– to win the next General Election in England, Labour is discarding radical House of Lords reform and federalism proposed by its own, Gordon Brown-led Commission.

By stewartb – a long read

The Labour Party seems to be working a new wheeze to bamboozle the electorate and yes, even political journalists. This is how it works: it announces a new radical, progressive policy to gain media and voter attention. Later – in various ways and at various times – Party spokespersons indicate a softening – a rowing back – on the prior radical policy position. Crucially, and in the weeks and months after giving out signals of a shift, a dilution in position, other Party spokespersons deny any U-turn but in language so ambiguous that precisely what the Party would do, when if it enters government remains uncertain. By the time the formal manifesto is published, we will all be so confused that many will just be grateful that Labour is not the Tory party and it has finally settled on a commitment to do ‘something’ worthwhile, however modest in comparison to the original, attention grabbing gambit.  

House of Lords reform

The current Labour leadership’s position on House of Lords reform offers an example, albeit this tale, as will become clear, has been playing out for a very long time.

On 3 February 2024, the mostly Labour sympathising Guardian had this headline online: ‘Labour ditches radical reforms as it prepares ‘bombproof’ election manifesto – plans to reform social care and House of Lords are trimmed as Keir Starmer’s party opts for caution ahead of vote’. This seems to indicate that the Labour leader (rightly) recognises that the next General Election will be won or lost in England: success for Labour will depend on its ability to appease or otherwise de-fang the right wing press and attract former Tory voters, including those supportive of Brexit and those who judged that voting at the last GE for Boris Johnson’s vision for the UK was good for their country. As the Guardian notes: ‘Labour is planning only limited first-term reforms of social care and the House of Lords and a smaller green investment plan as part of a stripped-down general election manifesto, as it seeks to make its policies “bombproof” to Tory attacks.’

For Scotland, having rejected the Tories by a majority at elections over many decades, we now have the prospect of a Westminster government with a different party label but with policies designed to court those in England with Tory or Tory-lite political values.  A poor bargain for left-leaning, progressive voters in Scotland!

In the same Guardian article we’re told: ‘.. despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.’

(When reading about Labour’s backtracking on reforms to social care in England and democratising the House of Lords – and all the other U-turns identified in recent analyses of this sort – https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/how-many-of-sir-keir-starmers-10-pledges-still-stand-347724/ – it may be hard to believe but it’s true, today on its website the Labour Party operating in Scotland is still describing itself as a ‘democratic socialist party’!)

U-Turn will be no surprise to political historians

The Labour Party has form over House of Lords reform, prompting recent and robust academic comment!

Source: Dorey, P, (2023) Elected or Selected? The Continuing Constitutional Conundrum of House of Lords Reform. The Political Quarterly Vol. 94, Issue 3.

(https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13298  )

The author, Peter Dorey is Professor of British Politics in the School of Law & Politics at Cardiff University. He writes: ‘The 1911 Parliament Act decreed that Lords reform was ‘an urgent question which brooks no delay’, yet the subsequent 112 years have witnessed only sporadic and inchoate reforms. The issue has invariably suffered both from interparty disagreement between the Conservatives and Labour and, more importantly, intraparty disagreements owing to the divergent views and irreconcilable disagreements among Labour MPs over ‘what is to be done?’, and recognition that any reform which enhanced the legitimacy of the second chamber would threaten the pre-eminence of the House of Commons and a Labour government therein.’

And in a further reference to Labour: ‘The Labour Party has a long history of ambiguity and equivocation over House of Lords reform, with different options being proposed by different ministers at different junctures …’

Professor Dorey’s paper describes the recent history of the Lords up to the present day: ‘a wholly appointed House of Lords.’ … ’…  effectively what exists today—with the exception of the ninety-two hereditaries and the twenty-five Lords Spiritual—as a consequence of the Blair government’s failure to complete ‘stage two’ of its professed programme of House of Lords reform; Labour MPs either could not agree on how the membership of the second chamber should be determined or (s)elected, or were simply not interested in an issue which they haughtily assumed was only of interest to Guardianistas and/or the chattering classes tucking into organic nut-roast, washed down with fair trade Merlot, at an Islington or Hampstead dinner party. Meanwhile, having secured the removal of the majority of (mostly Conservative) hereditary peers, Tony Blair’s purported interest in House of Lords reform immediately dissipated, thus depriving the issue of sustained momentum and—apart from the efforts of Robin Cook—a lack of leadership.’

And bringing Labour’s stance up to date (well not quite given how fluid Labour’s policy position is on this issue): ‘The Labour Party’s latest proposal for the House of Lords is to replace the overwhelmingly appointed second chamber with a directly elected body, in which the component geographic areas of the United Kingdom would be guaranteed representation. Indeed, Labour is currently proposing that the new second chamber, to comprise just 200 members, would be called the Assembly of the Nations and Regions, and would be tasked with protecting the constitution, although the new body would also (like the current House of Lords) conduct legislative scrutiny more generally, including the tabling of amendments to bills. Ultimately, though, the supremacy (or pre-eminence) of the House of Commons would be maintained, with the new second chamber complementing, not rivalling, the lower house via parity of power.’ To state the obvious, Professor Dorey was clearly taken in by Labour’s recent policy proposal on Lords’ reform but will need to update his paper rather substantially!

Note the significance Dorey rightly places on the FULL intent behind the previously proposed reforms: ’These latest Labour proposals for House of Lords reform are part of a more general programme of economic and political reform, entailing the democratisation of sundry institutions and concomitant decentralisation of power, included in a 155-page policy document titled A New Britain: Renewing Our Democracy and Rebuilding Our Economy, which emanated from the party’s Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by Labour’s last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.’

The Labour Party’s ‘Commission on the UK’s Future’

For voters in England, the significance of this latest substantial dilution in Labour’s policy position on Lords’ reform may be restricted to noting a failure to follow through on a promise to end a long standing anachronism in a democracy, full stop!

For voters in Scotland, the significance, the ramifications go way beyond this. Radical House of Lords reform was placed front and centre in Labour’s ‘big’ idea to sustain and strengthen the Union: the proposition was that federalism linked to Lords reform would obviate the need for Scottish independence. Along with the ‘Vow’ back in 2014, you may recall claims from Unionists that Scotland would be the most powerful devolved government in the world and would have a constitutional status in a UK as ‘close to federalism as possible’ if we voted ‘no’. Well, we know what happened and where we are now!

However, and despite his role in 2014 in promoting such views – ‘most powerful’ and ‘closest to federalism’ – ex-PM Gordon Brown came to believe, probably sometime around 2016 and Brexit, that further and radical constitutional reform of the UK would be needed to keep the Union intact. In terms of government from Edinburgh, the ‘most powerful devolved’ could actually be made EVEN more powerful whilst still within the UK and the ‘closest to federalism’ could become EVEN closer to federalism!  And so Labour’s ‘big’ initiative to offer more to Scotland and indeed to other nations and regions in what was described as an over-centralised and unstable UK was born. The vehicle to equip the Labour Party to deliver was its Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by the self-same Gordon Brown.

The sage to save the Union again?

The website of the ‘Office for Gordon and Sarah Brown’ in 2016 published an article entitled ‘Gordon Brown Proposes UK People’s Constitutional Convention – Extracts from Gordon Brown’s speech to the Fabian Society, delivered today 3 November 2016’.

It opens with this: ‘I want to suggest today that there is now an overwhelming case for a UK-wide people’s constitutional convention, mandated with setting a roadmap towards a more federal constitution that empowers all of the nations and regions.’ Mr Brown emphasises the importance of his proposition to the future of the UK: ‘We need wholesale reform because today the United Kingdom appears united in name only.’ 

This should be placed in the context of the Brown-inspired ‘Vow’ in 2014 intended then to save his precious Union from the threat of a decision in favour of Scotland’s independence. Whatever one thinks of the Vow – a cynical con or sensible, delivered upon or not – Mr Brown by 2016 had clearly recognised that very much more substantive constitutional reform was needed to preserve his precious Union. And radical reform of the House of Lords became central to the plan for radical and necessary change.

Amongst his seven proposals ‘for a post-Brexit constitution’, Brown included: ‘Seventh – and finally – there is a strong case for the convention going further and codifying the division of powers between the centre of UK and Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. It should also consider replacing the unelected House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and Regions.’ (my emphasis)

In the same 2016 speech, Brown proposed that: ‘The (Tory) government should be asked by the Labour opposition to sponsor a convention. If they fail to respond – as happened in Scotland in 1989 – then Labour and the other political parties should come behind a convention with a remit to engage people outside traditional political parties.’ 

Did Labour ‘ask’; did the Tory government respond; did Labour seek to engage the Lib Dems? What we know is that Labour established its own Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by Brown. Not quite what he had been aspiring to?

On 20 October 2020, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy provided a link on its website to the ten ‘pledges’ made by Kier Starmer in his campaign to become Labour Party leader (https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf  )

They included this one: ‘8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity – Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.’

It’s worth looking at what later emerged from Labour’s Commission. On 31 January 2021, The Guardian has this headline: ‘Keir Starmer urged to back radical constitutional reform for UK – Labour report calls for federal state, Lords replaced by elected senate and more powers for regions and devolved nations’.

In the article, we’re told: ‘Keir Starmer has been urged to support radical reforms to devolve power in the UK, including a federal parliament, a written constitution and significant new authority for England’s regions ….’. In his leadership campaign pledges, Starmer had already endorsed something similar.

The same article notes: ’A lengthy report commissioned by Corbyn recommends reorganising the UK as a federal state, overseen by a new “council of the union” and replacing the House of Lords with an elected senate, alongside substantial new financial and policy powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Also on 31 January, 2021 Anas Sarwar – then still a leadership candidate for Labour in Scotland – wrote in The Guardian about the significance of Labour’s ‘constitutional commission’ led by Gordon Brown: ‘The starting point for a new settlement must be bringing people together to discuss our future, not tearing our communities apart. The UK Labour leader, Keir Starmer, recently announced plans for a UK-wide constitutional commission to consider how power, wealth and opportunity can be devolved to the most local level. Advised on by Gordon Brown, it will be the boldest project Labour has embarked on for a generation.’ There is more ‘insight’ from Labour in Scotland below!

On 22 November 2022, the Institute for Government discussed Labour policies and indicated its understanding of the Party’s stance at that time: ‘Labour leader Keir Starmer has announced that, if elected, his party would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a democratically elected second chamber. The proposal, informed by Gordon Brown’s – soon to be published – constitutional review is intended to “restore trust in politics”. The case for reform is strong: appointments have been increasingly numerous and inappropriate, with the House of Lords Appointment Commission unable to block controversial peerages for party donors and those previously embroiled in scandals. The presence of hereditary peers and religious representatives in the legislature is not befitting of modern democracy and attempts to constrain the size of the 800-strong chamber have had limited impact.’

On 4 December 2022, The Guardian had an article entitled ‘Labour unveils plan to overhaul constitution and replace the Lords – Gordon Brown’s Commission on the UK’s Future also aims to curb influence of wealth and foreign money’. In this piece we learn: ‘Labour will consult on replacing what the party calls the “indefensible” House of Lords with an elected chamber as part of a 40-point plan written by Gordon Brown to overhaul the constitution, but stopped short of committing to its abolition in the manifesto.

‘Keir Starmer will on Monday join Brown for the launch of the former prime minister’s Commission on the UK’s Future, which makes recommendations on Lords reform, devolution of power and the future of the union.’

And in the same article, we learn this: ‘Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, said on Sunday that Labour will make sure there is an elected second chamber, and the plan is for it to be done in the first term. “We will be consulting ahead of the manifesto around how we make that happen,” she added.’

On 5 December 2022, The Guardian told us in a headline: ‘Labour plan to reform constitution will end ‘sticking plaster politics’, says Starmer – Proposals, including abolishing House of Lords, aimed at moving power away from London’. And we’re told: ‘Keir Starmer has vowed to undertake a root-and-branch reform of the UK constitution, moving political power out of London, banning second jobs for MPs and abolishing the House of Lords.

‘The plans are a victory for the former prime minister Gordon Brown, who has pushed for Labour to set out a bold strategy that would hand new powers to local and regional government, including over transport and infrastructure, development funding, housing, training and job centres.’

The Guardian article adds: ’Starmer said political reforms such as the abolition of the Lords were fundamental to the redrawing of the British economy. “The driving force of the report is this sense that politics is broken and the economy is broken and we need to fix both parts,” he said.’

Has this ‘victory for Gordon Brown’ now turned into a betrayal? What now of the abolition of the Lords being ‘fundamental’ to the future of the UK? What now of ‘federalism’ as the means to satisfy the needs and wants of many in Scotland for greater agency over our affairs?

Forming the Labour manifesto

From the website of Labour List dated 5 October, 2023: ’Revealed: Full final policy platform set to shape next Labour manifesto’.

Here we learn: ’Reform Westminster and devolve power: Build upon the recommendations of the Commission on the UK’s Future and deliver the biggest ever transfer of power from Westminster to the people of the UK and across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

‘Abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a second chamber that is smaller, offers the taxpayer better value for money and is reflective of the regions and nations with elected representatives rather than political appointees.’

And then from Labour List just five week later, 13 November, 2023: ‘Labour policy tracker: Full list of new (and ditched) pledges that could shape manifesto’:

‘LORDS REFORM LONG GRASS: Replacing the Lords with a fully elected second chamber will no longer be a first-term commitment, according to several sources, though Labour may still cap peer numbers, tighten rules about who gets peerages and even scrap hereditary peers in its first term. (The Observer, 15 October 2023)’

Tellingly, still today, the website of the Labour Party in Scotland has this:

End note – Labour’s track record

Back on 27 January 2009, The Guardian published a history of Labour’s changing policy positions regarding the House of Lords: ‘Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords – Chronology of changes to the composition of the upper house since 1997’.

When reading what follows, recall Professor Dorey (quoted earlier) who observed: ‘The Labour Party has a long history of ambiguity and equivocation over House of Lords reform’.  There is greatly added significance this time round for voters in Scotland: the absence of commitment from the Labour leadership to substantial Lords’ reform is an absence of commitment to the policies that emerged from Gordon Brown’s Commission. Let’s not forget that Mr Brown judged his policy proposals for Lords’ reform to be of fundamental importance to securing the future of the Union through a federal constitution beneficial to Scotland and the other nations and regions of the UK: it appears all this has just been swept away.

The Guardian’s historical review includes amongst other matters the following:

• ‘2 December 1998: Tony Blair turns his back on the idea of a completely elected House of Lords, instead opting for a majority coming from indirect regional elections and a pool of life peers’
• ‘20 January 1999: Labour publishes a white paper proposing to abolish “hereditary peers with no democratic legitimacy” from the House of Lords. This is seen as a first stage on the route to further reform following a general election. A commission, chaired by Lord Wakeham, is set up to propose routes forward.’
• ’20 January 2000: Margaret Beckett, the (Labour) leader of the Commons, says it is unlikely any major reform will be put into place until well after the next general election.’
• ‘7 November 2001: Robin Cook, the new leader of the Commons, unveils a government white paper and consultation on House of Lords reform, to stiff opposition from MPs. The white paper calls for 20% of peers to be elected by the public and the axing of the 92 hereditary peers. Many claim the recommendations are not comprehensive enough.’
• ’13 May 2002: In joint statement by (Labour peer) Lord Irvine in the upper chamber, and Robin Cook in the Commons, the government announces a major retreat from its original white paper in response to consultation. A joint committee of the two chambers will decide on the entire powers and structure of the second chamber, with members of both houses allowed a free vote on its proposals.’
• ’19 June 2002: MPs announce the membership of a new committee on the future of the upper house. Allies of the leader of the house, Robin Cook, voice fears that reform of the Lords could be “kicked into the long grass”. (Read that phrase in this context before!)
• ‘7 January 2003: The lord chancellor, Lord Irvine, the original architect of the government’s plans for a 20% elected upper chamber, claims consensus is moving towards having either a fully elected or fully appointed Lords.
• ’23 January 2003: After a two-day debate on Lords reform, Irvine backs a wholly appointed upper chamber. This contrasts with his position a year earlier, when he called for an appointed house with 120 elected members.
• ‘29 January 2003: Tony Blair, then prime minister, backs a wholly appointed House of Lords. Arguing that a hybrid chamber would fail, Blair tells MPs they would have to choose between a wholly elected or wholly appointed second chamber.
• ’30 January 2003: There is speculation that Robin Cook could resign as the leader of the Commons, following the prime minister’s open support for a wholly appointed House of Lords.
• ‘18 September 2003: Britain’s first constitutional affairs secretary, and likely last lord chancellor, (Labour’s) Lord Falconer, announces government plans to expel the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the upper house “when parliamentary time allows” …’ (They are still there!)
• ’18 March 2004: Blair drops plans to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers before the next general election. Falconer says they were unlikely to succeed so there was no point spending more parliamentary time on the issue.’
• ‘April 2005: Labour launches its election manifesto, which proposes a review of the powers of the House of Lords, with the last hereditary peers removed and MPs given a free vote on whether to elect some peers.
• ‘8 February 2007: The (Labour) government publishes a new white paper that calls for an upper house composed of elected members and members appointed by a new statutory appointments commission. Elections, based on a regional list system, …’
• ‘7 March 2007: MPs votes by a large majority for an all-elected upper house.’
• ’19 July 2007: Jack Straw, in his new position of justice secretary in the cabinet of Gordon Brown, insists the government is determined to proceed with Lords reform and that the powers of the chamber, the method of election, financial packages and the number of members will (yet again) be discussed by a cross-party working group.
• ’14 May 2008: Gordon Brown announces that the government intends to publish a new white paper on Lords reform.’

Given all the foregoing, radical House of Lords reform by Labour in government, including reform to deliver a federal constitution aimed at placating Scotland and by this means securing the Union, should never have been taken seriously by anyone.

We can only speculate on what Gordon Brown is thinking today about his own credibility as the Labour sage who saved his precious Union in 2014 and then recognised the necessity to devise a new, more radical plan to save the Union once again only to see this abandoned in the pursuit of former Tory, pro-Brexit votes in South Britain.