The death of Lords reform is an indictment of Westminster
Lords reform passed with a majority of 338, yet it will never see the light of day.
By Richard Morris Published 07 August 2012 11:23
If the dramatic political events of yesterday tell us anything, it’s probably that we were barking up the wrong tree on Lords reform. We were thinking too small. We should have been chasing Westminster reform.
To everyone sitting in the Westminster bubble, I say this. In last month's Commons vote, Lords reform passed with a majority of 338, with support from all three of the main parties, yet it will not see the light of the day. What does that say to the wider public about how well, or rather badly, "the system" works? We can blame "game playing" by Labour (a charge we in the Lib Dems have now opened ourselves up to – we were all for equal constituencies not so long ago…) or weak leadership from a Prime Minster incapable of getting his backbenchers to support legislation fashioned (let’s not forget) by a non-partisan, cross-party group of Parliamentarians. But actually none of this, nor the subsequent game of he-said-she-said, does our politics any credit.
No, the electorate just sees a dysfunctional system that cannot deliver a reform promised for 100 years and writ large in everyone’s manifestos. Is it any wonder, then, that the public turns its back on political parties, who have seen their membership fall so dramatically, as a result? Is it a surprise that we get excited about a 65% turnout at a general election when, until as recently as 1992, turnouts of 75 or even 80% were the norm? Or that the most popular Conservative politician in the country isn’t even a member of Parliament?
Sure, most people in the country don’t have Lords reform at the top of their list of priorities right now. But that only makes the failure to achieve it even more bizarre – this isn’t some high profile vote loser or winner, yet our elected representatives have conspired and connived to make delivering it impossible in an orgy of game playing, petty politics and self-interest. A lot is being written about who the winners and losers from the affair are. But outside the bubble, the words piss up and brewery are the ones that first spring to mind.
Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















4 comments
Yes reform of both Houses is long overdue but the promise will remain unfulfilled.
The utterly worthless self perpetuating and wholly self serving political elite will oppose it at every level.
As long as we allow these scum power over us, expect no change.
They are there for one reason - power and that brings influence and with influence, wealth.
There needs to be major consitutional reform in Britain. The UK needs to move towards a more federalised model, with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English regions all having their own, powerful, law making parliaments. This in turn will require reform of the House of Parliament, since it would need a lot fewer MPs (probably to the extent that here would have to be electoral reform), and it would also require reform of the House of Lords to reflect the needs of a federalised Britain.
I think the problem was trying to push one particular proposal through the Commons in 10 days.
If you're making major constitutional changes, they have to be well thought out and have the consent of a majority of the house, not just those who happen to be in power at a particular time.
For example, I thought a 15-year term was too long but might have supported a 10-year term.
Whilst I agree the Lords fiasco is an indictment on Westminster I think it for slightly different reasons. The Tories have put the boot in for exactly the same reasons as the Lib Dems wanted it.
Creating an elected second chamber in Westminster would change the parliamentary game fundamentally. With the extra legitimacy senators would have as well as them being elected by PR the disproportionate level of power the executive has would be checked significantly and the Lib Dems would have a better foothold in the system theoritically.
The Tories didn't want to reduce their possibility of pushing through an extreme program on around 40% of the vote. There was the other issue that the bill didn't sound that well thought out. That's never stopped the Tories before though.
It's part of the price of doing business with that party. Whilst I believe Clegg knew what he was doing I do think a number of Lib Dems have been extraordinarily naive about the Tories.
Eventually the Lib Dems will have to realise they've put a Tory in all but name in as leader. Until they sort that out they'll continue suffer