What do the UK and Lesotho have in common? Both have unelected upper houses which reserve seats on a hereditary basis. In Lesotho, two-thirds of the Senate is reserved for herediary principal chiefs (the other third is nominated by the King). And the UK of course has the House of Lords, in which 90 seats are currently reserved for hereditary peers, people granted power on the basis that their ancestors fought for, slept with, bribed, or were spawned by one of Britain's monarchs (the rest, the "life peers", received their seats as patronage from one of Britain's Prime Ministers, possibly in exchange for political donations).
But maybe not any more. Last night, in a shock vote on options for democratising the Lords, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for a fully elected upper house. The government's "compromise measures" - which would have allowed them to retain control (and party revenue?) by retaining a heavy presence of appointed members - were resoundingly defeated (other votes made it clear that MPs wanted to retain a bicameral system, but that hereditary peers should have no part in it, and that a 100% appointed was not acceptable). The vote is not binding - it was simply "advisory" - but it will make it very difficult now for the government to present any option but full election. Which given their demonstrated reluctance and preference to retain control probably means they'll drop the whole thing.
Meanwhile, the Lords will vote on the proposals next week, but I hardly expect the turkeys to vote for Christmas. In 2003 they overwhelmingly opposed any dilution of their privilege with democracy - which is precisely why it has to be done. It is an outrage in a modern society to have people making laws on the basis of hereditary or patronage. The only basis for the legitimate exercise of political power is election.
13 comments:
Perhaps it is too much to expect some sort of PR system to go with a newly democratised Lords?
Perhaps if the LibDems hold the balance of power in the next election we will see some concrete changes...
I'd be surprised to see any type of meaningful reform of the British constitution in my lifetime, but you never know!
Posted by Anonymous : 3/08/2007 12:29:00 PM
What do the UK, Lesotho, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia have in common? They all have unelected heads of state chosen on a hereditary basis.
As much of an absurdity as hereditary upper houses, surely, and rather more widespread.
Charles Windsor's only qualification for being the next head of state of New Zealand goes along the lines of "first born male child of existing hereditary monarch, isn't a Catholic and hasn't married a Catholic."
You wouldn't hire a garbage man or fruit picker on such spurious grounds....
Posted by dc_red : 3/08/2007 01:24:00 PM
IMHO not a very good move. I did a course some years back which included the functioning of the House of Lords.
IIRC the house was split in 4 parts 1) hereditary
2) non hereditary
3) Law Lords
4) bishops
95% of the work was done by numbers 2 & 3. The bishops voted only on matters of religion. No 1 only really turned up for ceremonial occasions, some only turned up to be sworn in and never appeared again. So though the hereditary lords had a lot of power in theory, in practise it was almost never used.
The big advantage that the house of lords had was that having entered the house it was almost impossible to get them out. Its sounds counterintuitive but that was great because it removed the power of the party from the house. The lords could make decisions based on what was good for the country rather than what was good for the party.
The party people (and I suspect I/S) hated this because the lords could and frequently did vote against party lines. Many of the lords took their roles to represent the "common man " as a very important part of their duties.
If they go to an elected house then the party bosses will have won and the Lords will have become their poodles.
I am not saying it did not have its faults but i can't see much of an improvement.
Its a typical thing, appearance is more important than substance. In theory in a democracy its a good move but in realty it will weaken democracy and increase the power of the state apparatus (which again I suspect I/S would think is a good thing)
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/08/2007 01:47:00 PM
DC Red: Yes, and that's something else I'd like to see the end of. But its also worth noting that in most of those cases (Lesotho excepted, AIUI), the hereditary monarch is simply a figurehead. The House of Lords has actual power. Over the past few years, they've sometimes used this power in a way I approve of (defending "British liberty" against Tony Blair), but that doesn't change their fundamental lack of political legitimacy. The sooner Britian rids itself of them, the better.
As for New Zealand, we don't have a second chamber, let alone an unelected one - we rid ourselves of that constitutional atrocity in 1951, and despite the whining of the BRT elitists (who want appointed "wise heads" to protect the ultrarich) we are highly unlikely to see it back. Our challenge here is to rid ourselves of that last bastion of hereditary privilege, the monarchy. Unfortunately, I think we'll probably have to wait until the death of the current incumbent before doing so.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/08/2007 01:51:00 PM
"No 1 only really turned up for ceremonial occasions, some only turned up to be sworn in and never appeared again"
Except when they turned up to help ram through legislation on behalf of Ms. Thatcher. The only reason they have "restrained" Blair is that more of the hereditories are Tories.
sb - it would be good if the 2nd chamber were more independent, perhaps electing them on a different cycle would help that.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/08/2007 02:12:00 PM
SB: The big advantage that the house of lords had was that having entered the house it was almost impossible to get them out... The lords could make decisions based on what was good for the country rather than what was good for the party.
"Good for the country"? By whose definitions, according to whose goals?
That's the problem right there. There is No Such Thing as "good for the country". It depends implicitly on what you want, which varies from person to person. Traditionally ruling classes have pretended that this isn't the case, and identified their own good with the national good - which is why we emasculated them and implemented various forms of democracy. The decisions made by democracy may not be "good" (according to some people's interpretation) - but they are unquestionably ours. And that is what important.
Unelected legislatures cut across that entire principle of a people owning their own government and thence their own lives. They allow whoever makes the appointments to impose their interpretation of "the good of the country" on others. And that is simply not acceptable in a democratic society.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/08/2007 02:12:00 PM
Anon: You're right that no-one turns up - only 36% of peers vote. And yet 67% of them collect their day allowances. What are these people doing?
Which raises another problem with appointment: unaccountability. In an elected house, lazy members can be (and are) held to account by their voters. In an unelected one, members face no check on their actions, and have no incentive to do even the basics of their job. Again, this won't lead to "better" government - that depends on your idea of "better" - but election would at least force members of the Lords to do some work for a change.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/08/2007 02:17:00 PM
Anon: "Except when they turned up to help ram through legislation on behalf of Ms. Thatcher. The only reason they have "restrained" Blair is that more of the hereditaries are Tories"
No that's not the way it went. The HL did not vote very often and not for her. Thatcher sent a lot of her followers up to the house of lords ( i.e. in my description type no 2) which allowed her to load the committees and get critical votes through. Blair has sent quite a few of his followers up as well, but because they are independent of his rule once they get there many of the Labour lords have voted against Blair and hence in your words restrained him. So he has been restrained by people that he sent to the house of lords.
Pay attention! the HL very very really vote hence their power is much more theoretical than real its the law lords and the nonHL that hold the real power in the house.
I/S ""Good for the country"? By whose definitions, according to whose goals?" that the whole point of being careful in choosing who you send to the lords. The idea which is general followed is to send a selection of different people to the Lords which is why so many of the Lords are not "the ruling class" They are industry people, union people and the like. "Normal people" not some fictional ruling class.
"The decisions made by democracy may not be "good" (according to some people's interpretation) - but they are unquestionably ours."
I would disagree, the first loyalty of the members of the house of commons is to the party not the country. Marget Thatcher was once reported to have said "anybody who is not a member of the Conservative party is an enemy of the State". I suspect that you I/S would agree with her except that you would replace Conservative with whatever party (Communist?) that you would prefer.
Note that I am not precious about getting rid of the HL, they can go if you want, it loosing the independence and continuity that the House of Lords brings that I think will hurt the country in the long run.
If you think that the house of lords voted to protect some "ultra rich" class then you are in la la land.
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/08/2007 02:46:00 PM
Yeah, removing lazy members is also an issue for a democratically elected parliament though.
Under an FPP system they may be protected within safe seats, where even the laziest of hacks might expect to find a comfortable majority for multiple elections.
Under MPP there's an additional layer of protection provided by party lists.
Posted by dc_red : 3/08/2007 02:48:00 PM
I/S: "Anon: You're right that no-one turns up - only 36% of peers vote. And yet 67% of them collect their day allowances. What are these people doing?"
Come on I/S you can't have it both ways. How can they be protecting an ultra rich ruling class if they never vote. Either they protect by voting or they don't!
The question is easy to answer and not at all sinister. Much of the work of the house of Lords is done by the Law Lords in committee. Because of this the votes are much less important in the Lords than in the Commons. Hence they claim their daily allowances because they were there working (how strange!) but many of them don't hang around for the vote because it was all decided before and the vote is just a formality.
This explains the difference!
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/08/2007 02:56:00 PM
Pablo: You can say why you like - I hated Thatcher, I think she is the worst prime minister we have ever had. So anything you say will not be as hard as I would use.
However she kept the Conservatives in power for 16 years (?) so she knew what she was doing, she was not insane (at least not most of the time) she was as canny and nasty as a fox.
When she said that I believe that she was speaking for most of the politicals in the house of commons whether they had the guts to say it themselves or not. You only have to look at some of the statements from the ones who came after her to see that.
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/08/2007 03:02:00 PM
It isn't an outrage, Mr Savant, to have an upper house which can challenge the power of the lower house by being able to amend or push back legislation. This power exists in the US as an effective check on presidential authority and I haven't seen that many people challenging the value of the US Senate as a counterbalance to the Congress.
What you have failed to mention is that the key driver behind the Blairites' attack on the House of Lords is their challenge to the primacy of the Commons. Just like in NZ, our Labour government emphatically rejects any suggestion of greater accountability and checks upon the power of the Parliament.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/11/2007 12:51:00 AM
By political theory the Lords is a disaster. But in practice it has been the much superior of the two houses. The debates are more intelligent and to the point and the legislation and amendments are superior, the Lords have saved innumerable pieces of legislation from being dysfunctional.
I think this just means that political theory is bollocks!
Look at NZ's system.
A Parliament of which in practice half is appointed by the other half , no resemblance to democracy at all!
Measurably the most incompetent government in the Western World.
The last believers in the divine right of parliaments going by recent statements.
A prime minister with the same personality profile as Adolf Hitler who receives 50+% approval ratings!
Having a second house made up of current All Blacks would vastly improve quality of government .
Posted by Anonymous : 3/11/2007 10:53:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).