Filibustering could hasten Lords reforms

One of the most short-sighted things about Labour's filibustering in the Lords is the long-term damage that it could do to the current structure of the Upper House. Unlike in the Commons, there are no mechanisms to restrict the length of debates in the Lords. This means that there is a risk of filibustering, but until now this has not been a problem because it was seen as poor form. It goes against the general intention of the Sailsbury Convention of 1945, which gave the Commons primacy and acknowledged that the Lords did not have democratic legitimacy.

I happen to think that, despite being obviously anachronistic and undemocratic, the Lords plays a very positive role in our legislative system. But it cannot continue as it is if the opposition party in the Commons uses its peers to filibuster Government legislation. By breaking convention Labour's actions necessitate the creation of new rules limiting debates in the Lords. And by raising the topic of reform in one area, people will naturally start to look more widely at the way the Lords operates.