We are in the second stage of Blair reforms. The dark shadow of the former PM hangs over the new Labour administration. This Blairite legacy was always about 'constitutional reform', Supreme Court, devolved powers and field sports were their aspiration. It was something to excite the Labour membership's turgid mentality. Now in 2024 with a big Commons majority the Blair's lingering finger pointing is telling Starmer that Lords reform is unfinished business.
We are told that the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords are an anachronism, out of step with the modern world, undemocratic and only there because of accident of birth. Never mind the vacuity of the argument, it is rank double standards.
It is clear hypocrisy to abolish of the only democratic element in the House of Lords while looking to strengthen unaccountable quangos like the OBR and Climate Change Committee. These were largely introduced in the Blair/Brown years, which moved policy decisions beyond the reach of parliamentary accountability and added new undemocratic tiers of government. In addition, supranational organisations are increasingly given authority over national policy, arguably sometimes against the national interest. Thus the 'long march through the institutions'; is set to make short work of a representative parliament and the Constitution it is supposed to uphold.
The presence, or otherwise, of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords is probably considered neither here nor there by most of the public at large and their retention not a political priority of any party. However, one might boldly assert that this issue is not of least importance in the struggle to preserve the British Constitution as the bulwark of law, national unity and individual liberty, but the most important and most pressing. The current regime has used the expression 'accident of birth' in relation to the remaining peers, who just happen to be the only members who were democratically elected to sit and vote in the Upper Chamber. One wonders how many Labour MPs, peers and supporters have any idea of the origins of the phrase? It was first used by Beethoven as a joke against an aristocratic friend and patron of his, Prince Karl Lichnowsky in 1806.
The rights of the aristocracy have been entirely dependent on honour, duty and service, against ambition, avarice and ideology, which are more likely to be found among life peers and those in the Lower House. The hereditary peers have several distinct advantages over other members in that they were usually made aware of their duties of public service early in their lives, are representative of both land and people, not just the eligible electorate or the Party of which they are members.
The consequences of the constitutional vandalism of the Blair/Brown years are becoming more and more apparent. Furthermore, the vacuity of the 'doesn't fit in with modern Britain' attitude and push for unspecified change and modernisation are starting to look thin. These are little more than meaningless excuses for the implementation of radical socialist policies. They are the continuation of constitutional vandalism to neutralise opposition and hogtie future governments as happenedduring the Conservative administration leading to its unpopularity and fall.
Membership of the Upper House by right of lineal descent has distinct advantages in that it can either be regarded as a random selection not based on political ambition or something deeper whereby only God can choose which soul to be incarnated into which body.
The Upper Chamber was never meant to be any prime minister's plaything, not the ancient British constitution entirely subject to the will of any transient occupants of the front benches of the House-of Commons.
It is also not for the political winners of an election to dictate the constitution of the country. That comes from a process of evolution and when parties and others agree. Labour needs to be put 'back in its box' and leave our historic constitutional arrangements well alone.