Lords, tax credits and those point-scoring Lib Dems

Confused as to why a debate on tax credits has become one centred on the very British constitution itself? You’re in good company, so here’s a rather excellent guide to help you understand it.
With that out of the way, we should be absolutely clear that if a fatal motion succeeds against the statutory instrument through which the Conservative government seeks to implement its tax credit changes, it will raise serious questions about the political legitimacy of the House of Lords.

One of the great things about the British constitution and legal system is that they rely on conventions and precedent. The constitution is often described as ‘unwritten,’ but this isn’t true: it’s simply not codified in to a single document in the way that most national constitutions are. Convention and customs are what allow our parliamentary system to function as it does: the monarch can theoretically veto any law she wants, but of course she never does. She can theoretically appoint anyone she wants to form a government, but of course she acts in accordance with the outcome of a general election, and lets the politicians hammer a deal out themselves if there is no overall winner and tell her what to do next. Similarly, the upper chamber is enabled to revise legislation, apply expertise and ensure proposals are debated in a considered manner that can often be difficult in the highly partisan House of Commons. That’s what the lords do, and because the commons have the ultimate say by means of the 1911 Parliament Act (if required), our constitution allows the House of Lords to remain unelected without creating any serious democratic deficits. But since they aren’t elected, peers have generally recognised the importance of observing one particular convention: that they not block money bills, especially when their objections are simply that the proposal does not conform to their own political views. Marvellous: everyone was happy, until now!

The Lib Dems have tabled a fatal motion which, if passed today, will kill the statutory instrument. If that happens it is likely that the upper chamber would, at the very least, be formally reformed and have its wings seriously clipped. This is particularly so because the legitimacy of the house is further called in to question because it is the Lib Dems who have tabled the motion: a party that took a battering at the general election and was reduced to a measly 8 MPs. This is a party that enjoys no significant support in the country, trying to defy a convention simply to block a policy it doesn’t like, for what I think are utterly stupid reasons. Of course, they haven’t given a reason other than to insist that their only concern is not to devastate working families through far-reaching cuts (as regular readers will know, I question the extent to which this claim about such an impact is true, but that’s another matter). The truth is, however, that they sense a golden political opportunity here, particularly as Labour is being much more cautious about using the House of Lords to kill the proposal. Tim Farron sees his chance to show the Lib Dems as a real alternative to the Tories, and whilst he’s at it, to win over would-be Corbyn voters: he actually used the words “comradely fashion” in agreeing to support Labour’s amendment motion). Additionally, the Lib Dems have aggressively championed an elected House of Lords but have never enjoyed sufficient support from other parties to do anything about it. Laughably, Tim Farron said that the government has “no mandate” to do what it is doing. Tim, they won an election on a manifesto committing to £12bn in welfare cuts. An election victory is the biggest mandate any party can be given. Farron wants to argue that his peers have a rival mandate, which of course they don’t. A rival mandate to the commons could only exist if the upper chamber was also elected, which is why an elected House of Lords could only come in to existence with some much more fundamental constitutional reform and a bicameral (2-chamber) legislature that operates in a manner similar to the US Congress. So this is the Lib Dems sneering, contemptable way of throwing their toys out of the pram: trying to undermine the current House of Lords by highlighting that it is only by convention that it keeps legitimacy and doesn’t actually undermine the democratically elected government in matters concerning the spending of voters’ money. So when we all complain about meddling peers blocking the will of the elected government, Lib Dems can point to their arguments about an elected chamber and say 'We told you so!' Such ungraciousness in defeat and such repugnant politicking with people’s lives show exactly why we should all sound a big cheer that they’re now the comical little side-show in the commons and why we must hope that peers will do the decent and right thing in recognising that the House of Commons has voted twice on the statutory instrument and that it, after all, has the mandate. Suck it up and stick to your brief my lords.