The Electoral Reform Society blog

News Blog

20th April 2012

A little reminder to MPs on Lords Reform…

We hear news that rebels are preparing to topple the coming Lords Reform Bill. One PPS is quoted in today’s Guardian saying:

We will resign to vote against the programme motion. We want to ensure that the bill drags on and on and on in the Commons with filibustering speeches through the night. This should bung up the government’s entire legislative programme.”

Now we can understand why unelected Lords might have little time for accountability or manifesto commitments. But these MPs have no such excuses.

So to aid MPs as we head towards the coming Queen’s Speech, here’s a little recap on what was taken as gospel back in 2010:

We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence”

Invitation to join the government of Britain, Conservative Party Manifesto 2010

Sitting MPs who ran on that Manifesto – 306

Every one of these wannabe-rebels ran for parliament on a promise of Lords Reform. But now they seem prepared to sacrifice their own government’s entire legislative programme to bury it. It sends a strong signal to their constituents that their manifestos weren’t worth the paper they were printed on.

Next stop then, their coalition partners. As you might expect the Lib Dems had an unambiguous commitment to reform:

Liberal Democrats will: Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House.”

Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010

Sitting MPs who ran on that Manifesto – 57

And of course there’s the small matter of the coalition agreement:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”

The Coalition Agreement: Our Programme for Government

Coalition MPs 363

So what of the opposition? Labour were fairly clear:

We will ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords. Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages. At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general election after that.”

A future fair for all, Labour Party Manifesto 2010

Sitting MPs who ran on that Manifesto - 255 (down from 258 at the election)

Denis MacShane and Eric Joyce are currently sitting as Independents – so they probably have some excuses for voting no. The SNP for their part propose abolition of the Upper House, while the DUP have little to say on the matter. And parliament’s latest addition, George Galloway, is an unknown quantity.

But as for the other parties, the Greens, Plaid and the Alliance are all pledged to reform.

So that’s 623 MPs who represent parties elected on manifestoes in support of Lords Reform – or 95.8% of the chamber. Discount the 5 abstentionist Sinn Fein MPs and the Speaker and that figure hits 96.7%. However it would be more than a little surprising if the House of Commons divides along quite those lines cometh the vote.

The government are right to stick to their guns. No major party went into the last election defending the status quo, and if Lords Reform is ever to see the light of day it will require all parties to stay committed.

Apr 2012

Tags: Lords reform manifesto commitments

2 Comments

Comments

JoePatterson

Getting rid of our antediluvian grossly undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system from the HOUSE COMMONS is the overwhelmingly important reform required in the UK. It is quite wrong to say (as we hear constantly) that in effect the electorate has already voted – in the AV Referendum – to keep FPTP. They of course have done no such thing. In the AV referendum, around 60% of the electorate did not even bother to turn out to vote. Of the remainder only a small minority voted YES either because voters were confused by the downright lies emanating from Cameron and the Murdoch press – or because they were taking the opportunity to embarrass Clegg. Or indeed the unbelievably futile arguments put forward by the YES campaign. In a leaflet that was delivered to my address the best argument that apparently could be found was that AV would make my MP work harder! The opponents of PR for the Commons (which includes a majority of party tribalists in both the Conservative and Labour parties) will undoubtedly regard the introduction of STV into the Senate (highly desirable) as a further argument for hanging onto FPTP in the Commons. There is of course no logic in this argument. If the composition of the Senate reflects what the electorate have voted for why should we continue with the grossly undemocratic minority elective dictatorships in the Commons? So constant vigilance is required , particularly by ERS, who should constantly bear in mind the conclusions of the 2003 UCL report on electoral systems contained in the following paragraphs:- “(In general) our survey work shows that people think very little about electoral systems. Hence there is a significant degree of support for first-past-the-post, which reduces only when the deficiencies of the system are pointed out Focus groups convened to test people’s reaction to different systems suggested that many citizens were unaware of any defects in first-past-the-post until they were pointed out. The attitude of surveyed respondents tended to change dramatically when they found out more about the operation of first-past-the-post. Most were converted to some form of PR.”

The implication is that every opportunity must be taken to instruct a misguided electorate through regular articles in the press and other media.
Alex Scott

Isn’t the fact that all three major Parties included HoL reform in their manifestos actually an argument that it should not be passed through blindly? Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters never look at manifestos and/or only consider their choice between the Parties who are portrayed as having a good chance of winning power. Since there was no difference in opinion on HoL reform, this did not have a chance to act to differentiate between Parties (even assuming it would have been perceived as more important than their stances on the environment, economy, etc.).