East autocrats only to be met with the riposte: ‘well the upper House of your Parliament isn’t democratic.’
The last Labour government had a strong record on Lords reform. We achieved more in 13 years than previous governments, including Labour ones, had in more than 100 years before. Ninety per cent of the hereditary peers were expelled. We introduced people’s peers and a supreme court. The main reason we didn’t complete Lords reform was Tory resistance. Robin Cook’s proposal for an 80 per cent elected chamber was defeated by just four votes in a free vote in the Commons in 2003. Our reforming drive faltered somewhat after that, but the issue did not go off the agenda. By the end of the Labour government we’d achieved something remarkable and unprecedented – all-party consensus for Lords reform. Support for an elected Lords became a central part of Cameron’s drive to modernise his party and detoxify its brand. All three main parties fought the last election with manifesto commitments for an elected Lords for the first time.
We can now see how skin-deep the Tory party’s ‘modernisation’ really was. Mutinous Conservative MPs issue dire threats to destroy the coalition and replace Cameron as their leader if he persists with this policy on which they were all elected.
I’m all for maximising the coalition’s discomfort. But if people think the way to do that is by making common cause with Tory head-bangers over Lords reform, we’d be committing a grave error. Labour’s policy – pro-reform with a referendum – is a perfectly respectable one – born of compromise in our manifesto-drafting process between our own reformers and sceptics. The recommendations published today of the joint committee chaired by the excellent Labour peer Kay Andrews are perfectly reasonable and the vast majority of the PLP ought to be able to united behind them. They have the added benefit of supporting Labour’s referendum idea. Once the bill is published, Labour’s priority should be to give it the smoothest possible passage to the Lords and let the Tories and Lib Dems fight among themselves there. To do otherwise would play straight into the government’s hands. If we were to seek to block or scupper Lords reform we would give Cameron just the excuse he needs to abandon it and escape the nightmare he faces in terms of party and coalition management. Clegg would be able to rage at Labour ‘opportunism’ and blame us for the failure of an historic reform we claim to have always supported. We would also alienate that relatively small but disproportionately influential group of progressive voters and commentators for whom democratic and constitutional reforms matter and risk driving them back into the arms of the Liberal Democrats. We’ll get the tactics and politics of Lords reform right by being true to Labour’s long-standing progressive principles.
—————————————————————————————
Ben Bradshaw is MP for Exeter and former secretary of state for culture, media and sport
—————————————————————————————
You cannot blame the Tories for the defeat of Cook’s plans for Lords reform in 2003 – clearly there was a major faction in the Labour Party who opposed the reform as well. The best stance would be to advocate a referendum on this major constitutional proposal, along with the standard “abolish hereditary peers” etc. I would not be at all surprised to see a Lib Dem motion in the commons foiled by the same cross-party factions as in 2003.
Extremely well argued, Ben. All three main parties when to the country committed to a predominately elected upper chamber. I would much prefer wholly elected; but if 80% is what is on offer; then having lost our amendment; let us be there loudly and clearly supporting democracy over patronage. If we are to be credible, we need to avoid opportunist gestures such as supporting a referendum on this, just to embarass the Government who are on a sticky wicket with their real backwoodsmen (and women),
No, we should stick to our radical tradition and say that it is should be a 100% elected or it will not recieve our backing. We should be saying that the Lib Dems argued for a 100% elected second chamber and that an 80% elected house is nothing more than a miserable little compromise which the Tories will scupper. If we challenge the Lib Dems to vote for a 100% elected House with us (and we could say that we can put forward a referendum in the House of Lords, which can recieve support from those who don’t want an elected chamber but can make a democratic case for it). We should challenge Clegg to prove that he is not a whipping boy for Cameron and Osborne, and to prove us wrong. We can show that we are grown-up and that we will work with them against their Tory partners, and they have got a final chance to prove they are progressive. I suspect that due to Tory opposition they will not back it at all.
Great. Ben Bradshaw wants to reform the house of Lords so that he can look the Arabs in the eye.
Don’t you get it, Ben, David Cameron is getting roasted and we should be enjoying that. Lords reform doesn’t matter. Inequality does, the collapsing Euro does, legal aid does, I could continue.
I sort of want to agree with you Dan and I completely sympathise with what you are saying. However, Lords reform is not a priority to our core vote but it is still a part of the Labour tradition – constitutional reform. What we should be doing is for people like Ben Bradshaw and Sadiq Khan to stretch out an arm of support to the Lib Dems so long as they as they back our proposals for a 100% elected second chamber. We could argue that the current proposals are not good enough but we would argue for a referendum but say that peers can amend it. If the Liberal Democrats do not work with us and vote for a 100% elected second chamber, not their “miserable little compromise” with the Tories (which the Tories now want to scupper). We can say how our 100% elected House of Lords proposals will get a majority if all the Lib Dems vote with us, and we will call for a referendum in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats will be whipped by the Tories not to support the motion, some will rebel – since some of them agree that the draft bill is “crap”. Then we will be able to argue that the Liberal Democrats have followed the Tories and scuppered House of Lords reform.