“Delivering this is going to be very difficult” – Tory peer Strathclyde’s verdict on Lords reform

Let’s start with the good news — Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the Lords is a self-styled “long-term supporter” of reform of the Upper House. Now for the bad news — he’s pessimistic that the Coalition will actualy deliver elected senators by 2015, the deadline set by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.

Here’s what m’Lord Strathclyde (who inherited a seat from his grandfather at the age of 25) has to say in an interview in today’s Financial Times:

“To me the dream scenario would be . . . getting [a parliamentary bill] in place by the end of the next session and then going forward to the elections in 2015. Now, I’m not such a Panglossian optimist to believe that that is in fact what’s going to happen. It’s much more complicated than that: there are some very serious constitutional issues that need to be taken into account, and that’s the point of parliamentary debate. Parliament may say no. We may be overwhelmed with other legislation, who knows.”

Lord Strathclyde’s latest intervention will earn him few friends among the Lib Dems. As the FT notes, it ‘will cement suspicions in the Clegg camp about the strength of his commitment to the deputy prime minister’s agenda. Relations between the two sides are tense, with Lib Dems privately expressing irritation this week that the peer appeared on the BBC’s Politics Show to discuss reform without informing his coalition colleagues.’

Unfortunately, it’s not just the dominant establishment/conservative forces in the Tory and Labour ranks with which Nick Clegg has to contend: a recent Times poll suggested even Lib Dem peers were split between those in favour of Lords reform — a cause which has been proudly espoused in party manifestos for decades — and those who are agin it. As Stuart Bonar commented on this site at the time:

To say I am disappointed by these numbers is an understatement. Whilst a keen supporter of minority rights, I will say that as far as I am concerned the 46% of Lib Dem peers who oppose even a “mainly” elected upper chamber shame our party. The clue is in the name; we are the Liberal Democrats.

The Voice’s Mark Pack — who examined the Coalition’s Lords proposals when they were announced last month, and concluded “Overall these plans are good” — has launched an activists’ group, ‘Liberal Democrats for Lords Reform’, to keep up the pressure for the party to make the most of its time in government and drive forward a policy which will have a real, lasting legacy.

It is gathering signatures on its Facebook page — www.facebook.com/LordsReform — and will be submitting a motion to the party’s autumn conference. So don’t simply get angry at those Tory/Labour/Lib Dem/Crossbencher lords and baronesses standing in the way of progress, get even by campaigning for the UK to embrace democracy at last!

Read more by or more about , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.


  • Don Lawrence 18th Jun '11 - 9:19pm

    At last, a clear message from the Conservatives that they are not going to give us HoL reform on a plate. Did you really ever believe that they would? We gave up a pledge, slower deficit reduction, etc etc. They gave us a doomed referendum. When will Mark Pack see the futility of all this?

  • Roger Roberts 18th Jun '11 - 11:06pm

    Question was asked -what plans has Govt to celebrate centenary of 1911 Parliament Act. No plans at all ! And clearly Strathclyde who answered had nothing good to say about 1911 ! Little hope of any conviction in his leadership of Lords Reform legislation.

  • “Delivering this” evidently isn’t going to happen.

  • Paul McKeown 19th Jun '11 - 1:01am

    If necessary, Nick Clegg could simply call Labour’s bluff and propose 100% elected. Personally, I don’t think an immediate 100% is ideal, as I believe that the constitutional questions are bested solved by a process of evolution over a prolonged period and a good case can be made for the proposed 80% in that light, but if a revolutionary change is the only way forward, then fine, go for it. Not that Labour is to be trusted on the matter, but if the proposals were to look doomed, then you can always expose the lie. I suspect that it might well be possible to convince Labour’s MPs to back 100% and a sufficient minority of Conservative MPs. Who cares what their Lordships think, in that case? Just batter it through with the Parliament Act, or create a thousand new Peers to swamp the reactionaries. Clegg needs to manoeuvre. He could do well to talk with Miliband privately on this issue, via back channels if necessary.

  • @Paul McKeown
    “Just batter it through with the Parliament Act”
    Not possible without the Government (rather than just the Lib Dem part) envoking it. If the Tory poll figures look good enough Cameron will be forced to the country before this happens. I think a lot of Tories will look at this as a chance for revenge over the NHS plans……

  • “Delivering this is going to be very difficult” – Of course it is nothing worthwhile is ever easy and there is a reason Lords reform has taken over 100 years so far. However that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth fighting for. What we need to do is try and make sure we have a commons majority and Cameron on side to use the Parliament Act as the Lords will never vote for this as Turkey do not vote for Christmas.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Katharine Pindar
    Thanks to all for developing an interesting debate here. I think we do have the means to end deep poverty and raise living standards in this country, if resourc...
    Just wanted to know if the ALDC is on line...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Nonconformistradical, The extent of nationalisation is always a matter of some debate among both socialists and no-socialists. Katharine does support the c...
  • Simon R
    @Peter Martin The problem with claiming that £33K each is enough is that you can't distribute it equally. Capitalism requires significant income inequality bec...
  • Nonconformistradical
    @Peter Martin "You say you aren’t socialist but it sounds very socialist to me!" Socialism implies state ownership of the means of production and distribu...