‘We will
grind you down’: how rogue peers became Labour’s toughest opponents
Jessica
Elgot Deputy political editor
Labour
peers say the House of Lords has slowed down virtually every bill, including
key manifesto pledges.
As Labour
seeks abolition of hereditary peers, Tory-dominated House of Lords has
inflicted near-record number of defeats on No 10
Sat 3 Jan
2026 06.00 GMT
Dining in
the House of Lords canteen just after Labour came to power, one Labour adviser
found themselves sitting opposite two Tory peers.
In
particular, the pair were fuming about the forthcoming abolition of hereditary
peers. Both agreed, the adviser said, that there should be a deliberate
strategy to undermine the government on all its legislation, to slow down
debate, and to push the new Lords leader, Angela Smith, to ask No 10 for
concessions.
Another
recalled a Tory peer gleefully telling the new Labour Lords appointees: “We are
going to grind you down.”
Even with
an enormous majority in the Commons, Labour has seemed to struggle to pass much
of its programme. But by far the hardest slog has been in the Lords.
Labour
may yet be on course for a record number of defeats for any governing party,
although the parliamentary session has been longer than normal.
Already
Labour has faced 111 defeats, with at least four more months to go. The record
is 128 defeats for the Conservatives, under Boris Johnson during the 2021-22
session.
Labour
peers said virtually every bill had been slowed down, from key manifesto
pledges on water regulation to rail nationalisation, Great British Energy and
the football regulator. The employment rights bill was repeatedly rejected,
even after a major concession.
Amendments
are being “de-grouped” at late stages into smaller groups of one or two,
meaning debates last hours longer. “Each time it is more or less the same
people,” one Labour peer said. “Former Tory MPs, making the same kind of
speeches over and over again.”
“The
usual channels are not operating,” another Labour peer said. “The conventions
do not apply. It’s essentially a particular group of former Tory MPs who act
like they are still in the Commons but actually have more power to cause
disruption, because they can intervene, they can try to adjourn, they can push
anything to a vote, they basically don’t give a fuck about how the Lords
normally operates.”
Alice
Lilly, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, said the figures
did show a House of Lords that was inflicting more and more defeats on the
government, but that that was a growing trend, including when the Tories were
in power.
“The
figures do create this picture of the Lords as being a bit more assertive, and
that doesn’t necessarily mean that governments aren’t getting their way,” she
said. “The government made concessions on the day-one rights for the employment
rights bill, but also, that was a choice.”
In
reality – apart from the employment rights bill where the government conceded
on day-one rights in order to get the bill passed faster – there have been few
bills where the Lords have directly forced concessions.
Still,
the disruption has convinced some to think more radically about what reforms
might be needed.
Paul
Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said that although he expected peers to fight
the employment rights bill, “it felt to me absolutely untenable that you had
unelected peers holding up what was a clear manifesto commitment from a
government that won a majority of 170 seats.
“I do
think it raises real questions. I think it speaks to the arrogance on those
benches, to be honest with you.”
Whips
have noticed that the numbers they would expect for a vote are now far higher.
The Conservatives can turn out about 180 peers for votes, with Labour able to
muster about 140.
Among the
Labour whips, peers are now running a rota to keep far larger numbers in the
house because of the risk of Conservatives calling for adjournment. “It erodes
good will because you have to keep people hanging around,” one said.
Another
peer said they had noticed a decisive shift in the way parliament operated
since Labour won its majority.
“I think
we had a rose-tinted view. We usually played ball in opposition, especially on
manifesto stuff,” they said. “It will make a difference to our numbers for sure
when the hereditaries go in May. But it won’t be enough.”
Most
peers who spoke to the Guardian said the manifesto pledge to abolish hereditary
peers, which will see all remaining 92 hereditary members leave at the end of
the parliament, had been the moment the Conservatives decided to no longer
abide by conventions.
Half of
those due to be expelled sit on the Tory benches. Most of the others are
crossbench and just four are Labour. Every stage of the bill to abolish
hereditary peers Lords has resulted in considerable disruption in the Lords, as
well as demands in private meetings for compensation for removed peers.
During
the first vote on hereditary peers, a sponsor spent £20,000 to hire the Lords’
Cholmondeley Room for dinner and drinks to keep peers on the estate to vote it
down.
“There is
something quite perverse about claiming that you are defending the hereditary
peers because you care just so much about the sanctity of the Lords and then
doing all these kind of dirty tricks,” one peer said.
But
several pointed out that the Conservatives had done little to protect the
departing peers. “If Kemi Badenoch really cared about the hereditary peers then
she would have used her own slots to convert some of them into life peers but
she did not,” one Lords source said.
Because
of the multiple revolts, Labour has done what it criticised the Conservatives
for doing: giving peerages to close allies, from former advisers to union
officials, and staff members, some of whom needed cover for an awkward
departure.
They
include Starmer’s ousted chief of staff Sue Gray, his former spokesperson
Matthew Doyle, Rachel Reeves’s senior staffer Katie Martin, and Liz Lloyd, who
worked under Starmer and Tony Blair in the No 10 policy unit.
“We could
be giving them to much better people,” one senior Labour source grumbled. “I’m
not sure why we are handing them out as consolation prizes to former advisers.”
But in No
10, there was recognition that the peerages list had to match the vigour of the
new Tory peers – many of them recently departed MPs – who wanted to be fulltime
legislators. “We need the political people in there who can make it their job,”
one senior source said.
Once the
latest additions to the Lords are counted, the Conservatives will still have
significantly more peers – 285 to Labour’s 234. But there are others who the
Tories can often count on, including some crossbenchers. Whips say the Tories
can bolster their numbers by another 15-20 on crunch votes.
The
Liberal Democrats, who will have 78 peers, have often voted against the
government, including on employment rights. But the Tories will lose 44
hereditary peers at the end of the session in May.
“The
Tories went ballistic when we only offered them three,” one government source
said. “But the idea is try to build towards parity.”
Some
peers argue that a more activist House of Lords has been necessary because of
the sheer number of bills that arrive from the Commons in an imperfect
condition, with new MPs seemingly less concerned with their job as legislators
and more with directly representing their constituents or campaigning on their
own interests.
“The
Commons bills have been rushed through,” one peer said. “They are not fit for
purpose.”
On the
assisted dying bill, one of the most controversial bills of the parliament
which has faced significant disruption in the Lords, opponents have made the
case that because it is a private member’s bill, it has not had the kind of
consultative process it needs. More than 1,000 amendments have been submitted.
But its
supporters believe there is a core group of hardline peers who oppose the
principle and are using procedural tactics to talk out the bill, which will
fall if it is not passed at the end of the session. Seven of the most vocal
opponents to the bill have put forward more than 600 amendments between them.
In the
new year, the campaign group Unlock Democracy will turn its focus to Lords
reform and says it will put the spotlight on a small number of influential
peers who it believes are blocking the bill’s progress. While the group does
not take a position on the issue of assisted dying, it says it is fundamentally
a democratic issue.
Its chief
executive, Tom Brake, a former Lib Dem MP, said the “glacial progress” of both
the assisted dying bill and the hereditary peers bill “make an incontrovertible
case for radical reform of the House of Lords. This must go far beyond a
retirement age and participation test and tightening up appointments.”
Things
are unlikely to get easier for Labour as it pursues those further changes. Last
week Lady Smith announced that a committee will consider the next stage of
reform promised by Labour in its manifesto: a retirement age of 80 plus
potentially mandating how often peers must be present and engage in parliament.
The
committee, featuring four Labour and four Tory peers, plus two Liberal
Democrats and two crossbenchers, will consider the plans over the next six
months.
Lilly
said the new generation of peers might arguably be making a case for reform “in
the way they don’t intend to”. But she said that ultimately the elected
government was getting its way, and that the disruption should raise questions
for governments about the state of legislation arriving from the Commons.
“We’ve
seen the government using framework bills, where they’re basically introducing
a bill to parliament before they’ve properly figured out the actual details of
it, and they’re asking parliament to pass it and then fill in the details later
with secondary legislation.
“I think
there’s always a question now for governments: if we’re seeing the Lords being
more assertive, have you got the plans in place to deal with that?”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário