Within a few months, the constitution that has served this country so well for hundreds of years will yet again be vandalised by a Labour government drunk with power. Tony Blair did what damage he could, what with devolution, the Human Rights Act and the creation of the Supreme Court. But Sir Keir Starmer wants to go further. New Labour’s ‘reform’ of the House of Lords, limiting the number of voting hereditaries to just 92, wasn’t spiteful enough, apparently. A bill is being railroaded through that will reduce that rump to zero.
The arguments against this wanton act of destruction should be familiar to most readers. For one thing, the hereds had a better attendance record than life peers in the last parliament – 49 per cent vs 47. For another, many I’ve met forego their daily allowance, so represent better value for money. And their contributions to debates are often far superior to those of commoners like me, particularly in areas where they possess real expertise, such as agriculture and conservation.
But none of these arguments cuts any mustard with the Labour benches, as I’ve witnessed in the past few months. One amendment after another is rejected with stony-faced indifference. We all know the real reason Labour is doing it. Not because the hereditary principle is ‘indefensible’, as it said in the party’s manifesto, but because only four of the remaining hereditaries take the Labour whip, with the majority being Conservative. Once they’ve been consigned to the dustbin of history, Starmer can replace the hereds with Labour apparatchiks and turn the Lords into an echo chamber of the Commons.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in