David Cameron finds himself in a pretty bad place this week, between desperate Lib Dems and disgruntled Tory backbenchers. Today, the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform reports. A bill on Lords reform should be a central plank of the Queen’s Speech coming up on 9 May. Having lost out on delivering any sort of electoral reform, the Lib Dems need to deliver in the one area which has defined them over the years and which Nick Clegg has taken personal responsibility for in government. However, a robust rearguard action is clearly being fought by Tory backbenchers. Andrew Rosindell MP tells us that he could never vote for something which would see Baroness Thatcher removed from parliament. Nadine Dorries MP ramps it up further by blogging that David Cameron will not be leading the Conservative party into the next election if he pushes on with these plans. Arguably neither of these are mainstream Tory MPs, but the rot goes further. Last week’s 1922 committee of Tory MPs was as leaky as a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting! We learned that only one Tory backbencher actually supported the plans for reform.
The tribalism in me relishes this serious problem for the coalition. We could stand back and watch it going wrong, but we mustn’t. We need to prove that we have the plans to govern, not just the ability to oppose. There are many – including in our own party – arguing for no progress on this. I think they are wrong. Let’s look at the arguments being used against reform.
‘It works well at the moment’ is one argument. There are certainly many dedicated and talented peers who contribute an enormous amount to public life in the House of Lords, but do we really think we couldn’t have a more legitimate, more effective second chamber. I didn’t get involved in politics because I was inspired by the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach to policy.
‘It’s not a public priority at this difficult time’. Many of those using this argument didn’t think it was a priority in easier times either! Furthermore, while reform of the House of Lords may not be top of people’s list, the voting public do have a right to expect politicians to be able to multitask. Priorities matter, but so does a comprehensive plan for putting things right. And the House of Lords does need to be put right. I often talk to young people about how parliament works. I feel pretty feeble explaining that the House of Lords developed first to safeguard the interests of the aristocracy and that now it is largely what Andrew Adonis vividly described as a House of Cronies, because we can’t quite agree how to make it better, more democratic and more legitimate.
‘Reform will make the second chamber more assertive’. Some argue as if this is self-evidently a bad thing. I agree that it will and I don’t think it is a bad thing. As a minister, I was immensely frustrated by the defeats and concessions that I had to make as legislation went through parliament, but if I’m honest I’m more surprised at how little I had to consider in advance the views of parliamentarians or to engage in a serious way with them.
In our system the executive remains powerful and the House of Commons will continue to determine who forms that government, but there is plenty of room for a more assertive parliament overall.
We must be arguing for change – even as we enjoy the discomfiture of Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary and writes the Monday Politics column for Progress
What an idiotic argument. No one on planet Earth gives a toss about Lords reform, but they do care about getting rid of this government. Your priorities are bizarre, Jacqui.
I love the bit about proving we can govern not just oppose. Why on Earth would helping David Cameron prove we were fit to govern? It would prove that we are a bunch of mugs to miss an opportunity to rub his nose in it.
If anyone is setting up an anti campaign, count me in!!!
The reforms seem very odd.
15 years is far too long to be appointed or elected to anything.
300 members seems far too many; if the USA has a second chamber with 100 members, why shouldn’t we? This would also cut the salary cost (apparently £170m plus).
And what is the logic of 80% elected? Surely it should be 100% – or abolish the House altogether!
A referendum shouldn’t just be yes or no, but give some alternatives on numbers, period of election, %age elected.
social cleansing in Newham ? oh well, the 500 families would fit nicely into the new scheme at Wornington Green ,Kensington and Chelsea because the new estate will be double the size,from 500 to 1000 ‘units’. So,
C’MON DOWN ! What ? oh ,I see ………………….
Many labour people want the status quo as it serves the patronage the party gives out and many people are inherently conservative on constitutional reform. There should be no more piecemeal reform of the constitution until there is a national UK wide constitutional convention to look at everything. There’s been too much reform(mainly thru Labour) that has had no overarching rationale – we are clearly moving towards a federal system (referendum vote in Scotland aside), so let’s think the consequences thru. For example, surely the Lords should be an upper house representing the regions and nations of the UK? What about England? What about local government in England – there are numerous different models?
” Sean Mulryan’s Ballymore (and more) looks set to secure permission for its second major London scheme in as many weeks.Newham council has recommended for approval the developers Minoco Wharf project.Plans for the 41 acre site in the Royal Docks enterprise zone in east London include 3 ,400 homes and………….” (Estates Gazette Feb.’12 )
“…at these prices,even allowing for a big discount- not many single people or for that matter ,married couples
with only one bread winner in the family will qualify for Sean Mulryan’s new apartments on the high amenity land in the Liffey valley.Perhaps all the better for Sean ! None of the thousands of homes built by Sean Mulryan in the massive Pelletstown Development near Cabra are allocated to the city council for affordable housing ! However if he gets to build in a high amenity area like the Liffey valley well anything is possible and Sean can put another billion in the bank.Ask the thousands of people who have been on the Dublin waiting lists how they feel about yet another scam concocted by Aherns developer cronies.” (Irish Independent 2006) and now of course with Ireland belly up SM needs to dig out of uber debt on the back of London – well how generous do you think he feels ? !
Does this have any relevance to the article on Parliament at all? Little wonder people pay little attention however worthy or otherwise the sentiments expressed.