Buried on the BBC Politics page this week is that Lords reform is back, like a New Labour Terminator. Sir Keir Starmer has benignly announced he plans to reform the august Upper Chamber, suggesting that it being packed with ex-Conservative donors and Russian oligarchs is perhaps a tad unfair. So unfair, in fact, that he plans to abolish it, and replace it with something new and fun. Something to help ‘safeguarding devolution’, according to The Observer.
Adding to the joy is that Gordon Brown – who apparently believes constitutional reform projects will help him get over throwing printers at people – is helming the merry band cooking this up.
So, before I explain why this is a terrible idea, and the exact wrong way to go about improving Britain PLC’s governance, what exactly is our government-in-waiting proposing? Given Sir Keir’s political priors, perhaps an institution with the sole purpose of punching Boris Johnson until he emigrates, or maybe one that guillotines Labour MPs who join picket lines.
Apparently, Sir Keir would like the chamber to be elected by voters, rather than the current mix of those chosen by ex-PMs, 92 hereditary peers, some bishops and a rabbi. This seems to be based on a curious theory that this will create greater trust and probity in politics, I assume with the democratic Commons as its template. Seeing as Yougov puts public confidence in the Lords at only 19%, the lower house’s stratospheric 27% approval rating does indeed seem like a model worth emulating.
He would also like it to preserve devolution by being ‘truly representative’ of the ‘nations and regions’ – presumably by counterbalancing the considerable overrepresentation of Wales and Scotland in the Commons. The preservation of devolution is clearly important to Keir, perhaps because he hasn’t read the 2016 Scotland Act that already calls the settlement ‘permanent’ and abolition contingent on referenda. But hey, it would be a bit rude to ask our prospective PM to grasp basic constitutional facts, I suppose.
So, why is this a bad idea? Well, for one thing, it would almost certainly be elected by proportional representation. Despite what self-appointed political gurus and H. G. Wells’s letters to The Times might tell you, this is actually a terrible idea. The experience of Europe, governed by indecisive and unending coalitions, puts the Westminster Parliament’s attempts at gridlock to shame.
Considering how excruciatingly long the 54-day Tory leadership contest felt this summer, imagine how we would have reacted to a Belgian-style government formation. In 2010-11, it genuinely took 10 times that, meaning the poor country had a caretaker government for almost 18 months; in 2019-20 they economised to a still questionable 16 months.
Now, I know that the Lords isn’t actually where British government formation happens, so maybe depressing coalition building won’t be as much of a problem in a pretty weak chamber. But that opens a whole other can of worms.
As soon as voters realise they get to vote proportionally for something that is essentially inconsequential, or at least appears that way, they invariably do two things. First, they don’t turn up to the ballot box: this is why police and crime commissioner elections have pathetic turnouts, maxing out at one-third of those eligible voting in 2021.
Secondly, they vote for idiots as a protest. Just look at the European Parliament elections. The two major parties, the only ones with any experience or interest in governing constructively in Europe or at home, never won even close to half the votes since 1999.
Say what you will about it proving the unpopularity of Labour and the Tories, I don’t think anyone wants Nigel Farage to swan into the Lords with 150 seats and set about ruining the government any further.
So, proportional representation is a scam that leads only to incompetence and misery. But what of the current legitimacy problem of the Lords? Certainly, that needs solving. But I would suggest a very different system to the nonsense proposed by Keir and Gordon.
The nub of the current problem is the ever-swelling ranks of the smugly hobnobbing life peers, who make up the numbers with the charming Russian media mogul and (theoretically independent) peer Lord Lebedev, and the Blair-appointed Lord Sewel, who had to resign in 2015 for snorting cocaine from a woman’s chest on camera.
But elections wouldn’t improve this. Consider that the democratically elected Commons had cocaine found in 11 of its 12 bathrooms, contained for over three decades Keith Vaz MP who spent his spare time hoovering the drug off of male prostitutes, and let a Chinese spy donate £420,000 to Labour MP Barry Gardiner. You could make a fair case that letting voters pick its members hasn’t exactly solved the problem of drugs and foreign actors.
My solution, then, would be to get rid of choice entirely. Not just avoiding voters, but also ensuring the deeply flawed people they pick as MPs don’t get any influence either – in other words, no appointments.
Instead, dig out the old hereditary peers. Far better be ruled by old people with clipped-vowels and a hatred of inheritance tax, than by Russian donors who’ve never paid a tax in their lives and cocaine-addict academics. The august families probably wouldn’t even turn up, which would be ideal for savings on catering and robe-cleaning services.
What’s more, add extra Anglican bishops to the Lords Spiritual. Their squishy liberal do-goodiness should easily make up for the lack of Labour hereditary peers, keeping things nice and equitable.
And finally, bring back the Law Lords. Constitutional nit-picks aside, returning the Supreme Court judges to their old chamber would give space for the old Crown Court at the Middlesex Guildhall to come back – much needed considering the 61,000-heavy case backlog.
Far better that than Keir’s attempt at expanding democracy, or worse, Boris Johnson’s impending resignation honours.