EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

House of Lords reform: another can kicked down another road

The coalition has been weakened. Cameron-Clegg relations have been strained. The loss of shared purpose is palpable

Forced to make a choice about its priorities, the coalition government placed the importance of its own survival above the importance of its bill to reform the House of Lords. By withdrawing the timetabling or programme motion which would have secured the Lords reform bill's passage through the Commons but which faced certain defeat, the government buckled. The original bill passed by 460-124. But the government lost face – especially on the Tory side where 91 voted against the bill – and may have lost Lords reform too.

For ministers, however, the alternative was simply too dangerous to contemplate. If the programme motion had been put to the vote and lost, as seemed certain, the coalition might have unravelled with unexpected speed. A rapid outbreak of hostilities between the coalition parties was the talk of the Commons.

In the end, that was a price neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats were prepared to pay. The coalition therefore lives to fight another day. Another can has been kicked down another road. Politically, that was the only pragmatic outcome on offer.

Yet no one who regards reform of the House of Lords as historic unfinished business can be comfortable with this outcome. Labour claimed a victory for parliament, but that was only true in the sense that something had to give. In all other respects there was no cause for parliamentary pride. The withdrawal of the programme motion greatly increases the likelihood that Nick Clegg's bill will run into the sands . It is not dead yet. But the events of the past 48 hours have hugely reduced its chances of making it onto the statute book. To put it as neutrally as possible, that is another lost opportunity, after a century and more of waiting. True, the passing of the reform bill's passing on second reading on Tuesday night means that Lords reform is still theoretically in play. That perhaps offers something to build on if Labour is serious. Yet any building depends on a flexibility of approach and a willingness to compromise that have been conspicuously absent from this week's manoeuvrings. The conservatives on both sides of the Commons tasted blood. It is hard to see much sign of a change there.

An autumn timetabling motion is promised. Maybe it will meet the objections of those who opposed the motion that was withdrawn. It might in theory succeed where the old one failed. But the Conservative rebels are not interested in making Lords reform easier for Mr Clegg; on the contrary, the rebellion will embolden them. Meanwhile Labour, while still professing commitment to reform, finds it far easier to unite behind opposition towards anything proposed by the coalition than behind reform of an upper house of whose influence many Labour MPs are afraid, even while many of them hope eventually to see out their days there at the taxpayers' expense. The truth is that Labour talks the talk about Lords reform but cannot deliver.

This week's events are likely to have large consequences. Politically, the coalition has been weakened. Relationships between David Cameron and Mr Clegg have been strained. The loss of shared purpose across the coalition is palpable. The Tory revolt will only strengthen the belief on the Labour benches that their oppositionism is bearing fruit.

But the faltering on Lords reform has a wider effect too. "We both want a Britain in which our political system is looked at with admiration, not anger," wrote Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg in their coalition agreement in 2010. Two years later, there is not much sign of progress. A Hansard Society survey showed increased levels of disengagement and even outright rejection of party politics. Last weekend, a YouGov poll found 64% of the public believe that British politicians have neither ethics nor principles. A grand total of 1% think politicians behave in a very principled and ethical way. Nothing that has happened this week is likely to turn that tide. On the contrary, these events suggest it is running stronger than ever.

City lobbying: their pay, their say, their way

Our stories on the finance industry's lobbying machine must serve to toughen up the coalition's proposals

For the ramifications of our stories on the City's lobbying machine, you need simply browse through the rest of the website. Here is an item about how George Osborne is fighting Brussels for the right of bankers to pay themselves untenably large bonuses. There is the report on the admission by the Barclays chairman, Marcus Agius, about how watchdogs had only belatedly taken on the bank about its years of antisocial behaviour: the tax-dodging, the loophole-seeking, the contempt for the normal rules – after years of letting its millionaire executives go wild.

The Collins dictionary defines lobbying as attempting "to influence (legislators, etc) in the formulation of policy". Whether it is pay or taxes or market supervision, the City has had its say and got its way. Over and over again. The results are all around us and will have to be paid for in taxes, debt and damaged economic prospects for years to come.

The response from the lobbying industry to all this was the same on Tuesday as it has been for ages. "Lobbying is an absolutely integral part of the democratic process," wrote the Public Relations Consultants Association. Members of all industries and none must be entitled to make their views known to policymakers. The trouble with the City's influence is that it is so large and pervasive: there are 26 industry bodies and 38 public affairs organisations, and nearly one in every five lords has a direct interest in finance. If anything, the £93m lobbying budget quoted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an understatement: it leaves off conferences, thinktank funding and much of the quotidian entertainment and lunching that goes into buttering up powerbrokers.

Just before becoming prime minister, David Cameron vowed to lessen the grip on the policymaking process exerted by lobbyists and their paymasters. "We don't know who is meeting whom," he declared in 2010. "We don't know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don't know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence." The truth of that statement has only been amplified through all the stories about Frédéric Michel and Jeremy Hunt, Adam Werrity and Liam Fox, and former Conservative treasurer Peter Cruddas and his demands for £250,000 donations in return for dinners with the prime minister.

Yet in office Mr Cameron has shown less resolve in tackling lobbyists' power. The lobby register that his coalition is currently consulting on would ignore whom lobbyists are meeting and why, and how much they are being bankrolled. It would leave off the vast majority of professionals engaged in lobbying work. The results of the consultation will be announced this month. Our stories this week must serve to toughen up the proposals.

In praise of … Frances O'Grady

The election of the new TUC general secretary gives the unions an appropriate and modern public face

Normally there is little to cheer in an election with only one candidate. But the election of Frances O'Grady as general secretary of the Trades Union Congress is an exception. Ms O'Grady will be the first woman to head what in the past has been a very male movement. Yet with women now significantly more likely to be union members than men, this makes Ms O'Grady an appropriate modern public face of the unions. It also puts the British unions very much in the mainstream – the European TUC is now headed by France's Bernadette Ségol, Australia's Sharan Burrow is general secretary of the International TUC, while 15 unions here have female leaders (though none of the big ones). Ms O'Grady is a union moderniser. Merely by getting the job, she makes it harder to dismiss the unions as a blokey movement. But she will be even more influential if she helps to turn around the decline in union membership, now only 23% of the workforce.