The thorny issue of reform of the House of Lords is rearing its head again. I’m beginning to think that the lack of a solution has a lot to do with a tenancy which I am going to describe as ‘British Preservetism’*.
* I am talking about something that’s distinct from conservatism because that word has obvious political as well as literal connotations and the tendency I’m describing is present across the political spectrum.
I don’t know if someone has already coined ‘Preservetism’ or if it violates all sorts of linguistic rules, but you know, I’m foreign: deal with it. If it catches on though, remember where you heard it first!
It’s worth thinking about why there is such a thing as a House of Lords. The obvious answer is that it is there to check and moderate the power of the lower house and certainly that is what it has been doing since the early part of the last century.
Except that isn’t why the second chamber was created in the first place. Its original purpose was to represent the interests of clergy and nobility. As their influence reduced, in large part through unsuccessful opposition to reforms designed to do just that, it became necessary to find something for house to do other than make sure the lower house didn’t pass legislation that damaged the interests of landed gentry.
There are perfectly good reasons to have a second chamber, especially in geographical large countries with powerful regional governments. Britain, especially since devolution of power the nations (e.g.. Scotland ext.) doesn’t fit that model very well.
There is an easy way to reform the Lords. Abolish it completely. Lets not have a second chamber. Just because there is in room with benches at the Palace of Westminster doesn’t mean we have find some way of getting people to sit on them.
I may be wrong but in amongst all the ideas for reform the Lords, there has been little if any consideration given to just doing away with it. There are good reasons for this. People will be concerned by the lack of oversight such an arrangement would involve but I also think it has something to do with the British preservetism I talked about. The Lords, as an ancient institution as well as a historic place has strong resonance and the body politic is primarily focused on finding a way – contorted if it has to be – of filling it without creating issues of competing democratic legitimacy – which can’t be done. I think in part this is becuse getting rid of something that’s been around for a long time appears to the British psyche as a little destructive.
The notion that the more elections your have the better may appeal to a certain adolescent conception of politics but on a practical level, it isn’t obvious why there is a need to elect a set of people to re-view the legislation created by another bunch of elected representatives.
Just to be clear, as I said earlier, I am not automatically opposed to multicameralism. For example, in the United States, where the states have a great deal of autonomy, the second chamber, the Senate was conceived as a way for the state governments to exert control and influence over central government*.
* The Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected as they are currently. Then they went and messed it up.
In Britain though, I don’t think a second chamber is useful. There is no other entity with a legitimate interest that needs to be represented discrete from the one elected at the constuancy level for Parliment.
If preservetism can’t be over come entirely, one idea might be to have a much smaller, wholly appointed Lords with a function that doesn’t involve opposing or amending the legislation of the directly elected chamber. Give them something useful to do, such as conducting the work of committees on behalf of the Commons and free up the lower house to do more constituency work.
