“The House of Lords is indefensible,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in December 2022, endorsing proposals drawn up by former British prime minister Gordon Brown to update the UK’s ancient legislature.
In many ways, it was a statement of the obvious, echoing the avowed policy of governments dating back more than a century.
Those opposing the latest plan to finally kick out the last hereditary peers, which is being debated in the House of Lords, certainly attest with apparent sincerity that having an ancestor who slept with a medieval king or provided men for a crusade 800 years ago should not be a ticket to parliament.
Yet they continue to filibuster, obstruct and delay the legislation, just as their fathers and forefathers (there have been vanishingly few foremothers) did before them.
The pace of enacting the overwhelmingly popular and long overdue step to abolish hereditary peers should be accelerated — and followed up with the prompt introduction of a modern legislature befitting a grown-up democracy.
Overhauling the parliament’s upper chamber, which now has 833 members, has for too long run aground on the sandbank of conflicting and contradictory aims among the critics.
British politicians look across the water at second chambers from the US to Germany, Australia and Canada, and fail to see a legislature that suits their purposes. Because they cannot agree, they do nothing and stumble on with a parliament that is the worst of all worlds; a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
The last major reform of the House of Lords took place under then-British prime minister Tony Blair’s government in 1999. He got rid of most of the hereditary peers, but under a shameful compromise, agreed that 92 could stay, on the tacit understanding that, in return, the Conservative-dominated Lords would not block his Labour government’s legislative program. The hereditary principle has remained in the Lords ever since, with dying aristocrats replaced from time to time by slightly younger aristocrats in what must be the strangest elections in the world — a vote among the fellow hereditary peers, usually from the same party.
This bizarre system was always intended to be temporary, but as the years rolled by and governments came and went, politicians in both houses of parliament repeatedly rejected all proposals for what a new-look House of Lords should be.
On one infamous occasion in 2003, the House of Commons was offered seven options, from a fully appointed to a fully elected chamber, only to reject them all. The House of Lords overwhelmingly plumped for a fully elected chamber, but without the backing of their colleagues in the lower house, the plan fell.
When the going on House of Lords reform got tough, governments of all parties vacated the field. There are always more pressing matters. Despite his warm words to Brown three years ago, Starmer himself is also now guilty of kicking the Lords can down the road, limiting his reforms to the expulsion of the hereditary peers.
Labour’s 66-year-old leader in the House of Lords, Angela Smith, promised measures to introduce an age restriction of 80 (in a house in which the average age is 70) and attendance requirements (on average fewer than half their lordships turned up each day in the last parliament) if consensus could be achieved — cue hollow laughs. The House of Lords’ youngest peer has urged the government to “abolish it — me included.”
Meanwhile, Labour’s manifesto promise to consult on fundamental reform shows no visible sign of life — when the party came into office in July last year, the briefing was that this was very much parked for a second term.
That was a mistake. At a time when young people are switched off by politics, populists are on the rise and the sense grows that elites are out of touch, what better and more pressing matter could there be than re-establishing faith in democracy?
There is no shortage of ideas for the form a new chamber could take.
The consensus is that the new chamber should not be imbued with so much electoral legitimacy that it challenges the supremacy of the House of Commons; but it is also not ideal that, as is mostly now the case, appointments are the sole prerogative of the prime minister. Their lordships should probably be more reflective of the nation they serve, on the lines of gender, race, religion and geography. How to achieve that is the question.
Brown himself proposed an “elected assembly of the nations and regions,” which would share elements of the German Bundesrat. The Lords could be elected by proportional representation as in Australia, sit for longer terms than members in the lower house and use rolling elections, as in the US Senate, or be replaced by by-elections when they die or retire, as in Canada. One fun idea is for the upper chamber to be based on employment, formed from trade union and professional bodies. There could also be a role for beefing up the House of Lords’ Appointments Commission, which currently nominates non-political greats and goods to the cross benches.
Given parliament’s failure to do anything of substance on House of Lords reform, responsibility for choosing a new system could be handed over to citizens’ juries, as has happened in Ireland and elsewhere when considering major constitutional change, and confirmed in a referendum. This would have the added bonus of making sure the electorate is invested in the new upper house.
Britain’s parliament dates back to the Saxon era — that is, before William the Conqueror arrived from Normandy in 1066 — when it was known as the Witenagemot, the assembly of “wise men” who advised the king, and became known as the “mother of parliaments,” as it helped spread democracy around the world. However, right now, the House of Lords does not look very wise or democratic.
Starmer should grab this opportunity to forge a new relationship between the governed and those who govern as a priority, not an afterthought for the sometime-never.
Rosa Prince is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering UK politics and policy. She was formerly an editor and writer at Politico and the Daily Telegraph, and is the author of Comrade Corbyn and Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS