The Mother of Parliaments, they say. A model of democratic government unique in that it has been sculpted over time from tradition, and not through the auspices of a democratically enacted constitution. That the model has been followed throughout the world, the end product of over 800 years of evolution and carefully honed by tradition, has reinforced its supremacy. From the time of the civil war to the Glorious Revolution, the powers of the Commons have been won by sword, consent or stealth. Seemingly, our MPs are still willing to engage in rhetorical battle to retain the status quo, as witnessed by the high drama seen on the parliamentary estate. Despite the rebellion the case for democratic reform remains as strong as it ever was. An issue that the Liberal Democrats, and Labour, have been waiting the best part of a century to implement will not fade because of the actions of 91 Conservatives.
All three main parties should place to one side their parochial, cold calculations and focus on the opportunity to reform the second chamber. The political games that have been undertaken are a diversion from what should be a rare act of consensual politics, given that all three parties are pledged to reform the Lords. There were almost no issues on which the political parties were of the same mind at the last election. But Lords reform was one of them, the central thread being that it makes a mockery of a mature democracy to have one half of our legislature populated by political appointees, bishops and a sorry rump of hereditary peers. All parties made concrete manifesto commitments to give Britain a revising chamber fit for the 21st century. That consensus was not enough for some of our more illustrious MPs, who could not even agree the length of time to debate the subject.
The biggest opponents to Lords reform are not the Lords themselves but those down the corridor in the Commons. It has been their eternal resistance and division that have repeatedly smothered previous attempts. The House of Lords must be given the opportunity to debate its own demise; nothing would send a stronger message then a united Commons. But all we get is attempts to frustrate progress by obfuscation by those who hold Byzantine political views.
I support an 80 per cent elected, 20 per cent appointed system, advocated as a matter of principle rather than tactics. It is the system most likely to produce an effective second chamber, while avoiding some of the many pitfalls that would come with a wholly elected house. The new Lords must be neither a rival nor a replica. The Lords as already constituted does have major strengths, and it is important to preserve these as and when reform unfolds.
It is easy to see Lords reform as a cause which matters deeply only to liberals and anoraks. But what is at stake is whether the Commons are capable of rising above low and party self-interest to act on an issue that has long blighted our democracy. If Lords reform were easy, it would have been done long ago. It is harder now than ever. But if this generation of politicians are ever going to find a way through this morass, then the determination to do something about it must be renewed. If they fail, the issue will drift for a generation. And the status quo is risible.
We began our era in office with a fusillade of reforms that changed the British political landscape forever. A new parliament in Scotland, an assembly in Wales, self-rule in Northern Ireland and a mayoralty in London – it amounted to a quiet revolution that will endure as legacy. Lords reform now must be Labour’s most permanent legacy.
—————————————————————————————
David Talbot is a political consultant, tweets @_davetalbot and writes the weekly The Week Ahead column on Progress
—————————————————————————————
To my mind the centrepiece of our democracy must and will always be the House of Commons.
David is absolutely right, and I believe there is a consensus here, that the abhorrence of hereditary peers should be removed I do have grave reservations that an elected second chamber would challenge the primacy of the Commons.
Certainly the suggestion of single 15 year term elected peers based on a list system does nothing to enhance democracy. If fact it could be strongly argued that such a system would create a chamber more reliant on patronage than the current system.
Most importantly I believe that the current Lords do an excellent job in providing detailed and expert scrutiny and extremely persuasive counsel to the Commons. In it’s current proposal there is a real danger these strengths could be diluted. There is no doubt such an outcome would be regressive in the extreme.
Yes David we should all be calling for reform where it is needed but let’s start where there is a genuine consensus and not rush headlong into accepting the flawed proposals that this government is proposing for the sake of change.
I’m sorry but this is the problem. You can believe in House of Lords reform but not back the Bill – and there are many people in all sides who share that opinion. The Lords is an important institution which can do with alot of reform but a system with 15-year non-renewable terms, PR list system and regional constituencies WILL challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and mean that these senators can wield more power without being accountable. That is not good reform in fact it still promotes patronage, it is undemocratic and it is against the Constitution. And the Government refuse to put a major constitutional change to the people. Labour should not have any hand in that type of reform. We should expel ex-convicts and existing convicts as well as those who have broken the House of Lords rules (like Baroness Warsi), we should remove the Bishops and give them their own Council, remove the remaining hereditary peers, introduce a retirement age, allow peers to voluntarily resign their membership of the Lords, cut the size to 450, abolishing whipping in the House of Lords, create an indepedent Appointments panel, require parties to select people from the police, armed forces, civil society, community leaders, science, education, the arts and local government, create term limiting of membership set at 20 years and then we put a referendum on whether the Lords should be indirectly elected through the Secondary Mandate at 80/20 and then gradually throughout the years 100%. That is a far better way of reforming our Lords than this botched Bill because it preserves the Constitution, allows the Lords to be more independently minded, modernises the Lords, puts local government into our Parliament, enhances its challenge to the Executive whilst protecting the primacy of the House of Commons. That is something Labour should support, not the botched Lib Dem tit-for-tat Bill. Anyway, our legacy should not necessarily be Lords reform – it’s not a priority. It should be dealing with the economy, being radical in government, cracking down on crime, resurrecting our NHS, helping families through tough times – that’s should be our legacy post-2015. No one apart from political obsessives actually care about Lords reform, especially not right now.