Another time, another place

A few months ago, Michael White of the Guardian cheerfully observed that the “AV referendum may test the coalition to destruction – and Clegg has more to lose than Cameron”. Although a residual number of parliamentary observers still hold onto variations of this stark viewpoint, the more widely held opinion is that Nick Clegg and compatriots have all but un-coupled electoral reform from outrageous fortune.

The best place for reform

It has been some time since anyone within earshot tried to fall back upon electoral reform as a creditable (or credible) rationale for the Lib Dem leadership doing handstands over tuition fees, housing benefits and the like. Anyway, being stuck at just above double figures in the polls and with only vague proposition to do a wholesale remapping of boundaries, the premise of no gain without pain is a busted one, in electoral terms at least. Most believe that it will need an enormous amount of reverse-gerrymandering and a small battalion of tory MPs to play dead before any meaningful change in the Commons is likely.

Down the corridor however, their Noble Lordships see it all a little differently. The stakes are now different, according to the genteel wing of the party where there is undisguised admiration apropos a deputy PM who shows all the signs of staying the full course even should Cameron decide to disinter Lloyd George’s remains and then piss on them in Parliament Square. Such grip merits it own reward and what better than a system of constitutional governance which is far more susceptible to peer pressure? After all,who could argue that what this country needs is a second Upper House with real powers of scrutiny to keep those naughty self-indulgent MPs in check.

Last month, Observer columnist Nick Cohen railed against the “Liberal fudge” which he claimed had been substituted for electoral reform. His argument was that the cobbled up AV model could not deliver “greater democratic fairness”. No-one disagreed with him; nor however did anyone point how this was never the government’s objective anyway. When it comes to reform, ministers prefer to talk about efficiency rather than accountability. Measures introduced to effect systemic change and counter endemic abuse habitually end up doing vice-versa, so to speak. Parliamentary expenses have made the proper transition from scandalous excess to institutionalised swindling and all is well at Westminster.

Consequently, a pragmatic and universally more popular action on the horizon is the plan to morph the hybrid House of Lords from its current shifting membership of 744 or thereabouts to an (almost entirely) directly elected upper chamber, e.g. Senate of the United Kingdom, downsized to 300 members and who come up for re-election by thirds at each general election – giving each a 15 year term. At least that is what Jack Straw had in mind and probably what the ConDems are about to repackage.

We peasants can expect more news of this constitutional breakthrough in coming weeks. Then again, if the “rebellion” over housing benefit makes any progress tonight then we will read about it in the Sundays.