3 Reasons that moving the House of Lords does not make “perfect sense”
Member Views is a series ofopinion pieceswritten by Blue Beyond members.
Adam Roberts, in his recent and well-written opinion for this website, is right to say that there is an engagement problem in our democratic system. Rightly, he points to the shockingly low turnout in seats such as Hull East, and to the lack of understanding that surrounds the role of the House of Lords. There is a ‘Westminster Bubble’ in this country, and Blue Beyond is right to tackle its impact upon the Country.
This is where my agreement with Mr Roberts ends; whereas I agree there’s a problem, I cannot express strongly enough my distaste for the flamboyant emptiness of proposals to detach the House of Lords from its home in the Westminster Parliament. The proposal, not found anywhere in our manifesto commitment, I think: misunderstands the Westminster Bubble problem; damages the ability of Parliament to perform its functions; and is fundamentally unconservative in its outlook.
1) The Westminster Bubble is made of people, not postcodes.
It is true that the Supreme Court, the Palace of Westminster and Downing Street all have the same postcode. But that is not the same as saying that power is readily available to people in that postcode, and not available to people in others. Think about it this way, do we think that Londoners, by virtue of living in London alone, have some form of implicit attachment to the leavers of power? I don’t. In a strict numerical sense, they are under-represented at Parliament. Scotland has more MPs per person, for example. Similarly, London is not immune to the UK’s other problems. There is poverty, there is homelessness. There are people just about managing too. Even in London, there are geographical inequalities. Compare and contrast the amount of tube stations north and south of the river. The Geography of London may confer small advantages, but having centred the House of Lords and the House of Commons in London for so long doesn’t seem to have solved all of London’s problems.
This is because Parliament, and Government, is made of people and their aides – not of postcodes. The Bubble isn’t a term to reflect Geographic exclusivity (although that may be part of it). Instead, it reflects the social exclusivity upon which Parliament depends. The powerbrokers are the MPs, Lords and their staff, and the bubble refers to their exclusive lifestyle with each other. Moving half of Parliament to a new City does not solve that. It just moves the same exclusive group of people to another part of the Country. To put it simply, building another ivory tower doesn’t do much to democratise a country, especially when that Ivory tower will be filled with unelected Peers anyway. Will forcing Earl Mountbatten’s secretary to commute to York on the 66a actually improve bus Services, or will it just annoy more people?
Instead, if you really want to make politics more accessible locally, remove the factors that allow it to become detached. Let’s look again at Hull East. Which seems more likely? Is turnout low because the House of Lords is in London, or because it’s been a Labour Safe Seat since 1935? I’d venture to say that it’s probably more to do with the latter; and people are disengaged because their vote means very little. Moving an already unelected House of Peers won’t fix that. Instead, if engagement is your concern, change the voting system to abolish safe seats. Study after study has shown that more proportional systems have higher turnouts, and are more likely to result in the better representation in left-behind regions. Our only Neighbour, Ireland, uses STV in elections and has one of the strongest histories of regional representation to Parliament in the world. Do that.
2) Chopping up Parliament probably damages its ability to function.
Without wishing to enter a Lefebvrean discourse on the production of Space, it is perhaps necessary to talk about how the very fabric of buildings affects how they’re used. The Westminster System of Government is, unsurprisingly, somewhat bound in Westminster itself.
To put it simply, much of the way that Government operates in through the informal discussion of ideas between lawmakers. A Lord might catch a minister in a corridor, or work with an MP on a select Committee. Parliament does not just work when it sits in the Chamber, and the bulk of politicking happens in the informal environs of power. The General Synod, a rather fun Legislature, is an example of this. The ‘Survival Guide’ for Synod members notes that York meetings, where members eat and live closer together, are much more navigable than London ones where they don’t. (One might comment that Synodical Government in York doesn’t seem to have increased Northern Turnout either, but that’s beside the point) When barriers are put between members of Parliament, it is unsurprising that they might find it harder to do their job. Holding Ministers and Governments to account are tasks likely to be made harder if the length of the M1 is placed between them.
The Lords don’t exist to represent people. They are a chamber of second sober thought to advise the government and the commons on their deliberations. Rather than help democracy, moving the Lords away will hinder it; and for purely hollow symbolic reasons.
3) Tories don’t radically alter things just for the sake of radically altering things.
To quote our Lady Sovereign Queen,
“The many ancient institutions and traditions which we have inherited, and which are familiar to us all, provide a framework and a dignified background to our way of life. If it is not to degenerate, freedom must be maintained by a thousand invisible forces, self-discipline, the Common Law, the right of citizens to assemble, and to speak and argue.”
Deep within the English people, is a respect for keeping what works, and not for needlessly tinkering around with thinks which don’t need tinkering with. Conservatism, is about respecting that change needs to be meaningful, and about acknowledging the value of those “thousand invisible forces.” Who at all thinks that moving a few people about would actually solve anything, or is it just a big showy change, done for cheap political reasons, and which will only win votes amongst the negligible amount of people whom called for it.
Mr Roberts’ choice to cite New Labour as an example of good government is perhaps an example of this. What more evidence do we need of the folly of constitutional tinkering than the Constitutional Reform Act. The ancient role of the Lord Chancellor? Gone mate. The Law Lords? Abolished famalam. Meaningful change? Lol what’s that? Making changes where changes aren’t needed doesn’t make things better, it just adds confusion and delay to other pressing issues.
Imagine what else we can spend our time and effort on. Think about what other problems we can solve, and then ask if this impulsive decision is more important than that.
Just because we have a majority of 80, doesn’t mean we have to go bonkers calling for a reform no one asked for. Indeed, upsetting the entire Constitution for aesthetic reasons might well lose votes. If you care truly about empowering the North, return to the north the instruments of government which were by Socialists nationalised. Better yet, give them a voting system that listens to their voices. Gifting them 800 peers probably does little towards fixing that.
It was a well written opinion Mr Roberts, but perhaps take it back to the drawing board this time.
Gas Williams
"Passing of House of Lords Act 1999" by UK Parliament is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0