Lords stalemate

It is not simply that the matter does not engage the passions of a large enough number of voters. It is because the arcane procedures of the House of Commons allow chicanery, delay and filibuster to protect privilege and get in the way of democratic progress.

David Cameron will convince no-one by saying he is going to have “one more attempt” at change before drawing a line under it. Those are hardly the words of a politician convinced that his argument is right.

Those Conservatives who do not want to create a rival chamber, or are simply obsessed by tradition, know they have their leader on the run. A legislature which is overpopulated and bogged down by obsolete methods, with limited influence, seems to be here to stay.

Labour cannot be proud of its role in the current debacle. For more than 15 years in the last century it had majorities well into three figures.

Some advance was made in reducing the delaying powers of the second chamber. But the  hereditary principle was not abolished.

Too often Conservatives and Labour combine in unholy  alliances to block change.

It happened in the 1960s when the then Labour backbencher Michael Foot, anxious to strip the Lords of any legitimacy, combined with right- winger Enoch Powell, anxious to maintain tradition, to stop the Wilson government’s plans to democratise the chamber.

All parties need to realise that getting change in society is more difficult if the public sees that parliament cannot change itself.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes