July 17, 2003

Constitutional Settlement

In a move that will surprise no one, the least democratic UK Government in recent memory has finally decided on the composition the House of Lords.

In the name of democracy, the Labour Government removed all but 92 of the hereditary peers in Phase One of their plan to reform the Lords. Of course at the time they didn't have a Phase Two. It wasn't important to have a comprehensive plan, but rather imperative to dismantle a functioning constitutional structure. The was one of Labour's clearest examples of the primacy of form over substance.

Now they will remove the last of the hereditaries and make the Lords an entirely appointed body. They are also looking at the possiblity of limiting terms for members of the Lords. This is the only way to give the Government as much leverage as possible. Under the present arrangement, Lords serve for life. This means that as soon as they take their seats, they are no longer subject to the pressures of political patronage. This means they don't always respond appropriately when the told to rubber stamp the abolition of the ancient rights of Englishmen (or Welshmen, or Scotsmen, or Irishmen for that matter).

Posted by david at July 17, 2003 03:18 PM | TrackBack
Comments

It amazes me that this happens. Mind you, I'm surprised at much of the UK Govt. But it would seem to me that tampering with such things to such a great extent would bring down wrath from somewhere (like the crown, or the people or what all). I don't think she has the chutzpah, but couldn't really, the crown disolve the gov't if she felt the serious need? Does her quiet indicate her own yes vote or am I totally misled as to her power in this matter?

It equally stikes me that should a Tory gov't come in, they could undo all this innovation, yes?

Posted by: Huw Raphael at July 17, 2003 11:42 PM

This is why our form of government is properly called a parliamentary dictatorship. There is basically nothing that the Government of the day can't do.

New Labour came to power with the reform of the House of Lords as one of the promises in its original election manifesto. It didn't get them elected, but it didn't keep them from getting elected either.

I don't think HM the Queen is bothered, really. If she cared enough to step in, the result would be the effective abolition of the monarchy. She can't really dissolve the Government as much as she can dissolve Parliament, triggering an election. There would be no point in this if the election result were the same - which at this point it probably would be, because the Tories have been in disarray since the 1997 election.

If a Tory government came in, yes, theoretically they could undo it all. Realistically, they won't. Being conservatives, once the change has been made, they would be very unlikely to make further change, even to revert back in some way. They would have no popular support for re-investing the hereditaries with power. The most they would do would be to consider reconstituting the Lords as an elected body, like a Senate.

Frankly, when they do come back to power, they will have such a mess on their hands getting the country functioning again that I don't think they will waste the time, effort, and money Labour has used in making ideological points by playing with the constitution.

Posted by: David Holford at July 18, 2003 08:02 AM

Thanks for the information. It sounds more and more messed up than I can imagine.

I was in Scotland right after PM Thatcher (as she then was) made the busses private. There were like three or four busses trying to get my attention at every stop. It was mad chaos and everyone was angry. All I saw was a lot of busses, each one costing less than the last.

Thanks for clearing up the picture!

Posted by: Huw Raphael at July 19, 2003 12:40 AM