News from the New Party

Why Lesotho-on-Thames is the better option

Tim Hames has memorably described the House of Lords as "Lesotho-on-Thames", and argued strongly for a second chamber to be at least partially elected. Many opponents of the currently constituted House of Lords denounce as scandalous the proposition that in Britain, as in Lesotho, some members of the upper house of parliament may inherit their seats. Hames writes:

"It would be better for one of the serious reform proposals to acquire a majority than have none of them do so. For should the House of Commons make a hash of it again on Wednesday and Thursday, it could be a further decade before another determined drive to create a credible second chamber is initiated. By then, to our enormous shame, Lesotho might have imposed an elected element on its Senate."

The ire of the promoters of an elected House of Lords should have been at least somewhat placated by the fact that since 1999 only about 12% of the House of Lords are hereditary peers. Wednesday night's House of Commons vote with a large majority in favour of a fully elected second chamber would indicate that they are still pretty annoyed.

The current government has a deserved reputation for constitutional vandalism and Wednesday's vote is ominous for that reason alone. Although it is true that the Conservative and Labour leadership both retain a preference for at least some members of the second chamber to be appointed, political circumstances make it increasingly likely that the outcome will be an upper house which is at least 80% elected. It is hard to make the case for an appointed chamber when a police investigation into what amounts to the sale of peerages by political parties is ongoing. An appointed chamber where seats are bought is hardly superior to a hereditary chamber in any meaningful sense.

The demand for democratic accountability of the upper house stems from a misunderstanding of the role of the second chamber. The House of Commons needs to be democratically accountable because its role is the formulation and passage of legislation. The role of the House of Lords has been as a scrutinising and revising chamber - a specific role for which no democratic accountability is necessary. It would be greatly preferable for the second chamber to be composed instead of experts from a wide variety of backgrounds, but without political baggage. This would be much more appropriate than the assemblage of retired party hacks and generous donors to political parties (not to mention the hereditaries) that the promoters of an elected chamber seek to avoid, but which party leaders seem determined to foist upon us.

It is therefore important to point out that by far the most likely outcome of the proposed elected chamber is: an assemblage of retired party hacks and generous party benefactors. An elected second chamber under a list system of proportional representation (the most likely electoral system) will be even more subject to party political patronage than the current system. The number of independent cross-bench experts will be substantially reduced - probably to zero, and their seats will no doubt taken by minor party members (including probably a few from the British National Party, who once in place will be there for a fifteen year term). We rather doubt that the new elected chamber will be the shining monument to democracy that its champions hope it will be.

There is still time to draw back from this looming constitutional disaster. Last night's vote was advisory and legislation is not expected until 2008. The argument against an elected chamber needs to be properly made, and the consequences properly understood. There is more to democracy than elections, as we may yet discover to our cost.