New Labour share remarkable similarities with Old Labour in that they’ve never been prone to widespread theoretical debate. Indeed, the ongoing prevarication and confusion over House of Lords reform is veering perilously close to being farcical. The idea that this Labour government should be in favour of any reform that removes power from the executive should bring a tear to the eye.
They’ve has never been sure how precisely the membership of the House of Lords should be determined, nor on what basis or according to what criteria, although any attempts to strengthen the House of Lords relative to the House of Commons have invariably been resisted by most Labour leaders. They have, however, unhesitatingly accepted that the Executive’s policies should ultimately prevail in the House of Commons. The more confident the upper chamber becomes in blocking government legislation, the more interest there is on the Labour side in limiting its powers. Lords reform – in Labour’s eyes – is in order to govern unimpeded,or, ahem, “efficiently”, rather than adding further democratic checks.
Likewise, reforms which might enhance the role and influence of backbenchers in the House of Commons have also been brushed aside. “I’m sorry that has not been terribly clear but please don’t be suspicious. It’s just quite complicated,” Harriet Harman told MPs who were itching to have some meagre amounts of power back.
Assuming we take Straw seriously however, there shouldn’t be any doubt that the transition to an elected House, if and when it takes place, will be a complex process. As the White Paper on Lords reform notes, the Commons votes and the work of the existing cross-party group have established a number of points of agreement. These points aren’t agreed by all MPs and certainly not by the majority of members of the Lords (leave aside the division on the issue within the Labour party). The only reason that it could have been raised now, and in such drastic terms, is to create dividing lines ahead of the election.
Jack Straw noted himself that “Lords reform can come with a heavy political cost”, including “disruption to the legislative programme”. For any government, tackling the most serious recession in half a century should be the highest priority; this Government is open to serious criticism if they allow Parliament to occupy itself with these matters at the cost of postponing urgent measures of social and economic reform. It’s time to attack the Government, while maintaining that Lord’s reform is of the utmost priority in the future to allow partnership with the Commons in holding the government to account, not as a rival for power.
Once we’ve sorted out Gordon’s mess of course.
Related posts:
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Vote Conservative to save our constitution