The Lords: An Underrated Check on Power...?

avatar

OK, OK I am NOT a fan of ascribed status, and so those hereditary peers in the House of Lords should just basically be sacked.

Along with said Hereditary peers, the medieval processes, and outdated customs certainly make the House of Lords seem like a poster child for anachronism.

But there is actually an argument that this most absurd of institutions can actually perform positive functions!

Unlike MPs in the Commons, peers are more inclined to vote on conscience rather than on party whip. The result can be a more thoughtful legislative process that improves rather than rubber-stamps government law.

A couple of argument FOR the Lords...

The fact that The Lords are NOT elected gives them distance from electoral politics allows peers to consider legislation through a longer-term perspective, not just the mood of public opinion or party loyalty.

And so many issues today would benefit from thinking in longer than 5 year time scales - climate change, economic development generally, planning of housing and public services, in fact MOST policy areas!

Then there is the fact that The Commons these days are increasingly dominated by not only the dominant party, but the dominant executive faction within that party, and The Lords can offer a valuable counter to that power.

image.png

Reform Required...

Rather than eliminating the Lords, the path forward is reform. Eliminating hereditary peers FOR SURE but keeping the chamber as a revising chamber is perhaps the way to balance tradition and modernisation.

Peers table thousands of amendments every year, around 40% of which are accepted by government – proof that the Lords is not ceremonial but working. Without it, bills like the Online Safety Bill would be able to be railroaded with little scrutiny【source: Hansard Society】.

Final Thoughts

I think having a second chamber is a pretty standard feature of parliamentary democracy, but for Lord's sake, sack of those toffs!

politics uk cent proofofbrain dave neoxian
0
0
0.000
3 comments
avatar

I like what's the Greens do and basically become a Lord and vite to abolish it for an electable body!

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

They would lose that long term perspective if they were elected. The alternative is to have elected members, which brings you right back to the same problem.
In the US, our reps have two year terms. Senators have six year terms. The creators of the US Constitution at best could only hope for the Senate to be a "cooling saucer". Senators used to be appointed by state governors, which meant that they were also insulated from public election. The 17th Amendment made them elected by popular vote.

In theory, by having governor selected senators, there would be a delay between public sentiment and changes in the Senate. For example, if a governor won an election, they'd have to appoint the next open senate seat. Governors do not have long terms, so the Senator would remain in office, potentially, if a governor were to lose the next election. People didn't like that, introducing the 17th Amendment to make Senators more accountable. Consequently, they are now swayed by public opinion, which has largely resulted in the opposite of what was intended. Senators now rely on political contributions for their massive campaigns. And they have tended to weaken state rights and federalism as they no longer act as ambassadors for individual states.

In short, we aren't seeing much success with this way of populating the upper chamber. And in some states, you're seeing senators elected for decades who typically represent special interests more than their constituents. At least when they were appointed by governors, they had allegiance to their states.

0
0
0.000
Reply