Could Tory rebels be unleashed on Clegg's Lords reform?

Unglamorous changes to the upper chamber could end up as a chew toy for frustrated Tory backbenchers

Of the many things a government might want to make a priority at a time of economic crisis and international instability, reforming the House of Lords is an eccentric choice.

Most of the public, it is safe to say, is uninterested in how the upper chamber works. Within the minority that understands the Lords, a still smaller number is so affronted by the lack of electoral accountability there as to want immediate constitutional redress. There is no clamour for a reform, which, as the Times reports this morning, will require protracted trench warfare between the government and recalcitrant peers, most of whom would end up at some stage facing eviction from a mostly elected legislature. Not surprisingly, a large number of ennobled turkeys are against a Bill for More Christmas.

The Times reports that a hardcore of 20 Tory peers are threatening to go on strike - sabotaging the whole legislative programme for the next parliamentary session if plans to create elected peers go ahead.

The reform is only being mooted because Nick Clegg needs - or at least feels he needs - a concrete constitutional reform in his legacy, having failed to secure a change to the electoral system. A Lords Reform Bill is planned for the Queen's speech in May to give Lib Dems some badge of institutional modernisation when, in the run-up to the next election, they draw up their balance sheet of manifesto pledges implemented and promises jettisoned in coalition. It would, in any case, be a purely symbolic victory for the party faithful. No-one seriously thinks the creation of an elected second chamber will earn the instant gratitude of tens of millions of citizens.

But from where the Lib Dems are standing, even modest trophies are better than none. Can they even secure that much? The prospect of a fierce rebellion among peers is certainly a problem, not least because it plays to fears among Conservative MPs in the Commons that the whole issue is about to snarl up the legislative works. This objection surfaced just before the parliamentary recess in Deputy Prime Minister's Questions (the mostly unwatched monthly cousin to the headline-grabbing weekly PMQs session). Back bench Tories have been pestering Clegg on the question of why, when the economy is plainly the issue that must take precedence, he seems determined to waste everyone's time (as they see it) with a reform that is, at best, half baked. It isn't yet clear what powers the elected peers would have relative to their unelected bench-fellows and how their relationship with the Commons would change.

One prospect that worries senior Lib Dems is that David Cameron's relations with his own backbenchers will get testier as time goes on. The warm glow of Tory admiration for the PM's European (non) veto in December has already worn off and there is increasing irritation with the number of concessions perceived to be granted to keep Clegg's party happy. At some point, Cameron will have to find some pressure valve to enable his party's rebellious rank and file to express its fury. What better mechanism than a vote on Lords reform? It is an issue on which most people would expect the Conservative party to take a conservative view and that will animate few passions outside Westminster.

Downing Street could never be seen actively to encourage a rebellion against a government Bill, but Cameron could decide how ruthlessly he wants to whip his MPs in favour. As one Lib Dem close to Clegg put it to me recently, Lords reform could be used as "the bit of the garden where it is safe to let them off the leash for a bit." Essentially, Cameron would put on a show of trying to help Clegg get his reform but would not invest too much of his own political capital in forcing it through an unhappy Commons.

Meanwhile, Labour's position is still officially to like the idea of Lords reform in principle but to sneer at Clegg's plan of an 80% elected chamber as not ambitious enough, although in reality this is high-minded cover for wanting to retain the option of making the Lib Dem leader squirm. So a half-decent Tory rebellion could see Lords Reform defeated in the Commons. The whole thing has the makings of a disaster for Clegg - another "miserable compromise" on a constitutional change that no-one can get very excited about, sabotaged by Tories itching to rein in Lib Dem influence and a Labour party disinclined to ride to the rescue.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496