‘We will grind you down’: how rogue peers became Labour’s toughest opponents | House of Lords

While dining in the House of Lords canteen just after Labor came to power, a Labor adviser found himself sitting opposite two Conservative colleagues.

The two in particular were outraged about the impending elimination of hereditary peers. The adviser said they both agreed there had to be a deliberate strategy to weaken the government on all its legislation, slowing down debate and forcing new Lords leader Angela Smith to seek concessions from No 10.

Another recalled a Tory colleague gleefully telling the Labor Lords’ new appointees: “We’re going to crush you.”

Despite having a massive majority in the House of Commons, Labor appears to be struggling to pass much of its programme. However, the toughest fight so far has been at Lords.

Even if the parliamentary session lasts longer than usual, Labor may be heading for a record number of defeats for any party in power.

Labor already faces 111 defeats with at least four months to go. The record was 128 defeats for the Conservatives under Boris Johnson in the 2021-22 session.

Almost every bill, from key manifesto commitments on water regulation to nationalizing the railways, from Great British Energy to the football regulator, has been slowed down by Labor colleagues, he said. The employment rights bill has been rejected repeatedly, even after a major compromise.

In the late stages, amendments are “bundled” into smaller groups of one or two, meaning discussions can last hours longer. “It’s more or less the same people every time,” said a Labor colleague. “Former Tory MPs make the same kind of speeches over and over again.”

“The usual channels are not working,” another Labor Party member said. “Conventions don’t apply. Essentially, there’s a certain group of former Tory MPs who act as if they’re still in the Commons but actually have more power to cause mayhem because they can intervene, they can try to delay, they can put anything to a vote, they basically don’t care how the Lords normally work.”

Alice Lilly, senior fellow at the Institute of Government, said the figures showed the House of Lords was increasingly defeating the government, but this was a growing trend, including when the Conservatives were in power.

“The figures paint this picture of the Lords as being a little more assertive, and that doesn’t mean governments don’t always get their way,” he said. “The government compromised on day one rights for the employment rights bill, but that too was a choice.”

In fact, there were very few bills on which the Lords directly forced concessions, apart from the employment rights bill, which the government gave up on day one to get the bill through faster.

Still, the disruption has persuaded some to think more radically about what reforms might be necessary.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said although he expected his colleagues to fight against the employment rights bill, “it strikes me as absolutely untenable that you have unelected colleagues who have a clear manifesto commitment to a government winning a majority of 170 seats.

“I think it raises real questions. I think it’s indicative of the arrogance at the time, to be honest with you.”

Whips realized that the numbers they expected for the vote were now much higher. The Conservatives could get around 180 votes, while Labor could get around 140 votes.

Amid the risk of the Conservatives calling for adjournment, Labor whips are now rotating through their peers to keep far greater numbers of them in parliament. “This erodes goodwill because you have to keep people together,” one of them said.

Another colleague said they had noticed a marked change in the functioning of parliament since Labor won the majority.

“I think we had a rosy outlook. We often played ball with the opponent, especially on manifesto issues,” they said. “The departure of the hereditary people in May will definitely make a difference in our numbers. But it will not be enough.”

Many of the colleagues who spoke to the Guardian said the manifesto’s promise to abolish hereditary peers, which envisioned all 92 remaining hereditary members leaving at the end of parliament, was the moment when the Conservatives decided they would no longer abide by conventions.

Half of those to be expelled sit on Conservative Party benches. Most of the others are crossbench and only four are Labour. Each stage of the bill to abolish hereditary peer Lords has led to significant disruption in the Lords, as well as demands for compensation for peers removed in private meetings.

During the first vote for hereditary peers, a sponsor spent £20,000 renting the Lords’ Cholmondeley Chamber for dinner and drinks and ensuring that peers in the estate did not vote.

“There’s something pretty perverse about claiming to protect your hereditary peers because you care so much about the sanctity of the Lords, and then playing all these dirty tricks,” one peer said.

But many pointed out that the Conservatives had done little to protect their departing colleagues. “If Kemi Badenoch really cared about her hereditary peers, she would have used her quotas to turn some of them into life peers, but she did not,” a Lords source said.

Because of the multiple rebellions, Labor has done what it criticized the Conservatives for doing: giving demotions to close allies, from former consultants to union officials to staff, some of whom needed protection for a bizarre departure.

They include Starmer’s sacked chief of staff Sue Grey, his former spokesman Matthew Doyle, Rachel Reeves’ senior staffer Katie Martin and Liz Lloyd, who worked under Starmer and Tony Blair in the No 10 policy unit.

“We could have given them to much better people,” grumbled a senior Labor source. “I’m not sure why we’re handing these out to former advisors as consolation prizes.”

But it was accepted at No 10 that the peerage list must match the strength of new Tory peers – many of whom have recently left MPs – who want to become full-time legislators. “We need political people there who can do the job,” a senior source said.

When the latest additions to the Lords are counted, the Conservatives will still have significantly more peers – 285 to Labour’s 285. But there are others the Conservatives can often rely on, including some crossover candidates. Whips say that with tight voting the Conservative Party could increase its numbers by another 15-20 people.

The Liberal Democrats, who have 78 MPs, have frequently voted against the government, including on employment rights. But the Conservative Party will lose 44 hereditary peers at the end of the session in May.

“The Conservatives went crazy when we only offered them three,” a government source said. “But the idea is to try to move towards equality.”

Some of his colleagues argue that a more activist House of Lords is necessary because of the abundance of flawed bills coming through the Commons, with new MPs less concerned with their jobs as legislators and more concerned with directly representing their constituents or campaigning in their own interests.

“The House of Commons bills are rushed,” said one colleague. “They are not fit for purpose”

Opponents of the assisted dying bill, which is one of Parliament’s most controversial bills and has faced significant disruption in the House of Lords, have argued that it does not have the kind of consultation process it requires because it is a private member’s bill. More than 1,000 changes were submitted.

But his supporters believe there is a core group of hard-line colleagues who oppose that principle and are using procedural tactics to talk the bill out, which will fall if not passed by the end of the session. Seven of the bill’s most vocal opponents put forward more than 600 amendments between them.

In the new year, the Unlock Democracy campaign group says it will turn its focus to Lords reform and direct attention to a small number of influential peers it believes are blocking the bill’s progress. While the group does not take a position on assisted dying, it says it is a fundamentally democratic issue.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake said the “glacial progress” on both the assisted dying bill and the hereditary precedent bill “makes an indisputable case for radical reform in the House of Lords”. “This must go far beyond tightening retirement ages, participation testing and appointments.”

As Labor continues these changes, things are unlikely to get easier. Last week Lady Smith announced that a committee would consider the next stage of reform promised by Labor in its manifesto: increasing the retirement age to more than 80 and potentially mandating how often colleagues should be present and take part in parliament.

The committee, made up of four Labor and four Conservative MPs, as well as two Liberal Democrats and two crossover candidates, will consider the plans over the next six months.

Lilly said his next generation of colleagues could possibly make a case for reform “in a way they didn’t intend.” But he said the elected government ultimately got its way and the disruption should raise questions for governments about the status of legislation coming through the House of Commons.

“We have seen the government use framework bills, where they essentially present a bill to parliament before they fully understand the actual details of the bill and ask parliament to pass it and fill in the details with secondary legislation later.

“I think there’s always a question for governments now: if we see the Lords become more assertive, do you have plans to deal with that?”