You are here: Home » Comment »

Well played Sadiq Khan – but now Labour must deliver

August 7, 2012 10:44 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

It’s fair to say that Sadiq Khan (and Ed Miliband) both played a blinder – in parliamentary tactic terms – when it comes to Lords Reform. I say that as someone who was critical of the stance they took at the time, and still slightly wishes principal had overcome tactics. Yet it’s hard to argue that seeing boundary changes abandoned isn’t a huge victory for Labour, and a big step forward in the race to return a Labour government.

I still believe that a historic opportunity to reform the upper house has been squandered, but subsequent events have proved that Labour was not the roadblock to reform in any real sense. The 91 Tory rebels have far more sway over policy than the entirety of the PLP (proof positive that being in government is a worthwhile end), and they were the reason – alongside the PM’s lack of spine – that Lords reform collapsed.

That’s not to say that Labour did all they could, because that’s not the case. They could have kept the Lords Reform patient alive for a few weeks or months longer perhaps, but when all is said and done, it was already gone. Sometimes it’s kinder to let something you care about go rather than let it linger with no chance of survival.

As a direct result of the demise of Lords reform, Labour have won the end of boundary changes, and an instant net gain of 20 seats at the next election. Considering how tight the next election could be (and my money is still on “very tight”) 20 seats is likely to be the difference between success and failure. It was Nick’s decision, but Miliband and Khan manoeuvred him into the position whilst making him think it was his idea. Remind me never to play either man at poker or chess…

So Labour’s chances of winning the next election are increased – significantly – by recent events. But should Labour win the next election, the route taken to get here should not be forgotten. Lords reform was forced to fall by the wayside in the pursuit of a Labour majority, not by our hand alone, but collateral damage of the actions of all parties. It cannot be shoved to the back of the legislative queue to wait its turn again, only for us to return in five or ten years time and find it locked away in a dusty old cupboard marked “not a priority”.

As a show of good faith to democrats and constitutional reformers who had seen their hopes of a reformed and fully elected upper house dashed time and time again, Sadiq Khan and Ed Miliband should commit to full and comprehensive Lords reform by a future Labour government. But not just as a manifesto commitment – we know how cheap manifesto ink on Lords reform is.

Instead, Labour should commit to making Lords reform a first term priority for a Labour government, and guaranteeing action on it within three years of the next election.

That way we can be sure that when Khan says “Labour remains fully committed to Lords reform” it’s backed up by more than just aspirations. It’s backed up by a public commitment to early action that the party can be held to.

Related posts:

  1. Sadiq Khan: “Nick Clegg may end up with nothing, ruthlessly exposing his naivety”
  2. Sadiq Khan proposes victims’ law
  3. Sadiq Khan invites you to join #MobMonday
  4. The case for a Lords referendum is strong
  5. Tonight – Labour MPs should hold their noses and vote with Cameron and Clegg
  • John Dore

    Labour in government can create a HOL as it wants. They played it right. 

    • Vicky Seddon

       I look forward to them making a public commitment to them doing so. 100 years is too long to wait for reform. Let a new Labour Government complete the work that Blair started when he removed the majority of the inherited peers from HoL

      • ThePurpleBooker

        But good old Tony Blair did not face an economic crisis, less money to spend and a recession. The next Labour government will face that circumstance. And the next Labour government in 2015 will have much, much, much pressing things to worry about rather than focus on something 0% of people care about.

  • JC

    Wouldn’t a democratically representative House of Commons be more important than a House of “Lords” stuffed with failed politicians, party donors and “Friends of Ed”? I think an opportunity has been wasted here. Just because the system is currently in Labour’s favour to the tune of 20 seats doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be changed. The general public (non-political version) are not impressed with a voting system which gives one party an in-built majority.

    Of course if being in government is more important than doing the right thing for the country…

    • Vseddon

       I think possibly you mean “democratically elected House of Lords”??

      • JC

        As we all know, a House of “Lords” stuffed with failed politicians, party donors and “Friends of Ed” would be the result of a ”
        democratically elected House of Lords”. It may be what the politicos want, but it’s certainly not what the people want. The turnout would be lower that for local government. Hardly democratic.

        • Vicky Seddon

           Actually, the  polls show that the people do indeed want an elected House of Lords.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            My concern is that we’d end up with a load of people who didn’t manage to get commons seats.

            This is why I really can’t get enthused about an elected second chamber and why I prefer a unicameral approach, with the expansion of committees for revision where expertise can be brought in. 

          • ThePurpleBooker

            But people do not think it is a priority. 0% of people actually believe it is a priority if you look at the same polls.

          • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

             It just depends on the wording of the question.  “Which would you prefer: a  democratically elected House of Lords, or a House of Lords appointed by the political parties?”  “Is reform of the House of Lords very important to you, quite important, not important, or not something you’re interested in?”  “Which do you think is more important, getting the economy moving again or reforming the House of Lords?”

            Pollsters can get almost any answer their paymasters want.  It’s not difficult.  Remember “Have you stopped beating your wife — yes or no?”

          • Vicky Seddon

             The Establishment has done a very good job of shaping opinion on Lords – never forget how powerful they still are – but despite this whilst many do not see it as a priority, they do still want it to happen

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Vicky, 0% percent of people think it is a priority. In other words no one. They do not give two monkeys about it especially in a time of recession, of record unemployment and of the greatest squeeze in living standards under this Tory government. We need to be a Labour Party that can have a clear and credible stance on the real issues that effect people’s lives and that resonates with people so that we can be trusted on the economy and expose this terrible Tory-Lib Dem Coalition for what it really is – the most rightwing government we have seen in years. What we do not want to do is spend time debating things which they like but does not matter at all. That is a big turn-off to politics, politicians talking about politicians.  

    • Robertcp

      The electorate voted to retain FPTP last year.

  • Bill Lockhart

    So gerrymandering a Labour victory trumps principles. It’s good to have that out in the open

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      The principles of electoral boundaries should primarily take account of population. We appear to have a view that being able to vote should be made as difficult as possible. There are plenty of databases which identify where people live – why do we actually need a special ‘electoral register’ which people have to positively assent to? 

      In America there are  all sorts of tricks used to make it hard to register, and worst of all, many states actually do not have universal suffrage as they remove the vote from people convicted of crimes. We certainly don’t want to go down that route

      • Bill Lockhart

        The current constituencies give Labour an enormous inbuilt advantage. An equal share of the national vote would give Labour 80 more seats than the Tories. This is not tolerable in a democracy.  Nor is the widespread criminal personation throught the postal voting system so widely practiced in Labour inner city wards and constituencies. The fact that unacceptable aspects of the current electoral system as it stands favour your party do not make them any less unacceptable.

        • David Costa

          Your second sentence is a grotesque libel on thousands of Labour activists in the inner cities. I suspect that like the allegations made by US Republicans in order to justify discriminatory and intimidatory identity checks at the polling station, there is also some easily read coding in the phrase “inner city”. If you have any evidence  for your allegations take it to the police – if not, stop throwing dirt around.

          • Bill Lockhart

            Where have you been for the last few years?

            “A Judge has delivered a devastating indictment
            of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six
            Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against
            corruption were “hopelessly insecure” and accused the Government of
            being in denial about the risks to democracy……
            Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham,
            found “overwhelming” evidence of fraud in last year’s city council
            elections that would “disgrace a banana republic”. The elections, where
            several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims
            of intimidation, bribery, “vote-buying’, impersonation and even the
            creation of a “vote-forging factory”.”

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councillors-guilty-of-postal-votes-fraud-that-would-shame-a-banana-republic-531213.html

            Google Derby and Tower Hamlets for much, much more.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            These have actually not been widespread, and don’t forget the evidence of Tory activity in Slough and LibDem in Hackney.

            Baroness Warsi made some allegations which turned out to be entirely erroneous.

            In any case, the aim should always be to maximise turnout and make it easy for people to vote. Government by the rich, for the rich, which is often the outcome of American actions, is not something we want to promote. After all, it is often those in greatest need who require Government most

          • Bill Lockhart

             Turnout and ease of voting are both secondary to the prevention of fraud, which is a crime against democracy itself.
            It is characteristic of the extremes of left and right not to be too fussy about democracy so long as they are winning.

          • Bill Lockhart

             Gosh, a bit touchy about known, published facts, aren’t we?

            Censorship of awkward truths. Very Left.

          • treborc

             I suspect the phantom Blairite  is  flagging up again.

      • Vicky Seddon

         Actually, we do remove the vote from some people convicted of crimes -  those receive prison sentences and are still serving them. I didn’t notice Labour standing up for their rights, despite the European Court ruling that a blanket ban was unacceptable

      • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

         Quite right: the electoral system should be based on actual eligible population, not registrations.  And constituency boundaries should take account not only of population size but also cultural, geographic, economic and historical homogeneity;  precise mathematical equality of constituencies is not just unattainable, it’s also undesirable.  Sometimes inequalities benefit one party (e.g. the Tories in 1951 and long after), sometimes the other (e.g. Labour and the LibDems now).  There’s an element of swings and roundabouts in it. 

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

       @Bill Lockhart, it isn’t Labour that’s been attempting a brazen gerrymander: it’s the Tories.  Please see my response to a comment at here.

    • Brumanuensis

      So deliberately reducing the number of seats in Parliament in a way designed to inflict maximum damage to your primary political opponent is…democratic?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Personally, I have always tended towards unicameralism. I have issues with permanent appointees to a revising house, but certainly see the wisdom of having experts there. Would Helena Kennedy or Robert Winston stood for election? Doubtful, but no-one could doubt their contribution to the upper House.

    Why not look towards having a greatly improved and influential system of select committees and specific committees looking at legislation, where we could call upon expertise from both within and outside the party system? So many MP’s with a strong knowledge of an issue end up not being able to use their knowledge because the ministerial path is seen as the only way forward. Give proper status and remuneration to chairs and vice chairs of these committees and you could cut the number of ministers because the legislation would be better

    I would also add to this a much sounder system for the recruitment of research and policy-related staff for MP’s, and a clear direction for what an MP should be expected to deal with. We have some MP’s who are excellent constituency servants, but there is a question as to whether some of this work should be the role of the MP. I would like them to spent more time actually running the country, so a larger role for the backbencher 

    Finally I want to see devolution to the regions, I support a Northern Assembly as promoted by the Hannah Mitchell Foundation.

    I think these initiatives would make the second chamber redundant

    • Vicky Seddon

       Mike, this is simply not a runner. None of the commissions and committees that have reported on reform have come up with this kind of suggestion, despite responses to the consultations that have made similar points.

      So this kind of argument simply plays into the hands of those who want no change – “Oh good, yes, we need to re-think the whole thing – that will delay it another 50 years”

      Maybe see you at Hannah Mitchel conference?

      PS How come you get your name in  red whilst the rest of us are plain black?   

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

        Vicky – maybe, but then there simply isn’t a majority for any other alternative either, so I think its still wide open.

      • Brumanuensis

        Because he’s a Communist!

        (I think it’s because his name links to his blog. I’m not sure how to do this myself, although as I haven’t got a blog, this is an academic concern).

  • BM

    An elected House of Lords has never been the answer, especially one done by PR. Much better would be a representative HoL, made up of appointees from trade unions, business, the public sector and religious/atheist organisations – a modern institution of democracy.

    • Quiet_Sceptic

      Much better from whose perspective?

      Presumably the individuals or organisations which control the right to make the appointments.  So who would you have appointing the members?

      • BM

        When I think of it, it comes up as similar to jury-duty, although obviously for much longer time. If we have ordinary people, not politicians, helping in our judiciary, surely it is logical to have them in the legislative – or, even if they can’t vote, give them a voice that career politicians can rarely speak with.

        • Quiet_Sceptic

          The selection process is key.

          Jury duty is random, but what you describe is not a random selection, you refer to representatives from ‘key’ groups.

          First off, who decides exactly what or who is a key group? Then, how do you select the representatives from that group?

          At every stage there will be those people and groups looking to exploit the process to their benefit, pushing themselves and their interests forward or benefiting from their power in making the appointments. There will be a natural tendency for those appointing the individuals to select people from their own circle, people they are aware of or share similar views.

          The danger is that rather than being a truly representative group it instead becomes a selection of ‘the great and good’, of those who already have gained enough prominence to be known by those making the choices.

          You only need to look at the appointments on lots of public bodies to see the same familiar faces who have followed the same familiar routes but are rarely representative of the population as a whole.

      • Simon

        Hear, hear.

    • Vicky Seddon

       I am tempted to quote Churchill about democracy being flawed but better than all the other methods of government.

       Appointees means that some group of the elite (or elites) chooses – no thank you.

      • BM

        So, instead we have an elected HoL which challenges the primacy of the House of Commons?

        Appointees who are representative of the ordinary people is much more attractive than politicians who owe their entire loyalty to their parties (due to PR) and none to the people of the country.

        • http://www.futureeconomics.org Diarmid Weir

          Even better, why not select members of the HoL at random, as with a jury? I submitted this proposal to the original Reform Commission in 1999. Perhaps use technology to make it ‘virtual’. It would be fully representative, but its selection procedure would make its legitimacy different from that of the Commons.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            I think there should be a jurty but that should be outside of Parliament. The House of Lords is an old and ancient institution which does a very good job even though it is in need of some modernisation as well as a form of a democratic mandate.

          • Brumanuensis

            Juries are an excellent mechanism to determine points of fact in criminal cases. I am great admirer of juries in the criminal justice system.

            But juries, rightly, are prevented from making ‘legal’ judgements, in the sense that they interpret the law – as opposed to interpreting facts. And politics is not a simple matter of determining facts, because the ‘facts’ are almost never straight-forward. So the importance of which values are referred to by the government when applying the facts, is immense. Accordingly, if the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation and have a direct say over its composition, it ought to do so from a position of democratic legitimacy, not pure chance. Otherwise the ethical and moral judgements made when interpreting and creating laws will be determined without reference to popular opinion, which would be harmful to the reputation of Parliament.

        • Vicky Seddon

           ”Appointees who are representative of the ordinary people”?  And how do they get to be such except by election?

  • ThePurpleBooker

    This article is based on a false pretence. Mark claims the leadership ditched our principles in return for being able to win the next election. Firstly, we voted for the Lords Reform Bill in Second Reading. Secondly, we committed ourselves to a REFERENDUM on House of Lords Reform. Thirdly, the House of Lords Reform Bill was an AWFUL piece of legislation, Clegg might as well as proposed bringing back all the hereditary peers and allowing the Prime Minister to be in the House of Lords – it reached that level of lunacy. I’m sorry but the idea Labour should have wholeheartedly backed something that was not in our manifesto, that we knew full well was bad legislation is just wrong and also untrue.
    Also, Mark says we should commit to ‘full and comprehensive Lords reform’. Hasn’t the last few month taught us anything? Lords Reform is not a priority and never has been and certainly not post-2015. Our priorities should be on education, health, welfare reform, housing, economic reform, public services reform, local government but most importantly THE ECONOMY (growth, jobs and the deficit). House of Lords reform is not a priority. Anyway, Mark should recognise that the Constitution is owned by the people not by the Government. Any major constitutional change has to be verified by the people in a referendum. If we are to have Lords Reform then it should be put to a vote so that the electorate can decide but it should not at all be a priority, so perhaps in 2020.

    • Alan Giles

      I think you mean a “false premise” not a “false pretence”, which I humbly suggest is tautology.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        Thank you, Alan. I typed in the wrong word.

    • ThePurpleBooker

      *false premise.

    • Vicky Seddon

      It was good that there was that large vote for Lords Reform in the Commons – 462 to 124. But everyone knew that without a programme motion, it was unlikely to go anywhere. That was the reality of the party politics of both main parties – vote for the principle but ensure it doesn’t happen.

      Yes, there were weaknesses in the proposed legislation, but it would have been possible to amend it, as with most legislation.

      You argue that we should concentrate on the economy, health, education etc, as if an elected Lords was irrelevant to these.  It is my opinion that an elected Lords would have thrown out the Health and Social Care Bill, and probably voted against going into Iraq.  Having legitimacy will change things. The current Lords is congratulated every time it challenges the Government – but those times are few and far between – and hence notable by their rarity. An elected Lords that had democratic credibility would be much more vigorous in holding the Executive to account – something the Commons is so poor at.  

      Yes to a referendum if the people demand one – one suggestion is that if 5% of voters call for one, we should have one. But the voters aren’t keen to have more money spend on a referendum when it is clear that public opinion is very largely in favour of change – and our elected representatives have  voted very largely in favour.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

        The problem is that that majority for change does not agree as to the best way forward other than the need for change!

        • Vicky Seddon

           Yes, it would take more consensus and a bit of give and take and less  political point scoring. 

          • ThePurpleBooker

            What political point scoring? Voting for a Bill that was clearly designed to preserve the Lib Dem balance of Parliament. Don’t get me wrong, I support GOOD House of Lords reform – progressive House of Lords reform. Let’s have a Second Chamber where we get rid of all the remaining hereditary peers, rid of all the ex-convicts and those who have broken the law, let’s have a compulsory retirement age of 75, let’s remove the Bishops and let them have their own organisation linked to the Constitution, remove those who have taken leave from the House of Lords, introduce a system where peers can step down, introduce term-limiting in the House of Lords, let’s have an independent Appointments Commission, let’s require at least 10% of partisan peers to be from local government, let’s ensure that the House of Lords actually takes evidence across the country, let’s also ensure that a fair proportion of partisan peers live in paritcular regions so it is regionally representative. We can have a referendum on whether 80% of the House of Lords should be indirectly-elected through the Secondary Mandate, and the remaining 20% will be People’s Peers many of whom will be elected by charities, the armed forces, the arts, sport, medicine, science, education, academia, community organisations and business. In an elected House of Lords there will be no whips, in order to free up peers and the Lords Speaker can control business of the House. Nick Clegg could have done that and would have won a majority. Instead he persisted with a silly piece of disastrous, undemocratic, ill-thought, constutional vandalism which we could agree with on principle but would produce bad reform which would be bad for our Parliament. I think Ed Miliband was way too principled on the issue, because if I were him I would have given a free vote on the Bill to allow everyone to scupper it.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        I disagree. Firstly, we voted in principle – end of story. It is a lie for anyone to suggest otherwise. Labour passed through alot of legislation without programme motion. We voted against the programme motion because it was railroading through the Bill without enough scrutiny. We voted against the motion, rightly in the principle of democracy in order to amend it. Fact. If we did not want to put principle first then we would have voted agaisnt it at Second Reading. So again, that argument is false.
        Secondly, an elected Lords is irrelevant to all of these? How on earth is it relevant, explain? How would electing our Lords cut the deficit or create jobs or introduce measures from growth? You say an elected Lords would throw out all these bad things. Wrong again. You forget that under the Lords Reform Bill, there would be party lists. That means the House of Lords would be less likely to amend and scrutinise because they will be full of ex-party staffers, ex-politicians, ex-SpADs, donors, loyalists etc – they will be people backed by the party leadership. Also, there will be less independently minded people (all that expertise) gone and these leadership backed-Senators will be adamant for promotion and will challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. Therefore, the House of Lords would be less likely to throw out bad legislation. Already the House of Lords flexes it muscles and have defeated the Government on many occassions historically. Even if you do not take in account inbuilt majorities to the Opposition, it still defeats the Government alot more than the House of Commons has. You say democratic legitimacy, but it is democratically illegitimate to have a system of non-renewable 15-year-terms which means these Senators would be unaccountable – those who make the law must be accountable to the people.Thirdly, you say the people must demand a referendum. That is logical. You would be asking the people to have a referendum on a referendum on electing the House of Lords. That is a stupid proposal. Any Constitutional change has to happen witht the people’s consent irrespective how many people support or not. As I say the Constitution is owned by the people. It is constitutional vandalism to introduce a massive constitutional change without consulting those who own the Constitution – I’m sorry. Imagine if the Government decided to demolish your house without your permission? Now if you think that a referendum is too expensive, then do not bother with the subject whilst the country is in a recession and people have priorities. Politics is the language of priorities, and the Labour party cannot be prioritising things that aren’t priorities but as well as supporting things that are dressed up with the fancy name ‘House of Lords reform’ which is all very good but contains constitutional vandalism. I am sorry but those who say that we should are calling for Labour to back absolute lunacy. I rather not.

        • Vicky Seddon

           I disagree that an elected Lords would be less likely to challenge the Government and hold it to account.  The current appointees are  exactly the  “ex-party staffers, ex-politicians, ex-SpADs, donors, loyalists etc” that you say it would be filled with. The current Lords whilst occasionally challenging some things (as I previously pointed out) in the main backs the Government. It is a myth, carefully promulgated by the Establishment, that the Lords is independent. The voting record proves otherwise. A genuinely independent Lords would be challenging the Government all the time, including on the things that you say they are irrelevant to – benefits systems;
          tendering process for public money; allowng unqualified teachers into academies;  and as I said before (maybe you missed this reference) major bills like the Health and Social Care Bill.

          Another myth is that there is a huge amount of expertise in the HoL. Yes, there is some, but not half as much as is claimed, and much of it out of date in that it  is a long time since the practitioners practised.

          A large proportion of the current Lords who turn up (there are more than 800 of them in total and rumoured to be about to be increased to around 1000)  don’t speak, don’t vote but claim their expenses. Nice work if you can get it.

          As for the principle, yes it is good to claim the moral high ground with that initial vote, but it was in the Manifesto and all the polls show that the people want it, indeed expect it. They are just bemused that the politicians cannot fix it. We will await with interest to see whether Labour will commit itself when in power to bring forward a bill, improved to deal with the issues it has questioned in the withdrawn proposal, earlier rather than later.

          Referendums are increasingly being demanded top-down, usually by opponents of proposals. Let those who want to call a referendum have the responsibility of demonstrating that it is genuinely something that the people do want to vote on. Blair didn’t call one when he abolished the majority of hereditaries. And I didn’t hear a demand then for a referendum.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            I’ll go through your comments again:
            Firstly, they will definately be full of ex-SpAds, ex-party staffers, ex-MPs and ex-candidates. Look at the experience of these Second Chambers across the world. In Australia, they have an elected second chamber who have worked for their political parties. In America, the vast majority of the Senate have had a strong political background. On a party list system, what makes you think that the political leadership will appoint independently-minded, young fresh minds. No it’s nonsense. They will be politicians who want promotion to the Government, who’ve worked in politics but failed to get into the House of Commons! That’s all there is to it. That will make the Lords less independent. And it is not a myth that the Lords does not challenge the executive because they have defeated the Government well over 100 times. Even if you remove inbuilt Tory majorities, they still defeated the Government over twice as much as the House of Commons. In fact the Lords stopped legislation on casinos for example and they made huge concessions over the Health and Social Care Bill.
            Secondly, it is not a myth that there is alot of expertise in the House of Lords. I urge to go and watch a House of Lords debate and there is alot of expertise from new people. For example, Lord Winston who has been in medicine and science for a long time and still works in that field. Or you could look at Baroness Grey-Thomson who has got alot of experience in the field of sport, and is not exactly old. Or you could look at Lord Lloyd-Webber who has alot of experience in the world of music and the arts, which he still works in now, and he brings that experience to the House of Lords. Just to name a few. Or Baroness Kennedy who is a serial rebel but has got alot of experience in law and civil liberties which she brings to the House of Lords. Or Lord Eatwell someone who has been an economist for many, many years and still is. They are just examples. They aren’t ‘old’ people whose expertise is out of date. They are people who have got great talents who they bring to our Parliament who don’t often take the party whip (if they are from a party) which we would lose if we had a directly-elected House of Lords. If you want to get rid of expertise which might be too out of date, then you can introduce term-limiting and a retirement age in order to renew and rejuvenate people with experience and expertise.
            Thirdly, I agree with you on that point and something does need to be done.
            Fourthly, you attack Labour for not giving 100% support behind the Bill. This Bill was not in our manifesto at all. What Labour very clearly promised was a referendum on House of Lords reform. We actually supported this Bill on Second Reading anyway. But it was nothing like what we promised in our Manifesto. People were not bemused, they just did not care.
            Fifthly, you mention referenda. Tony Blair did not need to have a referendum on hereditary peers because hereditary peers are not a massive constitutional issue in realityu. To elect the House of Lords is something that everyone agrees with change our Parliament and the struture of our Constitution. Now, Labour gave a referendum on devolution to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, we gave one on regional assemblies, a Mayor of London etc. This Government has to give a referendum on Scottish devolution and they even gave on City Mayors. Blair was no opponent of devolution but still gave a referendum even though it had huge public support. Why? Because the Constitution is owned by the people. Imagine if the Government did not consult you if it wanted to demolish your own house? Imagine. It is the same logic. Any Constitutional change has to be verified by the people in a referendum, like every other constitutional change has been. It is undemocratic and constitutionally wrong to suggest otherwise.  

          • Vicky Seddon

             Don’t agree with much of this:  the “experts” are a small minority.  The good eggs are vastly outnumbered by the political appointees that you say you don’t want in Lords – but they are already there.

             More are like this:
            http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/peer-of-the-week-lord-truscott

            And please don’t assume that I don’t know what HoL debates are like.  They are a good mask for an illegitimate chamber.

            The principle is that those who legislate on our behalf should be elected by us – and accountable to us.

            The current “for life” appointees and the remaining hereditary peers aren’t. Full stop.

          • Brumanuensis

            I have to protest vehemently here. You are close to traducing the British constitution, which does not operate according to the principle:

            “Why? Because the Constitution is owned by the people. Imagine if the Government did not consult you if it wanted to demolish your own house? Imagine. It is the same logic. Any Constitutional change has to be verified by the people in a referendum, like every other constitutional change has been. It is undemocratic and constitutionally wrong to suggest otherwise”.

            The British constitution is an amalgamation of statutes, common law, royal prerogatives and constitutional convention. Of these, constitutional conventions are essentially a set of ‘gentlemens’ agreements’ reliant on nothing more than common courtesy, whilst the common law is decided and promulgated by the courts. Royal prerogative is undemocratic in itself – and I favour a sharp whittling down of prerogative powers – whilst Parliament, a representative body, is held to be supreme and sovereign by virtue of ‘The Crown in Parliament’ (i.e. the monarch’s erstwhile prerogative powers now vested in the body of Parliament), NOT on account of popular legitimacy.

            You might argue – and I sympathise – that this state of affairs ought to be altered. But for the moment, Parliament can legislate on constitutional matters without needing a referendum.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            No Brumanuensis, you are completely wrong and you really need to learn about the Constitution. The Constitution is owned by the people. It is the property of the people not of Parliament. Any major change of the balance of power in Parliament must be verified byt the people. That has never not happened in our history. Fact. The Royal Prerogative is not undemocratic because it seperates the Constitution from the Executive. Every single historian and constitutional expert will say there can be NO major constitutional change without a referendum to the people. Why is that UKIP is only in favour of a referendum on the EU (and will campaign for an OUT vote in a referendum) because they know that it is a major Constitutional issue even though they want absolute withdrawal. You need to look at our Constitution, owned by the people.

          • Brumanuensis

            PurpleBooker, I’ve studied the legal foundations of the constitution in an academic context. Other constitutions may have that basis, but the UK constitution is not based on popular sovereignty. It is based on the power of the monarch, which flows down to Parliament and the courts.
            Royal Prerogative is the name for the old prerogative powers of the monarch. It is a major means by which the executive can by-pass Parliament and legislative scrutiny (along with so-called ‘Henry VIII powers’). It is deeply undemocratic.
            On referenda, were Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 or the Act of Union 1707 endorsed so?
            Could you name all these constitutional experts please?

          • ThePurpleBooker

            I have too, Brumanuensis. Any major constitutional change has to be given to the people in a referendum. There is a big difference with Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights or the Act of Union, I think that is justa  foolish argument. Back then referenda was not the norm. Ask any constitutional expert. If you argument is right then we would not have had to have a referendum on devolution though there was overwhelming public support! Come off it!

          • Brumanuensis

            Well, I think referenda are either unecessary or unhelpful. We live in a representative democracy, with a Parliament that legislates on our behalf. I will never tire of quoting Clement Atlee on this point: ‘they [referenda] are the device of demagogues and dictators’.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            There is a difference between representative democracy and big state. You cannot make a major constitutional change with consulting people – whether or not you disagree.

          • Brumanuensis

            ‘Any major constitutional change has to be given to the people in a referendum’.

            Are you saying this is a new constitutional precedent or that the constitution requires this? If it’s the former, I think you have grounds for saying it. If it’s the latter, you don’t, because the constitution traditionally holds that Parliament is sovereign, not the ‘People’.

            Why is there a big difference between House of Lords reform and the Acts of Union? Both a major constitutional changes. I would wager the latter is more important than the former, so why argue that referenda have always been part of the British constitutional set-up?

          • PeterBarnard

            “The Constitution is owned by the people …”
            Er, where does it say that?

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Ask any constitutional expert or historian. Go on. The Constitution belongs to the people.

          • Brumanuensis

            Er, Lord Bingham certainly doesn’t agree with you.

  • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

    ThePurpleBooker is absolutely right:  Clegg’s Lords Reform bill was a terrible, terminally flawed piece of work and I doubt if any number of amendments to it, however radical and even if the Coalition would have accepted them, could have made it acceptable.  The Labour position — in favour of a democratically elected second chamber and a referendum, but highly critical of a wholly unacceptable bill — was and is absolutely right.

    However I am depressed by much of the discussion in this thread of the kind of second chamber that we need.  We have become a quasi-federation as a result of half-completed devolution, and even a quasi-federation clearly needs a “states’ house” as the second chamber of its federal legislature.  We should be looking to the US and Australia, as comparable functioning democratic federations, for models and for lessons that we need to learn.  Talking about fancy ideas for a second chamber without putting them in the context of the rest of our still-evolving constitution is a recipe for irrelevance at best, disaster at worst.  (I have tried to make the point more fully at http://bit.ly/MRiYnC.)

  • Brumanuensis

    It’s a shame in a way that Clegg tried to be so ambitious. The time wasn’t right and a more modest package would have had positive effects without stymying future reform. Lord Steel’s proposals should have been introduced instead and would have represented a modest and sensible improvement that all parties could agree upon and which would have been minimally disruptive to the Parliamentary schedule.

    But instead we got, as Brian Barder rightly puts it, ‘a terrible, terminally flawed piece of work’.

    • ThePurpleBooker

      Well the Steel Bill needed to be beefed up. It did contain all the things tht could be done right away and personally I think the Bishops should be removed and that is not in the Steel Bill or reference to a referendum on an 80/20 elected House of Lords by the Secondary Mandate. Had Clegg conceded on that, he would have achieved constitutional reform but the reason why he feared a referendum so much is because he would lose it because a referendum on House of Lords reform, would become a referendum on the Lib Dems.

  • Losange

    I believe that ThePurpleBooker is flagging comments he dislikes in order to censor opinion. Several of my comments that have been critical of this person have disappeared, probably never to be seen again, while he/she continues to rant and rave ceaselessly on LabourList. I would appeal to the webmaster of this site to prevent ThePurpleBooker from being able to “disappear” comment by flagging. I would also wish to state that very few members of the Labour Party are anything like ThePurpleBooker in any way whatsoever and that interested parties should not be deceived into thinking that anything this person says represents anything other than his/her own idiosyncratic personal opinion.

    Read this while you may before ThePurpleBooker erases it with a mouse click.

    • Brumanuensis

      Now I’m no fan of ThePurpleBooker, but I don’t think flagging his comments is an appropriate response, unless he starts making personalised attacks. I don’t think the comments of his that were flagged on this thread were inappropriate.

  • ThePurpleBooker

    The experts are a small minority. They are not. We have many People’s Peers in the House of Lords, who will not stand for direct election. We have many Crossbenchers who have great experience. We have many of our own partisan peers who have expertise in all areas. Look at General Dannatt (who could be a Tory minister if he wanted), Lord Blair (former Met Commissioner), Lord Desai (economist and academic), Lord Sugar (great businessman). These people are many of the experts who we would lose if we had direct elections as you are suggesting.It is not a mask, it is a reality. House of Lords debates are calm, consensual and have got more free-thinking people. The fact is Vicky, you support the creation of an illegitimate chamber which is not democratic or accountable. You would get rid of all the expertise, all the free-thinking people, all the experience and instead replace it with a bunch of staffers, SpADs, failed PPCs, former MPs, former MEPs and party loyalists who will be selected by the party leaders from party lists, who will challenge the primacy of the House of Commons (with good reason) and who will keep on toeing the line not only because their leaders put them their but also because they want ministerial preferement. Worst still they will only have to be there for 15-years and then go, which will mean they will have no reason to be accountable to their constituents. What is even worse is that the people will not be consulted as to whether or not they want this piece of bad legislation, with a very expensive new Senate (the conservative estimate of the cost is £2bn over the course of 4 years), threatening our House of Commonseven though it is the prerogative to be consulted on it seen as it is a major constutitonal change. I am sorry but this makes a mockery out of all House of Lords reformers, who actually believe that the staus quo is not the best and I am one of them. It’s nonsense. And I am not going to bother looking at the Unlock Democracy link because it is the same people who ditched their support for Proportional Representation and instead backed that silly, unproportional, miserable little compromise called AV!

Latest

  • Featured We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    By Simon Danczuk

    Who can forget Gordon Brown’s meeting with Gillian Duffy? Nothing has come close in recent years to symbolising the disconnect between the Westminster bubble and the working class. As someone who had to endure every painful minute of Duffygate it’s a lesson I’ll never forget. Mrs Duffy’s memorable intervention on the campaign trail means it’s now widely accepted in our party that calling someone racist simply for raising concerns about immigration putting pressure on public services or pushing down wages [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    By Matthew Zarb-Cousin

    Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies. The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    By Douglas Alexander

    Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →