A chance for the Lords to justify their existence
02 April 2008
/article_images/articledir_1174/587311/1_listing.jpg
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty was handled scandalously in the Commons, says Daniel Hannan. Now the Upper House has the chance to play its ancestral role as the conscience of the nation
Like, I suspect, most Spectator readers, I saw no need for Lords reform in the first place. The old chamber functioned perfectly well, as even Labour was forced to admit. But the party took the view that, while it might work in practice, it didn’t work in theory. The hereditary principle, Tony Blair declared, had no place in modern politics: a strange argument, striking as it does directly against the monarchy and indirectly against all property. And so, with no very clear idea of what they wanted, ministers blundered into the current settlement: an appointments system which disproportionately elevates toadies, public-sector groupies and quangocrats.
From Labour’s point of view, fair enough. These are precisely the sorts of people lefties like to see running things. The odd thing is that many Tories continue to defend the status quo. Having argued themselves into an ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mindset before the disfranchisement of the hereditaries, they remain stuck in that mindset even though, by their own logic, the system is now broke.
The great strength of the old House of Lords was its independence. Hereditary peers owed their place neither to the government of the day nor to the electorate. They were therefore able to vote against headline-grabbing legislation, despite the transient public demand for it. This is the essential argument for bicameralism, even in more assertively democratic states than ours. When Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris, he is supposed to have visited George Washington over breakfast to ask why a republic needed a second chamber. ‘Why have you just poured your tea into your saucer?’ asked Washington. ‘To cool it,’ Jefferson replied. ‘Even so,’ said the president.
Until recently, the House of Lords discharged its primary function admirably, blocking a good deal of panicky and illiberal legislation for which, on reflection, there was no real appetite. But, as its composition has changed, so has its outlook.
More articles from: Daniel Hannan | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blogger Posts
1 Terry shouldn’t be captain, but that should be Capello’s decision to make - Rod Liddle
2 Snow? What snow? - Rod Liddle
3 JFK: The Nastiest President of the Twentieth Century? - Alex Massie
4 Do we really need to know more about Gary Speed’s death? - Rod Liddle
5 Scottish Labour Embrace the Logic of Independence - Alex Massie
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Robert Wydell
April 7th, 2008 9:03am Report this commentWhy are our soldiers fighting for democracy in Iraq while the three major parties in Brish politics are conspiring to deny the democratic right of a referendum to us?
Serf
April 7th, 2008 12:28pm Report this commentTony Blair's only aim was to castrate the Lords anyway. Shame that we have no indepedent court to protect our constitution.
James
April 11th, 2008 10:19pm Report this commentIt is necessary for the House of Lords to change. It's appauling that aristocrats and bishops get automatic places in our upper chamber. Throw the lot out and let's elect them ourselves.
Back to top