Having asked around, I can fairly confidently report that the government’s efforts to push ahead with some even slightly elected House of Lords will not work. The rebels are quite rightly holding their ground. Only if the Labour party comes to the government’s rescue can the plans get through, and why should it? People are coalescing, however, round a collection of reforms not involving elections which they see as modest and sensible. Perhaps that is good politics, but I would argue that a wholly unenlightened position is preferable. If you look at these changes — reducing the numbers, getting rid of the hereditaries, formalising systems of appointment, kicking out peers with criminal convictions and inviting peers to retire — they all tend to the same effect, which is to impose conformity. The hereditaries are the last element not subject to patronage, and it is the disappearance of most of them which has made the House so appallingly London-centric. The numbers are a problem only because of the revolting concept of the ‘working’ peer. Reformers talk of removing those who do not attend. What is the point of that? Non-attenders effectively remove themselves, except at times of great national need. If anyone needs to be culled, it is those who constantly turn up. Even the ejection of criminals is a dangerous proposal. We all know that, when tyranny starts, the enemies of the tyrant start to be convicted of crimes: their eviction is a form of control. As for age, Nick Clegg says how monstrous it is that there are more peers over 80 than under 40. Now that the old form an ever larger part of the population, he could not be more wrong. Oldies are grotesquely under-represented in our public life, and hardly any of them was involved in the mess made over the last 20 years by us younger ones.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in