Nick de Bois is wrong on delaying House of Lords reform

Conservative MP Nick de Bois put an apparently appealing case on Lords reform on Iain Dale’s website at the weekend – yes, let’s get rid of hereditaries, but hey, let’s not rush:

Lords reform should not be rushed.

Appealing that is, if you’ve missed out on the last century.

Because not only is it a century since further Lords reform was first promised by a government, but in the interim that have been proposals, debates and schemes aplenty.

Of course there are some hotly contested points in any reform of the House of Lords. But those who say, ‘let’s not rush’ really need to answer this question: “What would a delay of a few more years provide that a delay of a century hasn’t?”

Prevaricating for longer won’t make those contested points go away, nor will it make them clearer or easier. It will just let more time pass. It’s noticeable that the calls for delay are never accompanied by specifics: what is it that needs more time to think about which hasn’t already been thought about for years?

Saying we should not rush an issue that has barely started being debated often has much to commend it; saying we should not rush an issue that’s already had a century of debate is either foolish or deliberately obstructive.