Tony Blair wants to reform the House of Lords, but is getting blocked by an unlikely alliance of Tories and Liberal Democrats. My only venture into British politics occurred as a grammer school student in the mid-1980s (conflicted underdog-rooter that I was, I supported the SDP/Liberal Alliance),* so take the following with a grain of salt.
The House of Lords has always stuck me as, well, a very bad idea. Not too surprising, I think, given that I’m American (of the U.S. strain). Merit of work, not merit of birth; social mobility, not stratification — you know what us Yanks (allegedly) like. Oh, sure, we’re in love with the romance and the scandals of the Royals, but in the same way that we’re in love with the idea of Paris Hilton moving in: best to happen to someone else, and be televised.
That said, it seems to me that the House of Lords should not be discarded or modified without careful thought. It serves as the slow, deliberate counterbalance to the more restive House of Commons, functioning as a watered down version of the U.S. Senate. That can be frustrating, but it can also prevent a silly whim from getting written into law. In addition, because its members are so numerous and never have to stand for election, they have the luxury of eccentric specialization. Need an expert on trains? I suspect there’re several in the HoL.
Indeed, should the HoL be radically revised, a fundamental aspect of the UK’s unique unwritten Constitution will change forever. So, go slow, friends. The UK has survived centuries with the HoL; there’s no need to change it overnight.
von
*I spent seven months in the UK when I was 12 and 13 years old, and my “support” of the SDL/Liberal Alliance consisted of arguing with fellow child soldiers in service of Labour and the Tories. It was very long ago, because I’m now (counting on toes) . . . . Gadzooks! A month away from turning 30! (Where the heck did my youth go?)
Good reasons for having the Lords non-elected: tends to have less Politics, they don’t have to pander to the electorate, they get less pressurised by Political Parties, and yes, von, specialisation of subject because many people are nominated according to preeminence in their field.
With regard to the ‘merit of birth’ thing; this has often meant, in the past century, that the Lords stands up for the people living in the countryside, whereas the Commons has usually been city-biased.
Having said that, for appointees to the Lords, it’s just a life peerage these days – you don’t get to hand it on. It doesn’t really mean that much; sorry to disappoint any Americans hoping to marry one of them…
Our glorious PM is trying to get the House of Lords to be mostly political appointees. Obviously this is not terrifically good. Fortunately a variety of Tories and Lib Dems have now refused to sit on the committee discussing reform, under present conditions. Of course, Tony Blair can always turn to others to sit instead of them, but it’ll undermine the credibility and lend the lie to the idea it has cross-party support.
Having said that, for appointees to the Lords, it’s just a life peerage these days – you don’t get to hand it on.
Thanks, James. I didn’t realize that it was only a life peerage; it certainly strengthens the argument against radically changing the House.