Ross Clark in Today’s Times:
I was one of those who cheered on Tony Blair when he embarked on his mission to rid the House of Lords of hereditary peers. I began to feel mutinous when, in a fit of pique, the peers threatened to block all legislation then passing through the Upper House. How dare these old buffoons, who are only in Parliament because some distant ancestor slept with Edward II, try to throw their weight around in a democracy, I thought. I felt like raising a mob to pull them from their country piles and toss them into their lakes.
Yup. Me too, me too.
I now realise, though, that they were staunch upholders of civility and decency compared with the mercenary toadies that have replaced them. Somehow I can’t imagine the late Duke of Devonshire trying to squeeze £120,000 out of a lobbyist to help to gain an exception on business rates – not even if the roof at Chatsworth had fallen in and he had worn through the leather patches on his elbows.
I’d come to this conclusion somewhat earlier. As more and more illiberal legislation is pushed through the commons on little more than a nod, it is the peers who stand up for our liberties, who stand as a frail line between us and the beast. This latest fiasco is merely another confirmation that I was wrong.
The Englishman sums it up nicely:
The advantage of hereditary peers was that they didn’t have to seek short term approval or reward. They could afford to take a long term view informed by a sense of history, and by their position of influence being inheritable they were incented to ensure stability continued so they could pass it on to their heirs. No other system is as good, though the old Greek habit of choosing some legislators by lot comes close. What we don’t want is a House of Commons 2.0
Indeed – on all counts. I was wrong. I realise this now. I will have to live with the fact that I once supported the beast as it devoured everything that I hold dear.
yes, the Lords will generally do the right thing. a Lord will not lose income or be answerable to shareholders if he stands up for the common man. if you read neville shute’s “sliderule” you will note his observation that naval officers with an independant income were always more efficient than those without, precisely because they didn’t fear the consequences of making an independant decision without reference to their “superiors”
i was appalled when the N. irish voted with HMG to allow the detention without trial, and relieved that the unelected Lords dealt with this crappy insult to human rights.
Well, yes and no. The hereditary peerage needed to be removed that much was self-evident. Whilst you could have peers taking ‘a long view’ into the work they did there a great many of them were taking a view into the long room and were as much good as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Just because one is related to the Earl Of Warwick does not mean that one even has a chin let alone is a good person to sit in the Parliamentary chamber. The examples of the hereditary peers standing up for the common man are somewhat few and far between historically-speaking.
The fact that they have been replaced by a bunch of toadies is nothing new, after all there were always plenty of toadies and party faithful in the upper chamber but they were counteracted by the bishops and the lords who had of course traditionally toadied to someone else. This does not mean the changing of the legislature was a bad thing it means the New Labour methods and possibly reasons for doing so were wrong.
The problem is that Labour have turned the House Of Lords from an Upper Class Gentleman’s Club into a Middle Class club for former ministers. The basic problem remains an unelected house and until that is tackled properly any change is just tinkering by those who would have everything their own way in the lower chamber.
As regards the N. Irish siding with the government on the laws on detention, one must make it clear that this was one grouping and not in any way representative of the Northern Irish population nor even a large amount of their MPs. Unionists do tend to be by their nature reactionary and have traditionally voted for right-wing legislation.
Hello, long time… I trust all is well.
The problem with an elected upper chamber is that you get the commons mark 2. Given the difficulties that this has produced combined with the irony of our liberties being defended by an unelected chamber, I have no option but to oppose my original position.
A second house has to provide us with safeguards against the excesses of the commons. An elected chamber will simply mirror those excesses.
I would possibly support an Athenian approach, though. That could be interesting 😉
I’d just add to your comments slightly. What is interesting is the attitudes and actions of the appointed Peers when compared with the hereditaries. In my view there is a distinct difference, with the hereditaries generally voting by conviction and the appointees generally voting in support of their political party.
So we are witnessing an increasing moral divide. It’s a worry that some people seem hell-bent on eliminating the (general) impartiality exhibited by the Lords. That inevitably will lead to bad laws becoming statute. It’s also a manifestation of the blind malevolence and class prejudice of this particular government. What evidence is there that an elected House will do any better?
I agree Mark if the elections were to be conducted in the same way it would indeed make it a Commons mark II and that should be avoided, there are of course other ways of doing so, different length of tenure, different criteria for election etc.
The principle problem is a lack of democracy in such a setup anyway. A great many parliamentarians these days do it as a money spinner not because they believe in the fundamentals of their beliefs and the beliefs of a representative political system.
Virtue should of course be its own reward and the principle of a worker’s wage for a worker’s representative is in my view a correct one and one that might lessen the appeal for those not so committed.
Furthermore it is necessary to restructure British politics which is far too centralised. As a result people are whipped up by the media and politicians at a national level to worry about things that actually have very little impact on their daily lives, whilst local and regional issues attract scant attention. If people’s primary concern was for their street, their local school, local hospital, local amenities they might realise that even a small group of committed people can achieve quite a lot at that level and this might reverse the current trend of worsening social exclusion and lack of cohesion and responsibility.
Ah, yes, good old (or should the be bad?) centralisation. Living as I now do under the French commune system, I am seeing local democracy at work – and I am impressed. The mayor is local, directly elected and accountable and always on hand. I’m very, very impressed – not least because he has been a tremendous help during the settling in.