Jack Straw 'backslides on Lords reform'

Leaked memo reveals the possibility of Hereditary peers until 2050

A Leaked memo, prepared by Jack Straw, suggests that the 92 remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords could be got rid of through 'natural wastage' - leaving some remaining in the Lords until 2050.

Come On! Why are we being so half arsed on this? After the cash for peerages row, surely there's no alternative to an all-elected chamber? So why not just get on with it rather than messing around like this?

I'm not a big fan of Jack Straw but enough people had told me that he was passionate about constitutional reform to make me think he might do some good. I'm starting to think I might have been mistaken.

Constitutional reform is one of the big achievements of this government. But we seem to have lost our nerve.

What's going on? Thoughts?

See also: The Glass House


Display: Sort:

Re: Jack Straw 'backslides on Lords reform' (#1)


It's an interesting one.  Obviously the power of patronage is an extraordinary one in any prime minister's hands, and they are always reluctant to give up extraordinary powers.  The problem, I assume, is that a majority can't be found to agree with you and me (and most sensible people) that the second chamber has to be fully elected.  So many people feel they have the correct formula (and there is a substantial minority view whereby you get rid of the whole thing) that there isn't the clear consensus that is required.

One big stumbling block is obviously Blair - he has never seemed particularly keen on the idea of an elected second chamber.  What are the views of his potential successors?

Re: Jack Straw 'backslides on Lords reform' (#2)

I think Lords reform might be something they're leaving so that the new leader can stake out a 'radical' position that isn't tainted by accusations about being left-wing or right-wing.