My visceral longing for Labour, at last, to win again, has become an obsession. Early each morning, I am glued to the latest polls on Wikipedia. So far, all looks good. But I will never forget the 1992 horror when we went into the election seemingly bound for victory, only to be cast down on the day itself, maybe partly because of Neil Kinnock’s shrill triumphalism. Shrill triumphalism will certainly not occur under Keir Starmer, but equally nor will Kinnock’s real, raw centre-left drive and conviction, which at its best was inspirational. So, I worry.
If we do make it through, I hope Starmer lifts spirits with an immediately dynamic start. In 1997 it was Gordon Brown giving independence to the Bank of England. For Starmer it should be the long-awaited reform of the House of Lords. Reduce it to, say, 600 peers (from 782 at present), of which 500 would be appointed by proportional representation based on the general election popular vote, and selected from party lists (if Labour wins 40 per cent of the vote it gets 40 per cent of 500, so 200 peers; the Tories 34 per cent, so 170 peers; the Greens 7 per cent, so 35 peers, etc). The other 100 balance peers should be crossbenchers selected by the Appointments Commission, with an eye to special groupings, such as regional ones. The Lords Spiritual should go, as should the Hereditaries. Future peers would only be appointed within the above structure.
Content from our partners
