![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political post
Mar. 10th, 2007 08:18 amForgive me, but I'm going to talk politics.
This week, MPs voted for a fully elected House of Lords. If it happens, this will be possibly the most significant reform of the political landscape in Britain since the execution of Charles II. And, seriously, the reform is way overdue.
I'm a republican. I oppose our monarchy and have for most of my life. I see no value in the House of Lords being filled with hereditary peers. An accident of birth should not confer political power.
I am also a secularist. My religious beliefs are my own, private. But I believe strongly in separation of religion and state. Religion should not be taught in schools, our head of state should not be titular head of any religion and I can see no value in allowing Anglican bishops seats in the House of Lords when the leaders of other faiths do not enjoy parallel privilege.
But I do not believe a fully elected second chamber is the answer. In fact, I'm convinced that it's a disaster waiting to happen.
The role of the Lords is to provide a check and balance for the elected House of Commons. During the last few years the Lords have been responsible for reigning in the worst of our Prime Minister's attempts to turn the UK into a police state. They were also responsible for watering down the anti-hunting bill so much that it's utterly toothless. In the first example, we see the Lords acting as a second chamber should, in the second, we see the privileged class hijacking legislation in order to retain its privileges.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. The only reason the Lords have been able to rein in Blair's so-called anti-terror laws is because they are an unelected body, accountable only to the Queen. If they were elected, they would be subject to the whims of their political parties, wealthy lobbyists, they would have to worry about getting re-elected...and who would be elected? Politicians, no one else. Even if this hypothetical reformed House of Lords were elected by a fair system of proportional representation (and I don't see our present government being that progressive), it would inevitably be dominated by the main political parties, and thus subject to the orders of the party leaders. We would, in short, end up with the equivalent of the USA's Senate - now that might work for them but it won't work in the UK without significant reform of the Commons as well.
The Lords also contains significant expertise. Our MPs are politicians and they draft legislation very poorly at times. They don't really think about the ramifications. The Lords do. The defeat of the worst measures contained in the Mental Health Bill are a prime example. I don't have a lot of time to watch the parliament channel these days, but if you do, try it for a while. Yeah, it's boring debate. But listen to the tone of the talk. The Commons is like a school playground with bullies and cliques and games of one-upmanship going on all the time. A Lords debate, by contrast tends to be measured, intelligent...and adult.
What is needed is a way to retain that intelligence and expertise in our Second Chamber of government, and yet somehow create a chamber with a genuine democratic mandate. I do not have a solution. But I'm convinced that a 100% elected Second Chamber will not serve the purpose.
Other articles:
My links are, inevitably, a skewed toward the reform side of the argument because the most intelligent comment on the subject has been on the Guardian site. I'll add to this list as I find more worth reading.
Roy Hattersley says he will join the Lords to fight for the House's destruction
David Ramsbotham defends the current system
Tony Benn says he would stand for election to a reformed House of Lords
