In a speech to the Demos think tank today, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will use some particularly robust language about seeing through House of Lords reform:
There is a typical Westminster village cynicism that Lords reform is never going to happen because it has not happened in 100 years. I have no doubt that the opponents in the House of Lords will use every wily trick in the trade to circumvent what is a perfectly normal and long overdue change to a legislature that is not transparent and not democratically accountable to the people…
There should be no doubt about our determination. It was in the coalition agreement to do this. The prime minister has been very clear. George Osborne has been clear and the PM himself has said the will of the Commons will prevail.
As The Guardian goes on to report:
He said the government would use the Parliament Act to force the bill through the Lords if peers, as expected, reject all reform, but said: “I hope it does not need to come to that. I hope with a bit of good will, we can get some cross-party momentum on this.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
9 Comments
Perhaps Clegg would be so kind as to make the EU more democratically accountable by giving the British people a referendum on whether to actually be a part of it.
Attacking the Lords for being non-transparent and undemocratic while wishing Cameron had signed away the British veto so that the EU could determine more of our laws than it already does is low, the lowest of the low.
Charles – apart from being wonderfully off topic you post is somewhat incoherent. The EU – whether you think we should be a part of it or not – is just factually more democratic than the Lords, it is elected, it even uses a PR electoral system (and whatever the disadvantages of PR it is more democratic than FPTP and certainly more democratic than the Lords). Whether or not to be a part of the EU is an issue that involves complex issues in economics, national sovereignty etc but to claim it’s an issue of democracy is farcical – go away.
I believe that Lords reform is long overdue.
But given where we are in the polls, I can’t help wondering if our political capital within the coalition would be better burned up in the pursuit of initiatives of much more import to the average person than an issue that excites no-one outside of politics.
Try as I might, I simply cannot get excited or muster up much enthusiasm for this at all. In fact, in the past decade or so, I’ve noted the Lords has often worked better than the Commons in putting bills under a microscope. The Lords were very good in halting many of Labour’s more authoritarian ideas and recently I’ve noted the Lords have been doing the best they can to water down the very unpopular NHS and welfare reform bills. The Lords are nowhere near as tribal or party-political as the Commons and the Lords also often seem less beholden to sensationalism or passing laws to make the tabloids happy. I used to be fully in favour of a fully-elected 2nd house, but I don’t know any more. When we have many MPs saying they sometimes don’t even know what they’re voting for and just do what the whips say, then I wonder if it is the Commons that needs the reform.
And surely the time to reform the Lords is when we actually have spare money to spend…? How many billions will we, in government, spend on this reform when that money could (IMO) be better spent saving lives in the NHS, educating children or helping the disabled who feel under siege by the Coalition? I’m just not sure now is the right time to do this when so many people are hurting up and down the nation.
Think about it: we go knocking on doors and proudly say “We’ve kept our promise to reform the Lords!” which is all well and good, but what if the person at that door is someone who had to wait longer for an operation, is unemployed, or lost their child’s disability benefits? I think saying we’ve spent money on the Lords while so many people are in dire straits would be a bit of a slap in the face.
@Scott
The topic is essentially Nick Clegg and his views on the constitution and democracy. The four issues facing Britain with respect to these areas are devolution and independence in Scotland, better representation in the Commons, reform of the Lords, and the UK’s position in the EU.
Nick Clegg has recently expressed views on both the EU and the Lords, what’s interesting is that while he wants British voters to have more say in the Lords (which as he rightly points out the Commons can overrule) he is quite upset when the Prime Minister rejects moves by the EU that could see our Parliament having less say over our laws, especially since it’s the case that we’ve found the Commons can’t overrule European institutions.
While the EU may have a parliament, only a minority of it’s members are elected by the British Electorate, which means that it’s essentially as accountable to the British electorate as the Lords. Meanwhile the European Commission which is responsible for proposing legislation is appointed.
Democracy is rule by the people, but British people are not ruling themselves any longer. If the British people were to vote to become part of a European Democracy then this issue would be resolved, because the British people would have used self-determination to replace rule by the British people for rule by the European people.
I am appalled that only a minority of the Commons are elected by Yorkshire and Lancashire. How undemocratic can you get? 🙂
As for the main topic, I have voted for a 100% elected House of Lords whenever I have had the chance and will continue to do so.
However, I do think that pushing Lords reform forward in the next session is tactically inept, and that it will put the whole government timetable at risk. There is not a cat in hell’s chance that the Lords will vote in favour of an elected House. The question is – will the Commons? How many Tories will rebel and will Labour support the government? Who believes that Cameron wil not buckle again before his rampant right-wing backbenchers?
The Bill on the voting system and constituency boundaries came close to destroying the relationships within the Lords on which the House depends to deal with its business. A Lords Reform Bill could complete that process which could result in three further years of chaos.
As for using the Parliament Act, I don’t believe that Cameron will risk a huge row with his backbenches on this matter in a way that will be hugely controversial (it’s the question of one House over-riding the other House on the matter of the effective abolition of that second House).
I do not look forward to the next three years.
Tony Greaves
@Charles
I accept the four areas you note, but I have to note the dissonance between stating “electoral reform has been killed off for a generation” because AV was rejected and reform of the House of Lords “is never going to happen because it has not happened in 100 years.”
The likelihood of movement on the 4 areas is severely hindered if the party in favour claims they are linked and then uses separate analysis to support the specific proposals for each – reform becomes far too easy to pick apart.
I support reform, and I think the public will support reforms too – but only those which increase the coherence of state institutions. At the current rate ‘fudge’ is the closest we’re getting to coherence and that’s why nothing positive’s happening.
Clegg needs to rediscover his ‘liberal thread’ and show how he stitches things together: he is in danger of reforming his own narrative – and himself – out of existence.
Wise words as ever from Tony Greaves! My priority for reform is proportional voting for local elections in England as a first step towards achieving it at Westminster. We won’t make any progress until we start to campaign for it.
Simon:
Indeed we should be concerned, but I think there’s hope if the second house is distinctly different, as is planned – e.g., proportionally representative (so a minority Government can’t force things through, which was much of the problem with Labour’s authoritarianism), longer terms, and can only stand for one or two terms (so they aren’t swayed by popular opinion as much).
There is also a good side-benefit – an elected house will have far greater claim to say it has a mandate from the people, than the current unelected Lords. Currently the Government can claim it is doing what the people want (even if it isn’t true, it’s hard to argue when the Lords are unelected) and the Parliament Act means they can force things through anyway. I’d argue that trying to do this with an elected House of Lords will be far more unpopular with people…
I’d also say that whilst the Lords have a lot of good people willing to speak out and debate, at the end of the day, there are still loads of party clones who vote how the whips tell them (e.g., the “extreme porn” law saw lots of good criticism from various Lords, but when it came to a vote, they were outnumbered by loads of Labour clones). I’d hope that an elected House of Lords still results in the kind of people to speak against the Commons.
In particular, a non-party PR system might make it easier for some independents to be elected, something that is very hard under FPTP?
“How many billions will we, in government, spend on this reform”
I would be surprised if the money would come anywhere near to that. What expenses are we talking about here?
@Charles: All three main parties had some form of elected House of Lords as a Manifesto pledge. Stop trying to make it All About Nick Clegg.