We got battered last year. So it would only be natural if we were to be a little wary of plunging headlong into another referendum for changing our political system so soon after the public rejected our proposal for AV for the Commons by such a wide margin.
There are now rumblings from Conservative MPs and also the Labour leadership that any change to the Lords should be subject to a referendum. Nick Clegg has strongly argued that this is not necessary as all three main parties were committed to reform in their manifestos and it is also in the coalition agreement.
I’m with Nick on this one. I do not think a referendum is needed. However I am also a political realist. And if enough Tory MPs and the Labour party are determined to force a referendum on the issue then we may have no choice but to allow one to go ahead.
If that were to happen though I think there are plenty of grounds for thinking that it need not go the same way as AV did.
I am sure a putative No campaign is already forming and war-gaming their strategy. I can’t predict everything they will try and throw at us (Soldiers without bullet proof vests? Sick babies?) but straight away I can see that one of the main planks of the Yes campaign will be that reform is democratic and those arguing for the status quo are trying to keep an unelected and unaccountable chamber in place. That goes completely against all the democratic reforms of the past 15 years (Scotland, Wales, NI, London and other local devolution). The No campaign will be on the back foot trying to defend this.
Another thing that will come in handy is that there are still 92 hereditary peers in the Lords. This is utterly indefensible. Politicians of all sides regularly talk about how birth should not be destiny. The idea that someone can legislate in our parliament because of who their parents and grandparents were is completely anachronistic. I expect the No side will concede that the hereditaries should go but that the Yes campaign wants “the wrong sort of reform”. But they have had 15 years to get rid of them and still they cling on. A No vote would surely give the hereditaries a reprieve as reform went back to the drawing board yet again.
I’m sure cost will rear its head. The No2AV campaign lied about the cost of a change to AV (David Blunkett, one of the main supporters of the No campaign admitted as much at the time) and there is no reason to suppose the No campaign this time will be any different. But what price democracy? The devolved institutions all cost money to run and the Lords is not exactly free at the moment with around 800 members all with generous allowances and subsidised food, drink etc. I don’t think this argument will gain very much ground if countered properly. Also, the arguments about the costs of the referendum itself will be the other way round this time as Clegg has already pointed out it will be for those against reform to justify why the cost of a referendum is needed given the mandate is already there.
Like many from the Yes2AV side I still bear the scars of last year’s bruising campaign. But it needn’t be like last year this time. We have a strong argument to make. We are in favour of democracy and our opponents are essentially trying to prevent that.
We have a good chance of winning and should not fear the opportunity to make our case to the British people.
Oh, and one last thing. For every picture of Nick Clegg the No campaign uses we can use ten of Jeffrey Archer.
* Mark Thompson blogs here
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Conference moves on to Harrogate
Getting things done - Victoria Park #dundeewestend
Welsh Labour's half empty echo chamber
Lib Dems gain seat from Labour in Bromsgrove with a 27% swing
Mid Suffolk Town and Parish Councillors meet
Return to the Stiperstones Inn
Geoff Reid
Nigel Jones
David Garlick
Marco
Simon R
19 Comments
I can understand the arguments used here Mark, but I don’t share you optimism for success. As this policy is spearheaded by Clegg, I can easily see how the voters will use it to punish him / us again.
The vast majority of Tories will be against it, and I expect Labour, whilst technically in favour, will find plenty of excuses to unofficially oppose it also (as they did with AV).
Also – has our party learnt the lessons on the “Yes2AV” campaign? Sure that campaign must go down in history as one of the most badly organised and run national campaigns in British history – what assurances have we that a “Yes2LordsReform” (or whatever) will be run by people who are at least vaguely competent?
As someone who is broadly supportive of the proposed Lords reform (but totally against AV), I have to agree with Daniel Hannan that reform of the Lords is exactly the kind of political event that needs a referendum:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100152565/without-a-referendum-on-the-house-of-lords-we-risk-a-politicians-stitch-up/
While i favour the coalition proposal, and I am perfectly willing to accept that the coalition has leapt to the end stage of deliberations on lords reform; how you select the people whose roles, power and qualifications remain as yet undetermined…………. but, it does appear that the legislation has given a great deal of thought on how to hobble the inevitable challenge.
All the announced characteristics of the reform work to minimise any democratic mandate which a reformed Lords might use to legitimise its temerity:
1. Single 15 year terms (not accountable)
2. 20% appointed (less democratic)
3. 300 members (less granular representation)
4. No direct constituency link (less certain mandate)
5. By having a rolling introduction of one third newly elected every
parliament, combined with the fifteen year terms, there will continue
thereafter to be only one third elected at each and every parliamentary
term. Therefore there will never be a case where the lords can claim a
national mandate from the people.
This, of course, is not to say that such a challenge isn’t inevitable
regardless, nor too is it to suggest that they would be effective in their role as a revising chamber, but the threat to the supremacy of the Commons should be eminently manageable.
My gut feeling is that these proposal will go ahead in 2014, if only because it will give the coalition five years to stuff the lords with new appointments leaving them with a declining advantage in the lords for the next fifteen years until the last tranche of the appointees are replaced by the third lords election in 2025, a benefit that labour can never receive even if they win in 2015 as the system of elections will already be in place.
I voted against AV because I like FPTP in the Commons, but i am willing to support PR in the Lords to avoid congruent bicameralism. However, it is for our political class to persuade the electorate in a referendum as why why this reform is ‘necessary’.
If the public don’t agree then tough!
As long as there is an option on the ballot paper to scrap the whole thing
Excellent. Agree with every word. And now I’ve said as much here http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/case-referendum-lords-reform
I can’t see the need for a referendum on this when other issues haven’t warranted one (the NHS bill springs to mind). On top of this I would expect the No campaign to use some fairly underhand tactics that you have not (and possibly cannot) anticipate. Why ask the British populace about this issue when they frankly don’t care? And on such an issue it is all the easier to manipulate opinion to the lowest common denominator, factors which favour the unscrupulous and vested interests.
A more relevant question to ask us why we are considering at all the retention of unelected religious representatives. Without addressing this the lords is better to remain as it is.
The issue here is not just democracy. It is not difficult to imagine that reform will make the Lords democratic but less effective. It could be that the standard of its members is lower because they are not allowed outside paid interests. It could become more party political with fewer cross benchers. It could be filled with people who just get onto their party’s list (which makes it arguable whether it’s even democratic).
The only message from the LibDems seems to be that the Lords must be made “democratic” at all costs. Unless there is a genuine desire to make it work at least as well, if not better, the proposals are unlikely to get wide support.
@Julian… You portray the Lib Dem position as wanting a “democratic” Lords at all costs. Err, yes, and…?
Perhaps we could make a deal with the Tories. A referendm in 2014 so long as we get further compromises e.g. a fully elected chamber, proper STV rather than this “above the bar” nonsense and a proper reduction to just 300 peers?
One of our most respected Prime Ministers had this to say:
“Referendums are the devices of demagogues and dictators.”
I doubt that Ed Miliband is either a demagogue or a dictator, he is far too ineffectual, for that. He is, however, calling for a referendum simply as a device to cause embarrassment to the coalition government. He knows that the Liberal Democrats believe strongly in a rational, modern constitution, and knows that many Conservatives are wedded to romantic notions of the Lords as the last bastion of Conservatism. Ed Miliband couldn’t give tuppence for Lords reform, as far as he is concerned it is, “heads I win, tails you lose”. If a referendum were to call for reform of the Lords, he would claim it as his victory in his referendum. If he were to lose, the brothers in ermine would happily remain supping on their gravy train, and the Laser Panda would blame it all on Nick Clegg.
Miliband is playing a silly game, no one should fall for this nonsense.
Whatever the public mood is now, after nine months of poisoning by the Daily Tory Prat & co., Nick Clegg would once more be the Spawn of Be’elzebub, and the Lords would be last hope to save the nation from Clegg’s Black Mass. Anyone who thinks a referendum is a good idea is a sucker: referendums are never held to decide the issue on the ballot paper, but are rather a desperate device to gull the public into choosing something they would normally not wish for. Indeed, the device of demagogues and dictators.
Simple solution to get Tory and Labour conservatives to back it. Throw in the border review with it (which is bound to benefit the Tories) and make it a simple yes or no (rather than a multi-option referendum) so we can use the same ‘once in a generation’ argument to get Labour on board (who bemoan the Tory leanings of the Lords).
Not only would it be effective, it would be fair as a) the border review has as much reason to go to referendum as AV did (it’ll benefit these parties over those, it’s controversial, it’ll change British politics) and is about as popular; and b) the stuffed us by refusing a multi-option voting reform referendum.
Dirty Tory tricks can’t fool us twice.
@jedibeeftrix
Ahem. Everyone of the items you have listed exist precisely in order to improve democratic accountability in an elected lords – not to hobble it.
I suggest you read my rather old blogpost on this as I don’t really feel like repeating myself:
http://thepotterblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/lords-reforms-explained.html
“Anyone who thinks a referendum is a good idea is a sucker: referendums are never held to decide the issue on the ballot paper, but are rather a desperate device to gull the public into choosing something they would normally not wish for. Indeed, the device of demagogues and dictators.”
Coming from a supporter of a party which promised a referendum on the EU constitution, and then as a diversionary tactic called for a referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, and then made a referendum on electoral reform a non-negotiable condition of entering a coalition, that seems a remarkably strange point of view!
I wish someone could explain why it was appropriate to have a referendum on changing the voting system for the House of Commons, but why it is not appropriate to have one on introducing a voting system for the House of Lords.
@ Alan – “I can’t see the need for a referendum on this when other issues haven’t warranted one (the NHS bill springs to mind)”
Ahem. I am not sure the NHS can be considered a constitutional issue, or meet any of the criteria A V Dicey specified.
@ Geroge – “Everyone of the items you have listed exist precisely in order to improve democratic accountability in an elected lords – not to hobble it.”
Ahem. Good an sensible measures all George, but they do nothing to enhance democratic legitimacy, quite the opposite.
The problem is most people find constitutional issues too abstract and boring. As a result, referendums on them tend to end up as referendums on something else, as the AV referendum ended up being treated by many as a referendum on Nick Clegg. In this way, constitutional issues are the worst thing to have referendums on.
To my mind, the replacement of the committee system of local government by a leader system (a choice of systems was offered, but a fake choice – they were all variations of the leader system) was a HUGE constitutional issue, in terms of its impact on people’s lives perhaps bigger than Lords reform. Moving from power shared by a representative assembly to power held by one person is a big thing, its equivalent on a national level is what Mussolini pushed through in Italy in 1922. Yet it went through, pushed by the Blair government, not just without a referendum but with almost no media comment. Now see the result, there are referendums on May 3rd about which leader system people want with the question put in a very misleading way. “How do you want your council run – by an elected Mayor or by a Leader chosen by councillors?” they ask.
If I had a vote in such a referendum I would scribble on my ballot paper “I WANT MY COUNCIL TO BE RUN BY A COUNCIL”. Asking people to choose between two variations of the same thing and then saying “Look, they endorsed it” is a typical trick of the opponent of democracy. It is shameful. Why have I heard no-one else pointing this out?
Can we vote to abolish them completely?
Polly Toynbee gives good reasons why we should.
@ Paul Mc Keown- Labour have always promised a referendum on the matter.
How refreshing, politicians who intend to stick to their promises.
I am against referenda on principle & we should fight hard to get the idea dropped. However we may end up with no choice. The important thing is to make sure that the ERS arent influential, they just have no idea how politics works. Lets make sure we get people who know how to campaign in charge.
“The important thing is to make sure that the ERS arent influential, they just have no idea how politics works.”
Judging by the ERS’s criticisms of the proposed electoral system, I can’t see them in the vanguard of a ‘Yes’ campaign.
There is nothing democratic about a 15 year term. Like AV it is snivelling and miserable compromise. I hope the tactics of our Lib Dem leaders are to push for a Lords reform that is so dumb that it can’t win Tory support, and use this as a pretext to block the boundary review which will cripple us.