From all the debate and angst within the Tory party over the issue of House of Lords reform you’d imagine the plan to inject an element of democracy into the UK parliament had been foisted on David Cameron by sneakily obsessive Liberal Democrats.
Yet the reality is somewhat different. The Coalition Government’s pledge to overhaul the revising chamber (after Labour’s successive, botched failures) built on Tory promises to the electorate over a decade or more — recognising perhaps that such reform is in fact in their own interests.
Here’s what the Tory manifesto said as far back as 2001:
In changing the way Parliament works our overriding objective will be to strengthen the ability of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. We will strengthen the independence of the House of Lords as an effective revising chamber by requiring new members to be approved by an independent appointments commission. We will set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament in order to seek consensus on lasting reform in the House of Lords. We would like to see a stronger House of Lords in the future, including a substantial elected element.
By 2005, this Tory pledge of Lords reform had become firmer still:
proper reform of the House of Lords has been repeatedly promised but never delivered. … We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords.
This reforming pledge was repeated in 2010:
We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current house of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence.
With such a track record of commitment to Lords reform small wonder that the 2010 Coalition Agreement made an almost identical pledge to the Tory manifesto:
We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.
So the question really to Tory MPs about Lords reform is this: why have you stopped supporting your own party’s manifesto commitment?
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
DarwIN Shrewsbury Festival, February 2025
Well, that's one way to report an opinion poll - The Week in Polls
Pruning the money tree
Milnbank Road of old #dundeewestend
Mark Valladares
Margaret
John Walller
Peter Davies
David Allen
12 Comments
Given this, and the supposed commitment to Lords reform from Labour, I don’t understand this argument that reform must dominate Parliament’s time; if everyone agrees, can’t we just pretty much wave it through? Unless of course (a) the Tories don’t believe in democracy and (b) Labour puts petty partisan point-scoring ahead of modernising our political system. Ah, I think I may have answered my own question.
I would think the tories have given up on early lords reform due to they need govt more stable after mid term results. Any further major overhauls now would only destabilise govt? Can’t think of any other plausible reason.
I think this is why there needs to be acceptance of a referendum on the issue. Every quote above talks about consensus, there has been a cross party committee that has recommended a referendum therefore if that is the proposal then Tories voting against would be going against their manifesto.
If the proposal differs from the recommendation then they will simply, and sadly with justification, be able to state they wanted a cross party consensus, supported the result of that, but cannot support the Government as they have ignored a central plank of it’s recommendations…
i don’t think the tories ever supported this in their hearts, if indeed they ever knew it was in their manifestos. most grassroots ones think it’s a liberal elite concern foisted upon them by modernisers. i suspect that they think the same about the equal pay act, same sex marriage and other such ‘dangerous’ measures…
What London Liberal said.
It’s hardly surprising the Tories are backtracking on Lords Reform. It’s shocking Labour are doing the same.
In fairness not all the Tories have stopped supporting Lords Reform. I support Lords reform and I’m a Tory. The reality is though that perhaps 20% of the Tory Party have never supported it, and only never complained about the manifesto because they’ve probably never read it.
The problem is though that 20%, with Labour and the opposition of almost all current (even many Lib Dem) Lords is more than enough to make it impossible to pass any reform in the next few years. And that is enough to make it almost impossible to use the parliament act to to force it through. Even if the leadership can maintain the strength of will to keep trying to ram it through the Commons multiple times.
I’m sorry to have to say it. I genuinely want to see Lords Reform passed. But absolute pragmatism needs to be called for.
I suggest a two stage process. Pass an act reforming the current un-elected structure (provision to remove peers, limit numbers, and reform the appointment process) while also preparing a democratic reform plan to be put to the electorate at the next general election, and then to be hopefully passed in a bill and confirmed at a referendum in the next parliament.
By stretching the process out into 2-3 stages, you make it harder for the reactionary forces to oppose each step. You also make each step simpler and easier to pass, and if the latter stages break down or prove impossible you’ve banked at least some change for the better.
Insist on going for it all at once and you risk wasting serious amount of time and ending up with nothing.
We *are* doing it in stages. There was the Parliament Act more than a hundred years ago, and now this. There’s already been *more* than enough time to get used to the idea…
Perhaps what some MPs are hesitant about is the fact that Lords Reform was a part of all three major parties’ manifestos, while being virtually ignored in the lead-up to the election. The vast majority of the public probably did not know that they were voting for it, and even if they did would have felt they had no choice if their vote was to count for anything. Without there being any differentiation between the parties on the issue of Lords Reform, there was no way for it to have any leverage on the result of the election.
I agree with Stephen W, that the reform should not try to do everything in one jump, but this is also because I believe that a move towards a majority elected Lords is a dangerous mistake. Fixing the major flaws within the current appointed system first would ensure that a decision against elected lords was not taken as a decision in favour of the status quo. I believe that there is a good case for de-politicising the selection process and providing a means for Lords to be removed if they no longer contribute when necessary (perhaps through renewable terms). However, I believe that having the Lords elected simply increases the influence of the Parties (through campaign organisation and funding; they’ll pick whoever gives them the best return in loyalty for their support) and disadvantages genuine experts relative to experienced politicians.
Oh for heaven’s sake!.. 100 yrs and still finding excuses to delay it. Opinion polls, for all their slanted innaccuracies, have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of the population want reform of the Lords, so just get on with it! and the pathetic talk of a referendum goes with asking for a report to be written or calling for an enquiry, just another delaying tactic. A referendum just hands it over to the media to distort the whole question, and gives an open door to opponents to manufacture a myriad of lies, as they did for the AV referendum(where equally some 75% of voters had said they wanted change)
Lords Reform, the Zeno’s Paradox of legislation – “let’s meet them halfway” means forever never quite getting to that troublesome business of elections, doesn’t it.
Patronage is poison in our politics, people get positions and power because of who they know not how good they are. The Lords is the most glaring example that. A reward for time-serving MPs and chums of the PM or people he wants to stick in the Cabinet for no good reason. There are Bishops who get a free seat and bleat about wisdom and then for 96% of the time don’t even turn up! It costs a hundred and fifty million pounds a year for people with no democratic legitimacy and makes a mockery of our legislature.
And we’ve only been at this a hundred years!
For heaven’s sake, just make ’em stand for election like any normal body of representatives!
“Oh for heaven’s sake!.. 100 yrs and still finding excuses to delay it. ”
I entirely agree with the sentiment but the attitude is worse than useless. After 100 years there is still no majority of support for the proposals in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and little interest in the country as a whole. I want to see Lords reform, but wishing does not make it so. Neither Cameron nor Clegg can just make it happen even if they really want to if there are just not the votes to do so.
The measures will only get comfortably through the Commons, let alone the Lords, with labour’s support. Good luck getting that, but it just may not be possible. And it will have to be done multiple times if the parliament act is to be used.
Without that a referendum may be the only way of getting the support to pass it, like with AV. The answer is simple, don’t run as bad a campaign as the AV yes campaign. Democracy vs patronage should be a sufficiently simple and powerful platform to make winning such a referendum easy. Especially since most people are already in favour.