Tax credits: The House of Lords is broken

The Cameron government’s defeat over changes to tax credits has sent shockwaves through the British political establishment. Striking a blow against George Osborne’s budget is a tactical victory for Jeremy Corbyn, and his Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, who encouraged the rebellion by striking an emollient tone attempting to gently cajole the Treasury into amending its proposals. The defeat was masterminded by senior Labour peers, notably Lord Falconer and Baroness Hollis, and the cross-bencher Baroness Meacher. Osborne’s audacious raid into Labour territory proclaiming the Conservatives to be the party of working people was vulnerable to the charge that a higher minimum wage and changes to the personal allowance would never off-set the scale of the cuts in tax credits. After a hesitant beginning, Corbyn is demonstrating that his party can be an effective opposition, holding the government to account. But the constitutional implications of last night’s vote will be far-reaching. It is unlikely that the House of Lords as it is presently constituted can survive the decision to defeat the government on such vital business. The model of an appointed revising chamber introduced by the Blair administration after 1997 is unsustainable. The second chamber in the British system of representative democracy is broken.

For traditionalists, the Lords’ decision to vote down the budget measures of a democratically elected government is a shocking act of constitutional vandalism. It is the primacy of the House of Commons that allows governments to introduce radical policies, fulfilling their democratic mandate. This is felt as strongly on the Left of British politics as within the Conservative party. In its 1945 manifesto, Attlee’s Labour party famously gave "clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people’s will by the House of Lords." This has shaped the party’s attitudes to House of Lords reform ever since. In defending three million low income families from an egregious attack on their living standards, Labour has inadvertently conspired in undermining the primacy of the Commons. The former Labour Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, voted with the government last night on these grounds of constitutional principle.

The government’s response in the months ahead will be two-fold: appoint more Conservative peers (after all, they were defeated by only 17 and 30 votes respectively so not that many new appointments are required); and amend the statutory instruments and powers of the Lords so they are no longer able to block legislation. Both are problematic: packing the unelected Lords with more Tory "cronies" is hardly consistent with David Cameron’s stated ambition of bringing down costs or cleaning up politics. The Electoral Reform Society reported that the cost of the Lords has soared by more than £42m since 2010: in the last parliament, more than 60 peers claimed expenses despite never once voting.

More fundamentally, any attempt to alter the Lords’ powers by invoking the Parliament Act will lead to a major confrontation between the elected government of the day and the second chamber. There are many peers who take seriously their role as guardians and custodians of the British constitution. A major stand-off between the Commons and the Lords is not without precedent in British political history, but it is likely to engulf Cameron’s government in a politically costly and time-consuming battle, with victory as yet uncertain. The legislative programme in Cameron’s final term would be fatally disrupted.

Of course, there are those who believe that a significant constitutional crisis is necessary. After all, the UK constitution has been stretched to breaking point, not least by devolution and the threat of Scottish independence. A rebellious House of Lords impeding government legislation is another unpicking of the constitutional threads, threatening to unravel the entire political system leading to deadlock. What the UK needs is a root and branch review of the constitution, preferably through a convention that involves the whole of civil society. What is lacking is a coherent constitutional blueprint that explains how the different components of the system ought to fit together.

The ruling Conservative Party has little interest or appetite for such reforms. Conservatives have always temperamentally preferred to muddle through, eschewing grand principles in favour of practical reforms that express the everyday, common-sense views of the political nation. There is a prospective "progressive alliance" of Greens, Scottish Nationalists and Liberal Democrats that might yet make common-cause to overhaul the UK’s ailing constitution. But these centre-left forces remain a long way from power at Westminster, the essential precondition of achieving any decisive political change.