Skip Navigation


Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access originally published online on June 12, 2006
Parliamentary Affairs 2006 59(4):599-620; doi:10.1093/pa/gsl031
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
59/4/599    most recent
gsl031v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dorey, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and House of Lords Reform

Peter Dorey

Reader in British Politics at Cardiff University

Throughout its one hundred year history, the Labour Party has never been able to agree on how the House of Lords should be reformed. On those occasions when Labour parliamentarians have sought to devise a package of reforms, most notably in 1949, 1969 and since 1999, they have discovered that each potential measure to change the composition or power of the House of Lords raises other potential problems. For example, a more democratic or representative membership would imbue the Second Chamber with more legitimacy, and thus increase the likelihood of challenges to a Labour government in the House of Commons, whilst replacing hereditary peers with appointees raises concerns about enhancing prime ministerial patronage. Such have been the range of possible options for reform of the House of Lords, and the concomitant range of opinions in the Labour Party, that no agreement has ever been reached, and hence previous proposals for Lords reform have invariably been abandoned. It is in this context that the Blair Governments stalling over ‘stage two’ of House of Lords reform should be understood.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.