Lords Reform

Dr John Parkinson discusses the Lords today in the Grauniad

It is said to be undemocratic, unrepresentative, and out of keeping with a modern democracy.

Strange, isn’t it, that this unelected chamber is the last defence against a commons determined to erode our liberties? If anything, recent events suggest that the Lords is more democratic than the commons. What a sad state of affairs that we have to rely on this apparent anachronism to protect us from our elected representatives…

More than that, some in government now claim that electing the upper house will be an important step in reversing political apathy and disengagement, giving power to the people, and taking it away from unelected elites.

Hmm… Well, we can only see, should it happen. Frankly, the unelected nature of the second chamber allows it to take a broader, longer term view rather than the cheap partisan party politics of the elected one.

But is the House of Lords, as it currently stands, really undemocratic? The answer is only yes if one takes a “majoritarian” view of democracy. On this view, parties that win elections win a mandate to implement their manifesto promises without interference. Majoritarians think that anything else would be undemocratic: it would be to frustrate the free choice of the people.That is why, when peers question government policy, a frequent response is: “When you win an election, you can decide. Until then, the people choose our policy.” In fact, according to the majoritarian view, there is no reason why one should have an upper house at all.

Interesting concept. Indeed, the more I experience democracy, the less I like it. A liberal democracy, while ostensibly representing the will of the majority must have in place checks and balances that mean the minority is protected. After all, that old adage about two wolves and a sheep discussing lunch isn’t so far from the truth.

A frequent comment (apart from the insanely stupid “nothing to hide” argument) that I hear about the ID Cards Bill is that if the majority want it, then we should have it. Well, if the majority want it, let ’em, I say. Just so long as I am not forced to have one. Ah, but there’s the rub. The majority is not content with the majority having what it wants; rather the majority want the minority to fall into line, too. All in the name of “society” or some such nonsense. The majority would, if it was allowed a free reign, impose mob rule. We have only to see the media driven frenzy in the wake of the Sarah Payne murder to see how the majority operates – and it is exceedingly ugly.

The other thing to bear in mind, is that the majority vote without too much thought. Ask the majority about details of party manifesto commitments prior to their casting a vote and for the most part expect to be treated to a blank stare. People don’t vote for manifesto commitments – many just vote the way their newspaper tells them to. Therefore, there is no reason why the Lords should honour the outdated Salisbury convention. If a bill is bad law, they should oppose it. That they have opposed several bills recently is not because they are obstructive, but because the bills were bad law.

I mean, what, exactly, is the definition of “glorification” when applied to terrorism? Given that the prime minister hasn’t proffered a definition, why should the Lords accept it? Why should we? I don’t. This is just one example of the government’s desire to erode our liberties; free speech (religious hatred bill), freedom of movement (want to go abroad? Must have an ID card), freedom of assembly – we now have to get Tone’s permission if we want to protest within Parliament Square; what conceit, what arrogance! In a free country, people do not need permission from the craven, lickspittle jackanapes who are supposed to represent them in order to engage in peaceful protest.

I digress…. And, besides, thinking about Blair is bad for my blood pressure.

There are alternative accounts of democracy that take quite a different view. One of these is deliberative democracy, something that is quite fashionable in some policy circles in Britain.Deliberative democrats argue that legitimacy depends not so much on elections, more on the quality of arguments in inclusive, public debate. Ideas are good if they are publicly defensible, not just if the majority party in parliament believes they are. It is the “inclusive” and “public” parts that make this democratic: arguments for policies need to be made and successfully defended, in public, to all those affected by the policy.

Therefore, on the deliberative view, elections give parties the right to set the legislative agenda and command the loyalty of the public service, but not carte blanche. To appreciate the force of this, consider cases of electoral success but democratic failure: Adolf Hitler won an election based on a clear policy programme, but that does not legitimise every action conducted under his rule. In a democracy it is right and proper that individual policy proposals be scrutinised, regardless of whether they were in the manifesto or not.

Now that makes sense.

Given that, one of the most important roles of democratic institutions is to scrutinise the government, forcing it to defend its proposals in public, and to amend those proposals if they are found wanting.That is one of the roles that the House of Lords should be playing in British democracy, and in many ways it performs it rather well.

Exactly. A long term view is an excellent way to achieve that objective. As Dr Parkinson points out; “Life tenure can have a wonderfully liberating effect on the mind.”

There was a time – when I still belonged to the Labour Party, for my sins – when I wanted to see an elected second chamber. I’ve changed my mind. I have the Labour party to thank for that. :dry: