During the week The Guardian ran an exchange between Liberal Democrats Lord Steel and Tyler – the former Liberal Party leader urging the Lib Dems to drop the party’s long-standing policy (and the Liberal Party’s before that) to introduce elections for the Lords, and Tyler responding.
Here’s a sample:
Steel: I am old enough to recall the defeat of Lords reform proposals through getting bogged down in the Commons in a war of attrition led by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, and I fear the same may happen to these. There is no public clamour for the changes…
Tyler: Westminster is such an Alice in Wonderland place that many parliamentarians are asking why reform of the House of Lords is necessary at all. They are so absorbed by self-serving assumptions that they forget a simple principle: legislators should be elected by the people whose lives they affect.
You can read the full piece here.
David Steel, alas, is not the only Liberal Democrat peer who has come out against elections for the Lords. So too has John Lee – and hence the two emails I’m encouraging people to send.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Political spending: the gap even better donation rules wouldn't cover
"Change the locks on the Penny Lane Community Centre," urges local councillor Richard Kemp
The Joy of Six 1576
What can £72 million buy nowadays?
The National Health Service (UK)
Memories of 9-11
Adam
John Payne
Brian austen
Jonathan Brown
John B Grout
5 Comments
Slightly misleading, Mark. Lord Steel (at least in the article you link to) appears to be arguing for a more considered approach to the process of reform, rather than an abandonment of the policy. Indeed, he explicitly says he favours a wholly elected House.
Despite a century of widespread agreement that an unelected House of Lords is a crazy anomaly in our democracy, Lord Steel rightly points out that there is not a principled consensus on the function of an elected second chamber, on pay, and on how to mitigate the loss of specialist expertise currently provided by members who are non-politicians.
Most importantly (and pragmatically), in the quote you provide above and as evidenced by the reception of the proposals, Lord Steel notes the lack of demand for the proposals. Let us learn from the AV fiasco, and build consensus.
LonWon: My comments about Steel’s views were also based on the cross-party anti-Lords reform letter he signed that was published the day of Clegg’s announcement.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying, Mark. Not so good, then.
“Indeed, he explicitly says he favours a wholly elected House.”
I think he only means he prefers 100% elected to 80% elected. At least that’s the only way I can make sense of his various statements.
David Steel has frequently said that he favours the status quo.