Hereditary Peers Finally Removed from House of Lords After 25-Year Delay
Fifteen centuries of English history concluded just before 9pm on Tuesday night, as the House of Lords declared itself "content" to pass the bill stripping the remaining hereditary peers of their right to sit and vote in the chamber. Since the Anglo-Saxon witan in the 6th century, the accident of birth has entitled a select few nobles to dictate national affairs. Now, after a prolonged struggle, the hereditary principle has been entirely excised from British government.
Tony Blair's Unfinished Business
Tony Blair stands as the primary architect of this final chapter, having brokered a deal with Conservative peers in 1999 to exclude most hereditary members. The compromise allowed 92 hereditaries to remain, with Lord Cranborne, then Tory leader in the Lords, securing Blair's agreement to replace vacancies through undemocratic by-elections. Blair subsequently lost interest in further reform, recognising it would only invite trouble, leaving this flawed arrangement intact for another quarter-century.
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, remarked on Tuesday: "Somebody in my office calculated that Apollo 11 got to the moon and back quicker than we conducted our deliberations on this issue." Despite a clear manifesto promise for "immediate" modernisation, the Labour government took 20 months to enact the legislation, underscoring the protracted nature of parliamentary change.
Pragmatic and Incremental Reform
The expulsion of hereditary peers epitomises a very New Labour approach: pragmatic, incremental, and unprincipled. It deploys the art of the possible to achieve marginal improvements in governance, while remaining brutally cynical about governmental interests. Removing these peers, predominantly Tories, slightly rebalances the political scales in the Lords, though life peerages continue to be distributed liberally.
Angela Smith and Keir Starmer wisely concentrated on the straightforward objective of eliminating hereditaries, whose presence in a law-making chamber was indefensible. They compromised by granting life peerages to some of the remaining hereditary peers, a concession deemed worthwhile to finalise the reform. This strategy avoided entanglement in more ambitious, contentious overhauls.
Why an Elected Second Chamber Remains Elusive
At a superficial level, an elected second chamber appears desirable, but it is a snare, a delusion, and a recipe for constitutional deadlock. Consensus on the form of a "democratic" second chamber is elusive, and debates would drain governmental energy, hindering the passage of crucial legislation. While a wholly appointed House of Cronies is problematic, and the bishops' continued presence is an outrage, the removal of hereditaries represents progress without pursuing an unattainable democratic ideal.
Even after the bill becomes law, the Conservatives will retain more Lords members than Labour, though the prime minister is expected to narrow this gap. However, Starmer shows no inclination to waste time on plans for an elected upper house. Peerage recommendations serve as a valuable tool for party management, as highlighted by Cleo Watson, a former aide to Theresa May, who noted spending much time shredding letters from individuals lobbying for peerages.
A Step Forward from the Witan
Expelling hereditary peers marks a significant gain in democratic principle, facilitating Starmer's legislative efforts in the House of Lords. Although accusations of cronyism will persist, this week warrants celebration for advancing beyond the archaic witan system. The reform, while imperfect, underscores the enduring lesson from the Blair years: keep it simple, compromise, and avoid parliamentary wars of attrition that stall progress.
