I'll put it out there. An unelected law making chamber is an undemocratic abomination that should be purged without remorse or concern with overly hyperbolic language (what do you mean it's not worse than Hitler's Germany? Hitler's Germany is a fail-safe comparison for ANY internet argument! Oh, all right. Stalin's Russia, then. Take that, Godwin's Law!)
So, the current government (I say government. I mean Lib Dem) plans for a 300 strong, 80% elected House of Lords should be welcomed with open arms, right? Well, not quite. This may seem contradictory to my reasonably and moderately phrased second line at first. But stop and think; how many laws could you name that actually stem from the House of Lords? It is a very small number each year. Therefore, the abhorrence of unelected people making laws is not mutually exclusive to the idea of having the Lords remain largely as they are. Why? Because our second chamber is primarily a revisionist, not a legislative, body.
Its main functions are deliberation and scrutiny, two features that are sorely missed in the House of Commons due to the Lower Chamber's whipped majority (painful). The House of Lords, which has neither a single party majority nor the presence of whips, is able to independently analyse and amend bills as necessary. To this end, they are aided also by their professional expertise. Election could threaten both of these; there is a danger that those elected would simply be party animals trained to win elections, who would then toe the line once they had their tenure secured. There is no guarantee that the ‘right’ people would get elected; this may sound patronising of the public, but this makes it no less of a concern.
Election would then throw up the question of power. Currently, as well as amendments, the Lords can delay a bill for up to a year, which seems an appropriate ability for an unelected body. A determined government could eventually pass any law, either by simply waiting it out or citing the Salisbury Doctrine (essentially a ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to the Lords); however, this delay can still provide valuable time and publicity to a controversial debate (think of the Welfare Reforms), as well as giving the executive food for thought. Throw in elected members, though, and the Lords will start to demand more teeth. The result, then, is a second chamber with a mandate that will probably have to be given more power; a direct challenge to the already present government and its efficiency.
Election is then, in my eyes at least, unnecessary and potentially dangerous to the effectiveness of our political system. That is not to say, however, that there is dearth of reform that needs to be made. An 800+ House is far too large and a drain of public funds; likewise, the ability for the PM to parachute in new peers (a lovely image of men in red robes and wigs bursting through the roof) to fulfil his want vests a worrying amount of power into the executive; early after the 2010 election, Cameron brought in 117 new peers, most of whom were Tory, to aid his new government. So, I would suggest a cap on the total number of peers, and a limit on how many party ones could be introduced at any one time. Maybe encourage more crossbenchers. But election? No thanks.
Perhaps the worst thing about the current proposals for House of Lords reform doesn’t reflect the ideas for change themselves. Rather, it concerns the timing. The obvious argument is ‘why waste time on constitutional matters when we should be fighting the recession’ (image of George Osborne dressed as a wrestler is less lovely). However, more worrying for me is the fact that if the Lib Dems get their Lords reform, then the Tories will get their Boundary Change reform. Aside from the obvious numerical issues (I can’t find exact figures at the moment, but the Conservatives certainly lose the fewest MPs, proportionally speaking), there is also the fact that this would hand more power from Parliament to PM. Removing 50 MPs makes the House of Commons easier to control by far, and this attack on democracy (it seems impossible at times to talk about democracy without getting too emotional) seems ill-justified by the quarter of a million or so pounds that would be saved annually. As top economists say, this amount is ‘small beans’ in the grander scheme of things. Cameron has been clever keeping this bill low on the boil; the economy, Olympics and Lords ensure that there is far more to get riled by. And if Lords reform is passed, there will be little stopping the Boundary Changes. I’d rather have neither than both.
So, House of Lords reform: the wrong terms at the wrong time. Other than that, top job, Nick.
No comments:
Post a Comment