Don’t axe the Lords

The House of Lords is too big, though since the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999, it is actually smaller than it used to be. However, more members turn up nowadays, and everyone knows it needs to be pared back.

The appointment of new peers by recently defenestrated prime ministers does not help matters. They should resist the temptation to use the Upper House as a reward for transitory assistance while in office from advisers far too young and inexperienced to merit such elevation.

More retirements are also needed. For several years, life peers have been able to step down voluntarily and many have done so, but not enough. The aim has been to reduce the number to about 600 sitting members, but it currently has almost 800. This is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament bigger than its lower chamber.

So, there is a case for further efforts at reducing numbers; but Labour wants to go further and abolish the Lords altogether. Sir Keir Starmer says that if he wins the next election, the Lords will be replaced by an “elected chamber of regions and nations”.

This will not be the first time the party has tried to axe the Lords. In 1968, the Wilson government proposed an elected second chamber and was beaten back by an unlikely coalition led by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. Their objection was that it would rival the lower house for legitimacy. Similar concerns stymied another attempt by Tony Blair, when seven different options for reform were all voted down in the Commons.

With little separating Labour from the Tories on economic policy, Sir Keir evidently hopes constitutional reform will offer voters a point of difference. Given past failures, he might be well advised to find better things on which to focus.