House of Lords reform – a con trick

As most people will know, the Coalition Government has proposed the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. Ministers are trying to bludgeon this bill through with comments such as:

• We’ve been arguing about this for 100 years – let’s just do it.
• This is just a Westminster issue; ordinary voters are more concerned about jobs, education, health and their declining living standards.
• The Opposition supported House of Lords reform in their manifesto, so opposing this bill is just political posturing. Let’s just get it done and dusted.

All these arguments are over-simplistic. The reason why it has taken 100 years is that there is no agreement on what should replace the Lords. Some politicians want a wholly appointed chamber (which was Tony Blair's preference), some want a mixture (with no agreement on the ratio of appointed to elected), and a few want it fully elected. Just saying, “let’s get it done”, ignores this fact. A rush to get reform through should not mean that we should be prepared to accept something that is scarcely better than the present system. “Get it through quickly before they can think about it!” is the motive here.

The suggestion that most people are not much interested because of other concerns is patronising. Obviously on a day-to-day basis, people are worried about practical matters, but that doesn’t mean that the way our country is governed is of no interest to them. If that view were generally correct, hardly anyone would vote; in fact, most voters take part in general elections. The White Queen in “Alice Through The Looking Glass” asserted “nobody can do two things at once, you know”, but in the real world, where politicians and the White Queen do not live, it is possible to hold views about more than one thing at a time.

So why do they keep saying that? Because they want us to believe this is simply a bit of constitutional tidying up that is long overdue and we needn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. Are they right? I think not.

So what is wrong with their proposals?

1. The size of constituencies: these will be enormous, region-wide in size, thus eliminating any meaningful link between a candidate and the people s/he is supposed to represent. 
2. Lists: you will vote for a party, not an individual. You will have no say who the successful candidate is; s/he will come from the lists decided by parliamentary whips in consultation with party leaders. Individuals will be able to stand as independents, in which case you can vote for them, but with the enormous constituencies, your chances of knowing much about them are very slim. 
3. One fifteen year election term: they say this is to ensure continuity in the chamber, although there is no logical reason why continuity cannot be maintained by an elected Lord getting re-elected, except then s/he would then have to satisfy the voters who put him or her there in the first place. And therein lies the rub: they will not be accountable to their electorate, because they will never be seeking re-election, which means they can do what they like. An election without accountability does not constitute democracy. It is, at best, elective oligarchy. 
4. Public disengagement: a system that gives you a vote once every 15 years for a remote candidate who can then ignore your wishes is not likely to engage the electorate in the political system. We have enough trouble with public disenchantment with politics as it is; this will do nothing to change that, except perhaps for the worse. 

Okay, it’s not perfect, but it’s an improvement on what we’ve got now, isn’t it? No, not much. We will be in the position that the whips, in consultation with their party leaders, will decide who goes on the lists. You can be certain that a lot of retiring MPs will be jockeying for position, and the promise of a place on the list will probably be conditional on behaving. It will be another bribe to keep otherwise unruly backbenchers in line, not good for democracy in the Commons - rather like now, come to think of it. This means that most elected Lords will be party nominees, just like they are under the present system of honours. They will not be accountable to the voters, because they’ll never have to face re-election – just like the present system. Their link with the electorate will be extremely remote – little better than the present system.

So what is different? They will be there for 15 years, instead of for life – that is the biggest difference, and it’s not that great really. It will still be a nice little job creation scheme for ex-MPs, one that, as now, we have no control over; instead the parties in the Commons will control the intake. No matter how you vote, nearly all of the elected Lords will come from party lists: unless you vote for an independent, you will have no say who the successful candidate is.  You will of course have no say whatsoever in the one fifth of the chamber who will be appointed, not elected, nor the 12 bishops, nor the eight ministerial members appointed by the government so that they can put people who aren’t MPs into the Cabinet, as they do now with life peerages - where's the democracy there?

Why are they doing this? Basically, it’s control freakery, which I believe is proved by the argument that a fully elected Lords would challenge the supremacy of the Commons. This is rubbish. The Parliament Acts will still be in place and the powers of the new chamber will be the same as the old Lords; they can only delay Bills, and the Commons would still be supreme on financial matters. Changing how we put people there will not affect these limitations on the Lords’ powers in the slightest. Many other countries manage with two elected chambers; so would we, although it might take a period of adjustment. But raising the false spectre of a constitutional clash is designed to stifle demands for a more genuinely democratic upper chamber.

It’s no more than a big con trick, designed to maintain the present system while coating it with a veneer of fake democracy. The problem is that if this is passed, we will be stuck with it for at least another 100 years as party leaders use the charade of democracy to maintain their political patronage into the foreseeable future. The recent defeat in the Commons means that it cannot now be rushed through; this should give more time for reflection and scrutiny as to the real implications of this Bill. Let's hope that time isn't wasted.