The House of Lords should be abolished. Presented as a revising Chamber that undertakes detailed scrutiny of government legislation, and as a restraint upon the near dictatorial powers of the Executive, particularly those of the prime minister of the day, its true role is obscured. The House of Lords is really a contributor to the overweening power of the prime minister.
Its members are appointed by the prime minister to reward compliance in political life; specifically in the Commons but also in all and everyday compliance, through every political act and utterance in the country at large, and within various levels of Party activity, as well as in all media interactions.
Any role the Lords might have or attempt to exert to constrain the Executive is negated both by the simple expedient of creating more peers in the appropriate political mode, and by the (slightly more democratic) argument that unelected representatives should not over-rule those who are elected.
Its activities as a revising chamber can readily be undertaken by Commons committees. The Lords does not play a role as a federal chamber balancing non-homogenous federated state representation (though that is one of the functions of second chambers in some jurisdictions); the occasional reconfiguration of the Commons as an English Parliament sitting for English affairs would meet the need for such a body to match the Scottish parliament, the Welsh, and Northern Irish Assemblies, but the Commons alone should serve as the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom most of the time, as it does now.
Nor does the House of Lords provide technical and specialist skills, especially now that the Law Lords sit there no longer, of any greater competence than the Commons can muster. And if such specialist skills are required they can be bought in as temporary adjuncts to Commons' committees.
The existence of a second chamber always limits the effectiveness of direct democracy and our second chamber is notably pernicious in this. Mr Cameron has given up the prime ministerial bludgeon of choosing when to dissolve the parliament, in abolishing the Lords he can end the undemocratic persistence of defeated political elites continuing to advocate and represent policies rejected by the electorate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
We need a brake as well as an accelerator. I think you mean, restore the House of Lords.
If Scotland can manage with one chamber, so can England, or the UK for that matter. The House of Lords is a contributor to the power through patronage of the Executive and acts as a base for the political undead. We need to cut government expenditure S. They don't do what they justify their existence with, and they do what debars them from surviving in a democratic country.
What took you so long? The fact that Their Lordships can be bought and sold like cattle is no adequate guarantee of democracy.
And why stop there? The fact that Her Majesty the Queen cannot bought and sold is no guarantee of democracy either.
I'm not keen on a 'constitutional' monarch as head of state either, C. A head of state should have a proper, state role, not have to pretend he or she hasn't. Once the Lords is gone in the disgrace it so richly deserves, the monarch can be the soul of the nation or whatever, and be gone too as a functioning part of our constitution, and we can have a grown-up democracy.
"The existence of a second chamber always limits the effectiveness of direct democracy"
That's the whole point. Otherwise you get the head-for-the-cliff-edge MacB phase: "the firstlings of my heart shall be the firstlings of my hand."
And a constitutional monarch - the Crown in Parliament - should help to remind the PM that he is a servant of the State, not master of all.
Sackerson
... and let's have a new Royal Yacht built - 100% British made from stem to stern , fixtures and fittings. It'd stimulate industry and it'd be a great national sales aid and diplomacy tool, as it was before New Labour spitefully - and utterly stupidly - scrapped it.
I wish I knew my Shakespeare as well as you, S. The idea of having a monarchy is alright, but it might be preferable to have a functioning head of state and a court whose task is to determine the rules rather than a mixture of head of state and monarch.
We can't agree on the royal yacht; I'd rather have a submarine independent nuclear deterrent. Nuclear is, sadly, de rigeur these days.
I think you will find all successful, mature democracies have a second revising chamber. And for a good reason.
Have you ever written an emotion filled email/letter and then regretted it the next morning when read in moment of calm? Well, a second chamber provides that overnight pause for consideration.
Sorry to disagree but you are wrong to assert that Blair's labour dominated Lords was completely ineffective. On many occasions opposition lords went to great personal trouble to faithfully man the debates and votes in order to successfully stop or tone down some of the ghastly Labour laws. Detention without trial springs to mind. Admittedly, such occasions were not frequent.
If we did have just the one chamber 13 years ago, we would now probably be closer to a fascist/stalinist state with very few liberties.
In fact we bloggers and commenters would probably be facing hate crime charges for daring to criticise NuLab.
Another advantage of the House of Lords is that once appointed they can't be withdrawn by the party. This means they have a greater degree of independence and many refuse to slavishly follow their party whips.
Good blog by the way. I came here having just enjoyed a comment you left on Guido Fawkes' blog.
There's reasonably balanced debate over one or two houses to a parliament, DP. My interest was in abolishing the current House of Lords to rid us of some political derelicts and unpleasant undead from Labour - the former Speaker Martin for instance. You're quite right about the rear guard actions fought by - mainly - the hereditaries against the last regime. Not for nothing is the Earl of Onslow one of Angels' heroes as well.
If we are to have two houses then I would want the present upper house removed and a new one elected. But two houses is one too many really, as many legislatures show.
Post a Comment