Is Farron attempting to force House of Lords Reform?

Farron’s announcement, that he will use Liberal Democrat peers to vote down legislation has been branded hypocritical. I would describe it as calculating. From Lloyd George to Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leaders have tried and failed to abolish the House of Lords. Farron does not support the Lords (as far as I can tell the last major party leader to support the House of Lords was John Major).

There is a convention that peers do not vote against manifesto pledges (the Sailsbury Convention).  If the Liberal Democrats choose to ignore this convention, there will be no ramifications whatsoever. The convention is nothing other than a pact. Farron could set a precedent of the Lords becoming a large blockade, in the path of the Prime Minister.

Throughout history, Prime Ministers dealt with opposition in the Lords by either reform or attempted abolition. Lloyd George himself stripped the Lords of the right to veto legislation, in order to prevent them from voting down laws that would introduce higher rates of tax. Wilson tried to remove the hereditary peers who consistently blocked his bills.

Cameron himself favours abolition of the House of Lords. He voted for a 80% elected chamber in 2007 and the Conservative Party manifesto states: “While we still see a strong case for introducing an elected element into our second chamber, this is not a priority in the next Parliament.”

The reason Cameron does not consider it a priority, is he knows it will be a fight he is unlikely to win, nor can he face a lengthy showdown with his backbenches. Nevertheless Farron may force his hand.

Cameron is the first Conservative Prime Minister who cannot rely on the support of the House of Lords. Since 1999, only 10% of the hereditary peers have been allowed to sit on the Red Benches. The break up of the coalition, means the Lords is now a hung legislature.

The current composition of the House of Lords is thus:

Conservatives: 224

Labour: 211

Liberal Democrats: 101

Cross-benchers 176

With just under  1/7th of the votes (assuming all peers turn up and vote in unison) it’s clear the Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power – but only if they join forces with the Labour party or the crossbenchers (who never signed up to the Sailsbury convention either).

The four main leaders are united on Lords reform. Based on their voting records: Cameron favours 80% elected, Farron favours 80% or 100%, with Corbyn and Robertson supporting 100% elected. It seems plausible that the leaders could reach a compromise of 80%.

The Liberal Democrats consistently oppose the Lords. The SNP boycott the House of Lords; there are no currently no life peers with the SNP whip (and I am unaware of any previous SNP peers). However there are more divisions in the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Some Labour MPs favour outright abolition IE the House of Parliament rather than the Houses of Parliament. Fifty Labour MPs signed an early day motion supporting this, in 2007. Cameron himself faced considerably rebellion in 2012; reportedly he shouted at Jesse Norman MP who spearheaded the rebellion that scuppered the Coalition’s attempt to reform the Lords.

With a divided Labour Party and internal opposition, the prospect of Lords reform cannot enthrall Cameron. Nevertheless it seems hard to imagine it will remain off the table, if Farron uses his position in the Lords to scupper legislation.