Best Time to Abolish House of Lords

kernals12

Banned
The House of Lords is a profoundly undemocratic institution, one whose powers were thankfully reigned in by the Parliament Act of 1911. But still, it exists, even though it could be abolished pretty easily just by having the PM ask the Monarch to pack it with people who would vote for its abolition. So when would the time have been best to give Britain a unicameral parliament?
 
I don't think its a good idea.

Britain doesn't have a lot of checks on parlament or its powers, and the unwritten consitution that doesn't spell out garenteed rights for its people really doesn't help. Every now and then a branch of government needs to be checked when it gets well crazy or is about to do some thing incredibly stupid.

The house of Lords is one of the few insitution's capable of doing that in the UK. Its better to have those breaks around just in case then risk not having them around and having every thing go tits up.
 
The House of Lords is a profoundly undemocratic institution, one whose powers were thankfully reigned in by the Parliament Act of 1911. But still, it exists, even though it could be abolished pretty easily just by having the PM ask the Monarch to pack it with people who would vote for its abolition. So when would the time have been best to give Britain a unicameral parliament?

As you say 1911 was a key date in defining i.e. limiting the powers of the Lords.

and I suspect it was that crisis that leads you to suggest that creating extra peers is needed to further the process.
In that case the PM of one political party used the threat of asking the King to create extra peers to force the existing peers, mostly of the other political persuasion, to comply.
(Obviously the new peers would remain and change the balance of the Lords for many years
so the old peers had to choose the lesser of two evils)

However that is no longer needed.
The Lords are currently tasked only with suggesting modification of legislation that was created and passed initial scrutiny in the first chamber i.e the Commons

So any changes to their composition would need to pass the Commons first.

And if the Lords CANNOT initiate legislation, nor can it formally end legislation ... merely repeatedly delay by sending back to the Commons with suggested changes.
and for different types of bill the amount of delay is specifically limited

So if sufficiently supported in the Commons, the Lords have to little power to oppose any change in their status.
As illustrated by Tony Blairs successful measure to eliminate the Hereditary Peers and replace them with Government jobsworth appointees
(thereby increasing the power of the Government and reducing democracy)


IMHO it is the composition of the Lords not their role that is undemocratic not their role.
in fact I believe that the current division of powers is probably the best between a first and second chamber anywhere in the world.

What is needed are mostly simple measures:
1. To make all the Lords (or whatever they would then be called) elected
2. Do this via a suitable form of proportional representation that minimizes constituency dependence
(and encourages acting in the national interest)
3. To provide a fixed term of office different to the commons ... almost certainly longer (?9 Years vs 5)
4. rolling partial elections of the 2nd Chamber (1/3 every 3 years ... after the initial startup)
5. Term limits (2 or 3 ) on membership to prevent "career politicians"

Unfortunately the necessary last step is less easy to describe:

6. To institute "self denying" rules

Put simply they are situations where if you have every taken or even applied for certain other roles you cannot apply for others
(as was the case historically and remains in place for some trivial situations)

Most obviously any candidate for the First Chamber ... even an unsuccessful one .. cannot apply for the Second (and vice versa) ... EVER

Similar rules should apply to judges, senior Civil Servants, Senior army officers and executive members of political organisations
(though in some cases these might be time limited not for life)
 
Last edited:
There are a number of PoDs I could think of too create an elected Senate in its places, but outright abolition is a lot harder. It's only really something that has been seriously championed by the more radical wing of the Labour Party, so you would likely need a left wing government with a fairly comfortable majority to carry it through, as it would be an extremely destabilising move. If you could get a GE in the early part of the Thatcher era, when the economy was doing badly but the Alliance were not yet a serious electoral force, then a Foot government doing this is possible, if it was able to keep rebellion from the right to a minimum.

Other than that, some sort of revolution which results in the redrawing of the UKs constitutional framework would do the trick, either the UK goes red, or there is a right wing dictatorship which is eventually overthrown, paving the way for a new constitutional settlement, as in Spain.
 
What about replacing it with a Senate or a Senate-esque body?

How about no. :mad:

The fact that the Lords are not elected means that they don't have to pander to populism. That, and the fact that they have forced the government of the day to either back down or water down laws that would curtail civil liberties several times.

An elected second chamber would need to have very precisely defined powers, and, even then, it could end up in deadlock if different parties (or coalitions) control both chambers. The UK does not need a US-style senate.
 
I don't think its a good idea.

Britain doesn't have a lot of checks on parlament or its powers, and the unwritten consitution that doesn't spell out garenteed rights for its people really doesn't help. Every now and then a branch of government needs to be checked when it gets well crazy or is about to do some thing incredibly stupid.

The house of Lords is one of the few insitution's capable of doing that in the UK. Its better to have those breaks around just in case then risk not having them around and having every thing go tits up.

New Zealand has managed without an upper house since 1950. The notion that the sky is going to fall if Britain abolishes it is beyond silly.

Those checks you talk of? They're called elections.
 
As for a POD of abolition, my thought would be a Lords that tries to sabotage the Attlee Government's programme.
 
Which happen (under normal circumstances anyway) every few years. Government needs to be held in check much more often than that.

Governments are elected to govern. That's what elections are for.

Meanwhile, those checks and balances - as the USA has demonstrated - lead to dysfunction. The House of Lords itself has a track record of blocking progressive legislation (why on earth do we assume that a bunch of party hacks, inbred aristocrats, and bishops are more "sane" than the people's representatives? I would have thought political discourse would have moved on from the snobbery of the eighteenth century. Clearly not).
 
Governments are elected to govern. That's what elections are for.

Meanwhile, those checks and balances - as the USA has demonstrated - lead to dysfunction. The House of Lords itself has a track record of blocking progressive legislation (why on earth do we assume that a bunch of party hacks, inbred aristocrats, and bishops are more "sane" than the people's representatives? I would have thought political discourse would have moved on from the snobbery of the eighteenth century. Clearly not).

Elected representatives can be just as guilty of un-progressive measures. People are people.
 
Elected representatives can be just as guilty of un-progressive measures. People are people.

And those people's representatives were elected to do it. Unlike the hacks, the aristocrats, and the blokes in pointy hats.

Honestly - does anyone really want to take lessons in structuring democratic government from the USA?
 
Governments are elected to govern. That's what elections are for.

Actually, I've always thought that the best description of the purpose of elections is to kick out a government; to stop one governing, rather than to put one in...

Some some of second house is obviously needed. An elected one sounds nice, but it's pointless if it's just a copy of the lower house, and still vulnerable to the problem of a lack of experience or expertise of its members that an appointed chamber is capable of avoiding. All that's really needed is a not so nakedly political process of appointing new members - which, ironically, was worsened by the "progressive" reforms under Blair.
 
Honestly - does anyone really want to take lessons in structuring democratic government from the USA?

Which is the main reason why I don't want an upper house that's fully directly elected. It will want a lot of power for itself, unless its powers are very carefully defined, and cause deadlock. If the upper house is weaker, and is only a chamber of revision, then why does it even need to be elected in the first place?

The Canadian senate, for example, is appointed, but each province has a set number of seats. Having a HoL that's more representative of the country's regions would be better than just stuffing it full of ex/failed-MPs, people who give massive donations to the parties, or friends of the PM.

An indirectly elected second chamber (or at least partially), I could get behind. More like the Irish Senate than the US one.

EDIT: There is an elected component to the HoL - the hereditary peers. Because Britain, basically. :biggrin:
 
I think a mix between herteridy and random selection might work? Or just herteridy(+ bishops in both cases) as non partisan?
 
Having a HoL that's more representative of the country's regions would be better than just stuffing it full of ex/failed-MPs, people who give massive donations to the parties, or friends of the PM.

This, this is the problem with the current system. It's farcical when a new PM feels compelled to appoint a load of Lords just to redress the balance from the previous government's equally farcical acts. And it's not just the PM either - the leader of the Opposition is free to jump in too, viz. Shami Chakribarti being appointed after that dodgy report into anti-semitism.
 

Marc

Donor
Here is a sideways historical variant for you:

World War 1 ends either in major defeat, or exhaustion. Not only is the Liberal Party on the dustbin of history, but the entire ruling elite, epitomized by the titled aristocracy.
At best the UK takes on the Scandinavian model in regards to monarchy and nobility, or they finally become the republic they probably should have been after Queen Anne died.
 
Last edited:
Top