Perhaps it was because I watched it during the first week of lockdown, but I have a particular attachment to this BBC documentary on House of Lords reform, first aired in February 2000. It is a Michael Cockerell production, so you know it will be good, but it is even better than that.
It nominally follows Baroness Jay in her quest to kick the hereditaries out of the upper chamber. But it's really about the exercise of power, and the political judgement to know when to plough on and when to compromise. There are also some desperately funny moments which, sadly for William Hague, come mostly at his expense.
The House of Lords Act 1999 was conspicuous in its incompleteness, by leaving 92 hereditary peers in place. This has led to some spectacular silliness, such as hereditary by-elections. But soon, these will be consigned to the past, as the government begins the process of removing the hereditaries from Parliament, a manifesto commitment.
The usual political positions have been taken. Labour's Nick Thomas-Symonds called the legislation a "landmark reform to our constitution", criticising the current situation as "out of step with modern Britain." Conservative critics condemned the move as “political vandalism”.
That Tony Blair's government got rid of all but 92 hereditary peers is, on the face of it, a little strange. Even that figure is something of a curiosity, in that it was a compromise struck between the government and the Conservative faction in the Lords, largely behind Hague's back.
It also represents a very particular brand of radicalism, in that it got the change it ultimately sought, without necessarily achieving total victory. Blair faced criticism for failing to deliver on his promise to remove all of the hereditaries, not that he minded. In that way, it is similar to civil partnerships, another New Labour reform introduced in 2004, which paved the way for same sex marriage less than a decade later.
That the Lords reform passed a quarter of century ago did most of the heavy lifting can be seen in the length of the Bill introduced today, which is shorter than this newsletter. But Labour has bigger plans to reform the constitution than this. Starmer still intends to introduce an upper age limit of 80 for peers.
More ambitiously, the prime minister remains committed, theoretically at least, to abolishing the Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber. Though the party's 2024 election manifesto only promised to "consult on proposals". In the meantime – like any new government lacking a majority in the Lords – expect it to nominate plenty of new peers as it seeks to get its legislative programme through.
Of course, piecemeal reform does not always achieve its ultimate aims. Sometimes compromise gets frozen in time. The history of the British constitution is riddled with apparently temporary solutions which have lasted centuries. But the initial Lords compromise served its purpose. The Tories managed to eke out an additional quarter of a century of hereditaries. Labour got more than enough to call it a win. No sane citizen really cared either way. And it was left to future political leaders to decide when that status quo was no longer fit for purpose.
