nThe following year, the remaining hereditary members of the House of Lords would finally lose their right to sit in the Upper House. When that happens, a democratic milestone in British parliamentary history will unquestionably be achieved. But a milestone on the road to what constitutional destination? We don’t know the answer to this because the government won’t tell. Even the government itself cannot be convinced. Like many other issues, Labour’s exact direction of travel on House of Lords reform remains unclear.
However, one thing can be said in advance. Last week, Downing Street published a list of 38 new life peers. It was one of the longest such lists in the modern era. This included 30 New Labor peers, six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. Many were former MPs. The overall aim, as the nominations made extremely clear, was to increase Labour’s numbers in the Lords at the expense of the Conservatives.
It is important to assess both these developments not separately but together. Combined, their main purpose and effect is to benefit the Labor Party in the Lords. The overriding goal is not to bring about radical parliamentary change, let alone democratic change. True, the right to sit in Parliament will eventually disappear depending on the strength of your family. This would be welcome and necessary. However, at the same time, the House of Lords will stand stronger than ever Prime Minister’s patronageThis is embarrassing, offensive and potentially gross.
According to the House of Lords Library November 2024 figuresAt that time 804 peers were eligible to participate in Lords business. Of this total, 272 took the Conservative whip, including 186 Labour, 78 Liberal Democrats and 184 crossbenchers. The remaining 84 were non-affiliated, members of smaller parties or, in 25 cases, bishops.
However, of the 88 current hereditary members, 45 were Tories, 33 were crossbenchers and only there are four laborersTherefore the importance of removing hereditary is not only constitutional but also partisan. To a large extent, you can feel it. But the combined effect of hereditary abolition with the creation of a disproportionate number of labor spouses is clear. It means Sir Keir can now put the brakes on further Lords reforms.
manifesto pledges
The demise of the hereditary peoples has been feared ever since Labor won the 2024 general election. The party’s manifesto clearly promises their complete removal and thereafter House of Lords (Hereditary Peerage) Billwhich symbolizes the pledge, has made steady parliamentary progress since it was published in September. The bill was approved by the Commons in November, and given a second reading in the Lords this month. Some Conservative colleagues may try to slow the bill’s progress with amendments when it comes back To Lord’s in January. But the bill is likely to become law before summer.
and then what? There is nothing inherently wrong with taking improvements one step at a time. But planned next steps, if indeed there are any, are not as clear as they should be. This lack of clarity is ominous. This appears to be a step back from the more pro-reform position adopted by Labor in the election.
Labor’s 2024 manifesto The pledges of the Upper House were not limited to the abolition of inheritance. Far away from. The party also promised a mandatory retirement age for all peers, requiring them to leave at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80. There will also be a new requirement on peers to participate in Lords business.
Promises It did not end here. It will be easier to remove infamous members. The recruitment process will be improved to ensure quality. The regional and national balance of the Chamber will be improved. Most radical, Labor will also consult on wide-ranging proposals to replace the House of Lords with a fully alternative upper house. Sadly, there was no proposal to abolish the titles that came with Lords membership. Why can’t he be MLA?
However, after almost six months in power, there is no sign of any government urgency on this. The retirement pledge appears to have been quietly dropped following protests from older Labor colleagues. There are only vague hints about limited reforms to the appointment process, and nothing on strict removal rules. There is no sign of any consultation on comprehensive reform, let alone that the issue is considered important. All this fears that Labor is planning to complete the abolition of heredity – and leave it there.
silent parliament
Lord’s leader, Angela Smith, said He believes that the Upper House works best when it is smaller than at present, and when it consists of “approximately equal numbers” of the government party and the main opposition party. In the Lords on 11 December he said that “the overall aim is to create a smaller chamber, and a chamber that is more active”.
These are important signs. Once again, it is their potential net impact that matters most. A reduction in the increased size of the Upper House is clearly desirable, and this is political common ground among most parties. However, restructuring the House to the benefit of Labor and the Tories at the expense of other parties and crossbenchers is neither of these things.
Lady Smith’s preference is not for an elected or even a pluralistic house. This is a House that a Labor Government can control better. All governments prefer a quiet Parliament that allows ministers to do their jobs without challenge. With its huge majority, Labor already has a strong hold on the Commons. Things are different in the Lords, where Labor was in a minority largely due to wasteful appointments under Johnson. But the answer is not for Labor to overtake Mr Johnson.
It is easy to become a reformer in the opposition. The most difficult task is to become a reformer in the government. This is where Labor is currently failing. This is the trend that needs to be adopted in 2025. Reform is not the enemy of labor’s success in government but is one of the pre-conditions for it. This does not just apply to House of Lords reform. This also applies to the wider task of restoring confidence in politics and government, which is often called for by Sir Keir. That work will be central to the politics of 2025 and beyond. But the answer should not be a partisan stitch-embroidery.