No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
The Conservative Party was in disarray on Tuesday as it responded to the first Parliamentary debate on the Government’s plans to scrap hereditary peers.
Labour has committed to getting rid of the 92 remaining hereditary Lords in the second chamber, supposedly as a first step in the wider reform of the upper house. The Scottish National Party, which backs the abolition of the chamber altogether, is among opposition groups sceptical that further reform will ever take place.
But while parties like the Liberal Democrats and Greens back comprehensive reform of the Lords – while supporting efforts to scrap hereditary peers – Conservative opposition to the bill seems to be based on a string of technicalities.
Shadow Cabinet Office minister Oliver Dowden MP refused to say, when asked directly during the debate if he supported removing hereditary peers from the second chamber. Conservatives make up the vast majority of those peers, a hangover from partial reforms by Tony Blair in the 1990s.
Other Conservative MPs suddenly backed wholesale Lords reform, arguing Labour’s step-by-step approach won’t work.
Former Conservative education secretary Gavin Williamson was one of them, saying: “[Labour’s] manifesto makes a number of very interesting points about hereditary peers, about a retirement age of 80, and about strengthening circumstances that disgraced members will be removed, and an alternative second chamber.
“All of this is missing, but it’s in his manifesto. So [will Labour] be open to accepting amendments that actually put in points that actually are in his manifesto?”
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Williamson said he would be prepared to defy his party’s whip to back more extensive reform, despite his party’s 2024 manifesto saying they were: “Steadfast in our support for the fundamental principles that underpin the UK’s constitutional settlement.”
One Conservative MP claimed Labour wants to “stuff the upper chamber with its cronies,” which led to laughter from the Labour benches.
Between 2013 and 2023, ten Conservative figures were appointed to the Lords after donating over £1 million to the party. More than a quarter of Conservative donors who have given more than £100,000 to the party hold a title or honour, according to Byline analysis in 2021.
Some Conservatives argued that removing hereditary peers would threaten the constitutional monarchy.
Hardliner Andrew Rosindell MP said of Labour frontbencher Nick Thomas-Symonds: “Surely if he is making that argument [against the right of birth], how could he possibly defend constitutional monarchy, if he’s going to question the hereditary principle?”
Thomas-Symonds, the minister for the constitution, responded by pointing out that the King does not debate or vote on legislation, and that it is a “completely different” part of the UK’s constitution.
Labour figures emphasised the party’s long-standing goal to end hereditary peerages, dating back to Harold Wilson in 1968, and further back still.
Nick Thomas-Symonds summed up the Government’s argument as: “It is indefensible, in this day and age, for people to sit in our legislature as an absolute right of birth… It’s time for the hereditary nature of the Lords to come to an end.”
His Conservative opposite, Dowden, could offer no such clarity, instead dubbing the legislation a “meagre bill” that “isn’t motivated by a considered and enlightened principle”.
“Labour wants to remove the independent and experienced voices of accepted peers so they can parachute in a wave of new Labour cronies…Labour wants to declare war on the past.”
Dowden dubbed the bill “change for change’s sake” and “virtue signalling,” condemning the Government for an apparent lack of cross-party engagement or consultation.
He suggested that removing hereditary peers could have unintended consequences for the monarchy, somehow.
Perhaps the lack of clarity in the Conservatives’ position stemmed from the fact that voters overwhelmingly want the hereditary peers gone. YouGov polling released this week found that just 16% of the public think the aristocrats should continue to have a guaranteed place in our legislature (they also want the Government to go further in their reforms).
Eventually, it emerged that the Conservatives would oppose the bill altogether.
Dowden closed by saying: “The system we have inherited from the turn of the millennium [i.e. keeping 92 hereditary peers] still works, proving the strengths and adaptability of the British Constitution. Constitutional change is an area where one should tread lightly.
“It requires proper consultation, engagement and consideration, and on that basis, as set out in our recent amendment, His Majesty’s most loyal opposition will be opposing this bill not to defend the privilege of old [laughter from Labour benches], but in defence of a strong and independent parliament.”
There was no such attempt to reach cross-party consensus when the last Government was ramming through constitutional changes such as:
- Imposing First Past the Post on voters for mayoral and PCC roles
- Forcing all voters to show photo ID for the first time ever in UK-wide (and English) elections
- Implementing a power-grab of the Electoral Commission, setting its strategy for the first time, and packing the body scrutinising it (the Speaker’s Committee) with more Government appointees
- Hiking political party spending limits just before the General Election
And while Dowden hit out at “change for change’s sake” in his speech, that only raised the question: was he simply providing “opposition for opposition’s sake” to these plans?
The shadow Deputy PM opposed the bill to scrap hereditary peers by saying Parliament should “stand up to an over-mighty executive” and defend Britain’s “liberties and freedoms”.
That is a noble principle. In the eyes of the Conservatives – or some of them at least – it is met by guaranteeing blue-blooded males 10% of seats in the second chamber.
As Nick Thomas-Symonds put it: “Do they have any coherent position left?”
Perhaps they will when they emerge from their leadership contest. Until then, some Conservative MPs will be constitutional revolutionaries, simply because it is a stick to beat Labour with. The rest mount are mounting a feeble defence of the right to win power based on one’s bloodline.
An earlier version of this piece called Nick Thomas-Symonds the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That role is held by Pat McFadden. We’re happy to amend this.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
