Will Labour kill Lords reform?

The party is tempted to give Clegg another bloody nose.

If, as seems likely, as many as 100 Conservative MPs rebel over House of Lords reform, the bill's fate will depend on Labour. For Ed Miliband, this creates a political dilemma. Should he exploit an opportunity to maximise coalition tensions or should he fulfil Labour's previous commitment to an elected upper chamber? The answer, it appears, is that he will do both.

Today's Guardian reports that Labour will reject any timetable for the bill, potentially allowing MPs to talk it into the ground. However, it will do so on the basis that the proposed bill would not create a 100 per cent elected chamber (20 per cent of members, including Church of England bishops, would be appointed) and that it would not be put to a referendum. This, Labour will say, is another "miserable little compromise" from Nick Clegg.

Both David Cameron and Clegg have insisted that a referendum is not required since all three of the main parties endorsed Lords reform in their manifestos. But Labour can point to the fact that its manifesto also included a commitment to a referendum. Until recently, the British electorate had little experience of referenda. The AV referendum was only the second to be held on a national level (the first was the vote on EU membership in 1975). But that vote - and those on directly-elected mayors - have set a precedent. Once the possibility of a referendum is raised, it is hard to argue that the people should be denied a say.

The Lib Dems, however, will say that this is merely another example of Labour's constitutional conservatism (as previously demonstrated during the AV referendum). If the choice is between an 80 per cent elected house and a fully appointed one, then it would be shameful for Labour to side with the status quo. The priority is to establish the principle of election. A fully-elected chamber is a fight for another day.

Were Labour to sabotage reform all the same, then, as Rafael wrote recently, "an important symbolic threshold" will have been crossed. For the first time, on a matter of substance, Miliband's party will have sided with the Conservatives against the Lib Dems. But for Labour, which is increasingly confident of winning a majority at the next election, there may now be little incentive to woo Clegg's party.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk towards the State Opening of Parliament on 9 May, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Nicola Sturgeon. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

For the first time in decades, there is genuine dissent in Scottish Nationalist ranks

The First Minister is facing pressure to talk less about independence - and bring on new talent in her party.

She so recently seemed all-powerful, licensed to reign for as long as she chose, with the authority to pursue the return of our national sovereignty. We would then have the ability to strike our own deals on our own terms, a smaller, smarter, leaner nation freed from the stifling constraints of partnership with a much larger neighbour. There was, she repeatedly told us, nothing to be afraid of.

Now, suddenly, she is the victim of her own miscalculation: having misread the public mood, having raced too far ahead of moderate opinion, she finds herself at bay. The voters have delivered a public humiliation, while an opposition party until recently lampooned as unelectable is on the march. There is, suddenly, talk of her departure sooner rather than later.

Yes, this is a tough time to be Nicola Sturgeon…

Let’s not overstate it. The position of Scotland’s First Minister is considerably more secure than that of the UK’s Prime Minister. Theresa May wants out as soon as is feasible; Sturgeon, one suspects, will have to be dragged from Bute House. Sturgeon retains enough respect among the public and support among her colleagues to plough on for now. Nevertheless, things are not what they were before the general election and are unlikely ever to return to that happy state.

It’s all because of Scexit, of course. Sturgeon’s unseemly sprint for the indy finishing line left enough Scottish voters feeling… what? Mistreated, taken for granted, rushed, patronised, bullied… so much so that they effectively used June 8 to deliver a second No vote. With the idea of another referendum hanging around like a bad headache, the electorate decided to stage an intervention. In just two years, Sturgeon lost 40 per cent of her Westminster seats and displaced half a million votes. One could almost argue that, by comparison, Theresa May did relatively well.

For the first time in decades, there is genuine dissent in Nationalist ranks. Tommy Sheppard, a former Labour Party official who is now an influential left-wing SNP MP, published an article immediately after the general election calling on the First Minister to ‘park’ a second referendum until the Brexit negotiations are complete. There are others who believe the party should rediscover its talent for the long game: accept the public mood is unlikely to change much before the 2021 devolved elections, at which point, even if the Nats remain the single largest party, Holyrood might find itself with a unionist majority; concentrate on improving the public services, show what might be done with all the powers of an independent nation, and wait patiently until the numbers change.

There are others – not many, but some – who would go further. They believe that Sturgeon should take responsibility for the election result, and should be looking to hand over to a new generation before 2021. The old guard has had its shot and its time: a party with veterans such as Sturgeon, John Swinney and Mike Russell in the key jobs looks too much like it did 20 years ago. Even the new Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, has been on the scene for donkey’s. There are more who believe that the iron grip the First Minister and her husband, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, have on the party is unhealthy – that Murrell should carry the can for the loss of 21 MPs, and that he certainly would have done so if he weren’t married to the boss.

The most likely outcome, given what we know about the First Minister’s nature, is that she will choose something like the Sheppard route: talk less about independence for the next 18 months, see what the Brexit deal looks like, keep an eye on the polls and if they seem favourable go for a referendum in autumn 2019. The question is, can a wearied and increasingly cynical public be won round by then? Will people be willing to pile risk upon risk?

As the hot takes about Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise election performance continue to flood in, there has been a lot of attention given to the role played by young Britons. The issues of intergenerational unfairness, prolonged austerity and hard Brexit, coupled with Corbyn’s optimistic campaigning style, saw a sharp rise in turnout among that demographic. Here, Scotland has been ahead of the curve. In the 2014 referendum, the Yes campaign and its can-do spirit of positivity inspired huge enthusiasm among younger Scots. Indeed, only a large and slightly panicked defensive response from over-65s saved the union.

That brush with calamity seems to have been close enough for many people: many of the seats taken from the Nats by the Scottish Tories at the general election were rural, well-to-do and relatively elderly. The modern electorate is a fickle thing, but it remains rational. The Corbynites, amid their plans for total world domination and their ongoing festival of revenge, might bear that in mind.

Chris Deerin is the New Statesman's contributing editor (Scotland). 

0800 7318496