Let Labour clear the way

By Jessica Asato / @jessica_asato

“The House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people”; so said an Act in 1649 which abolished the upper house under Cromwell. If only the house of nobility, elite and special privilege had remained that way, but when the monarchy returned, so did the Lords, and they have been interfering in Britain’s democracy ever since.

It was the Lords who opposed the Reform Bill in 1831; Lloyd George’s People’s Budget in 1909, which precipitated the Parliament Act; and the passage of numerous bills since, including that which equalised the age of consent and the Hunting Bill in 2003. In the Labour manifesto in 1910, the House of Lords was called “an irresponsible body which represents nothing but its own class interests.” In 1945, Labour said we would “not tolerate obstruction of the people’s will by the House of Lords.” In 1997, we said that the abolition of the hereditary peers was a “first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.” Which self-respecting Labour student didn’t have a poster of ‘Labour clears the way’ with its fabulous image of working men smashing the door of the House of Lords to bits?

There’s a reason why Labour has always opposed the House of Lords and it comes down to a simple formula that unelected elites should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the people. It doesn’t matter that the inbuilt Conservative majority in the Lords was diminished with the appointment of decent lefty scientists, trade unionists, art establishment-ists, and industrialists under the Blair years. Even if the place was stuffed with Joanna Lumley’s and Rowan Williams’s, Labour people shouldn’t care a jot, because it’s the unelected bit that’s the problem.

Since time immemorial, socialists have been fighting anti-democratic measures which stop the people from exerting their power over decisions which affect them. At the moment the Lords are a hotchpotch of 92 hereditaries, bishops, other good sorts and ex-MPs who needed their seat liberated for a thrusting young thing favoured by the leadership. But we shouldn’t care how nice/intellectual/well-rounded members of the House of Lords are, only whether they have democratic accountability and a popular mandate. There’s a reason why we don’t like Plato’s philosopher kings and it’s because they can’t be chucked out no matter how despotic they become.

That’s why it doesn’t matter how many Lords oppose their own removal – of course they do – though it’s sad to see so many Labour peers voting to keep their status when a good number of them were previously elected under manifestos which said otherwise. Reform of the House of Lords was a continued, if thwarted, ambition of Labour’s three terms and the 2010 manifesto was rather specific about the need for an elected House of Lords. I realise that manifestos turn to mush after a general election loss (look at AV for example), but I hadn’t clocked that you could junk the whole history of a political party.

It’s hard to bear it, but Labour needs to get behind Clegg’s reforms, even if that means using the Parliament Act. There’s nothing worse than a party in opposition playing politics with an important democratic issue such as this. It may feel good at the time, but the public will see it for what it is. Let constitutional lawyers battle out the constitutionality bit, while Labour tries to lead and win the public argument. In other words, let Labour clear the way.