In the News
Revisiting the issue of House of Lords reform
A Former PM lambasts the current PM's use of honours system
Gordon Brown, in the Guardian wrote:
"Exactly 100 years ago, with his government embroiled in scandal after scandal that included the sale of peerages, the then prime minister, David Lloyd George, was brought down by Conservative backbench MPs. Now, with the current prime minister also having been unceremoniously dispatched by Conservative backbenchers, his attempt in his final weeks to create multiple new peerages is once again placing the House of Lords at the centre of scandal."
Consider the following arguments, and read the article in full before considering whether the case for reforming the upper chamber is stronger than ever.
Arguments in favour of reforming the Lords
- Probably main argument is that the Lords as an institution is often viewed as elitist, unrepresentative of the general population (mostly old white men from privileged backgrounds), and overly conservative in outlook.
- The hereditary element: a feature shared with only one other country. Lesotho; which has 22 tribal chiefs in its Senate.
- Empirical evidence: The only other country in the world that is composed of entirely non-elected members is the Canadian Senate – itself modelled on the House of Lords. Surely that must tell you something?
- Legitimacy: An elected chamber would be more be more confident of its role in the political process, thus a stronger bulwark against the over-mighty Commons.
- Public demand: opinion polls consistently show 2/3 and above favour some elected element.
- Representation: employing a PR based voting system would enable a more accurate portrayal of support for smaller parties in our national legislature (think UKIP 2010).
- Unfinished business: after the ejection of all but 92 hereditaries, and the decamping of the Law Lords to the Supreme Court, the Lords sits untidily and contains a number of anomalies.
- But without trying to defend the indefensible, we should also consider the arguments of those in favour of preserving the status quo.
Arguments against reforming the Lords
- The current chamber works well. It is the most active chamber in the world. It sits for longer and meets more frequently than any other: Since 1999 the Lords has proved to be a useful check on the executive dominated Commons. See Meg Russell's research on this.
- It provides an antidote to the lower house as it provides the opportunity to create a chamber which contains people who have experience of something other than professional politics. A chamber with mostly appointed rather than elected legislators is not without its advantages.
- Legislative gridlock would occur. An elected chamber, granted a new sense of legitimacy would see no need to bow to the Commons.
- Problems of election excess. There are nearly 1,000 elected office holders above local level in the UK. Do we really need any more?
- On a related note, this raises concerns about the (low) quality of the new legislators – would it be stocked full of the ‘has beens’ and ‘never weres’.
- As with a clutch of other potential reforms to the constitution, there is no real public appetite for reform.
- Another problem in common with other constitutional reform proposals is the lack of consensus on the issue. Size, method and timing of elections, etc.
- Introducing elections would be no panacea. Voters in countries with elected second chambers, such as the USA, are not over the moon with the job they perform.