The strange death of the House of Lords
In 1066 and all that – probably the greatest work of history produced in the English language – reference was made to Mr Gladstone’s inability to solve the Irish question. Whenever he thought he had an answer, the Irish changed the question.
The question of the House of Lords represents a modern version of the same conundrum. Unfortunately for modern politicians, it is they who pose the question, and they invariably get it wrong.
The latest version is Jack Straw’s white paper on reform of the upper house. As an exercise in missing the point it is an unparalleled success. As a contribution to constitutional reform, it is ludicrously inept.
Why? Failure to ask the right question. The white paper is built on the assumption that the present House of Lords is illogical. It certainly is. Such logicality as the House possessed went out the window on the day the majority of hereditary peers were ejected from their ancient home. But there are lots of aspects of the British constitution which are not very logical but do work after a fashion – the monarchy and the civil service being just the most visible.
The Lords functions pretty well. It reviews legislation, it makes ministers think again, it is not full of upwardly mobile smart young things who have never done anything else except be a politician – in other words it is the precise opposite of the Commons. OK a few spivs manage to get in by paying political donations, but that is hardly shock news and there are worse ways to fund political parties (like from taxation).
In the bureaucratic mind of New Labour, though, the oddity of the Lords represents a flaw in the system. It must be tidied up, trimmed and put into a little box marked ‘Senate’ or some other dull unevocative name. The uncertain consequences of this reform, the precise balance between elected and appointed members, the effect on the relationship between Commons and Peers, are secondary to the anally retentive need for neatness. It is not perhaps a surprise to realise that J Straw himself has never been anything other than a policy wonk, man and boy.
Here’s the right question: do any of the alternatives to the current system offer the probability of an improvement in government? Answer: no. In fact, they are so unpalatable that the government has decided to chuck another thousand years of history over the side and fiddle the Commons voting system so that some sort of change can be made, even if it fails to command a majority of MPs. Two bits of constitutional vandalism in one go – you’ve got to admire the chutzpah.
If the government gets its way then we’ll say good-bye to a reasonably efficient and effective part of the constitution, and get a replacement that will either not challenge the Commons enough on the regular slew of badly-drafted and thought-through legislation, or will try to get equal status and hence produce legislative deadlock.
Just for once, how about leaving things alone?