We’ve been here before. Since the 1960s, Labour governments have attempted to legislate for the end of the peer show. Yet still their lordships survive.
The latest move to reform parliament’s Upper House came as MPs debated the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, aimed at kicking out the 92 peers who inherited their seat.
Politics live: PM met Taylor Swift at gig after getting free ticket
Good luck, as they say, with that. Yes, Sir Keir Starmer has a whopping Commons majority. But so did Tony Blair, but his attempts to reform the Lords were doomed to fail and ended in farce and disarray.
This second reading debate began with Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds quoting Harold Wilson – of whom he wrote an acclaimed biography – proposing Lords reform in 1968.
Mr Thomas-Symonds didn’t mention the fiasco of 2003, when MPs voted to reject all five options – or was it six? – for reform proposed by Robin Cook, including total abolition, 100% elected, 80% elected and 60% elected.
So now we have yet another bid to remove hereditary peers. But that’s all. Labour’s manifesto pledge to force peers to retire at 80 has mysteriously – but sensibly, critics would claim – been shelved.
That’s hardly surprising. At the very moment the 80-and-out proposal was unveiled, Sir Keir Starmer was elevating grand dames Margaret Becket, 81, and Margaret Hodge, 80, to the Lords.
Also getting their marching orders from the Labour benches in the Lords would have been national treasures Joan Bakewell, 91, Alf Dubs, also 91, and Robert Winston. Shocking ageism!
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Bill introduced to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords
‘What about the King?’
Mr Thomas-Symonds is a brainy sort. But during his speech he immediately ran into trouble from some of the old lags on the opposition benches as he attempted to explain the government’s reasoning.
What about the king, asked Sir John Hayes. He’s hereditary, after all. What about Catholic bishops, queried Sir Edward Leigh. Why not abolish the Lords altogether, demanded the SNP’s Pete Wishart.
From the opposition front bench, the former deputy prime minister, Sir Oliver Dowden, delivered a witty speech which he admitted was his “swansong”, as he doesn’t expect to be in the new Tory leader’s shadow cabinet.
Shame! There’s something of the pantomime dame about “Olive”, as his Tory friends call him. The Tory front bench will be less colourful and witty without him, as he demonstrated in this speech.
“The Labour Party,” Sir Oliver declared, smirking, “reeks of the hereditary principle. The elevation of the Nepo babies of north London, the coronation of the red princes…
“The Falconers, the Kinnocks, the Benns, the Eagles, the Reeves, many of them distinguished members, but under Labour’s closed shop, it’s hereditary peers out, hereditary MPs in.”
Read more:
What are Labour’s fiscal rules?
Which tax rises could Labour introduce in the budget?
After the good-humoured banter of the Commons second reading, Mr Thomas-Symonds’ bill will surely face countless amendments as it continues through its stages in the Commons and the Lords.
Sir Oliver claimed the bill had already been criticised by Labour grandees, David Blunkett, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Adonis. Could they cause trouble for the government in the Lords?
This second reading debate confirmed what we already knew, thanks to Robin Cook’s humiliation in 2003, that there’s no consensus in parliament on House of Lords reform and probably never will be.
And that’s why the end of the peer show is almost certainly still a long way off.
