Sunday 14 March 2010

House of Lords to be Abolished?

Saw this in The Times today:

'PLANS to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a wholly elected, 300-seat second chamber are set to be unveiled by the government before the general election.

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is ready to unveil a draft bill on Lords reform in the next few weeks, a move designed to put the Tories on the back foot during the election campaign.

Although the plan is unlikely to become law before parliament is dissolved, Labour strategists hope it will open up a dividing line with the Conservatives, who will be reluctant to back any Labour reforms'


This is announced in the same week where the interminable expenses wrangling has reared its head in the Lords; the familiar tactic of citing parliamentary privilege to escape prosecution has come into play once again by the accused.

Of course, moves towards making the ludicrous and anachronistic entity that is the House of Lords more democratic should be welcomed, though this is presuming these measures will be followed through. In the run up to an election, all kinds of things are promised by the 3 major parties in order to both gain support and keep their opponents on the back foot. With many commentators predicting a hung parliament, it is unlikely that, should Labour get elected, they will not have a strong enough majority to pass this. When the Lib Dems are playing down talks of coalition, it remains to be seen what legs this piece of legislation has.

It's funny what comes back into fashion. In the early 1980s, abolishment of the House of Lords was one of the Labour Party's key manifesto pledges, and yet I do not see New Labour now being derided as 'far-left lunatics,' (although some of the sketchier blogs floating around will contend this) or this draft being termed 'the longest suicide note in history.' Perhaps the Labour Party is not as threatening to capital as once it was...

More to the point, the timing of this proposal is bizarre; why now? We have endured the worst economic crisis since the 1920s, unemployment is at 7%, and those in work have either had to take pay freezes or cuts. Furthermore, in order to cut the deficit, 'savage' cuts have been proposed in the public sector by all 3 parties at some stage in the election trail (though they have now since played down the gravity of the cuts). Employment, housing and welfare are of far more pressing concern than legislative reform at present: surely that should take precedent?

The proposals outline;
'The government’s reform blueprint would have all members directly elected, ending the tradition of party patronage. A proportional representation system would be used to select members, with voting taking place at the same time as general elections.

One-third of the new chamber would be elected on each occasion, with members serving three terms — 15 years — in a system similar to the one used to select members of the United States Senate. '
Hmm. Maybe it's just me being a bit of a stick in the mud, but it seems there's been a lot of
American import into the British political sphere lately. What with this televised, presidential-style debate with the 3 party leaders in the run up to the election, and now this reform based on the US legislature, it's worrying we seem to have run out of original ideas in UK politics.

1 comment:

  1. On the face of it, I can't find much to disagree with. An elected upper chamber IS preferable to an hereditary one. However, you can bet your life that Labour are trying to pull a fast one with this scheme - there will be something buried deep within the proposal that is detrimental to the country and beneficial for them. Time for a good clear out at Westminster, especially the Labour "Raj".

    ReplyDelete