The present government’s plan to remove the remaining hereditary peers throws a spotlight on an awkward problem: might this inadvertently undermine the idea of political office as public service, at a time when that is already under threat from people who act as if lying to get elected is acceptable?
On the one hand, it’s hard to reconcile an unelected upper chamber with a modern democracy, which is why Lords reform has been Liberal Democrat policy for a long time. Within that, the hereditary peers are the hardest aspect to defend.
On the other hand, I’ve had a number of conversations with people among the remaining hereditary peers where my sense is of people who’ve grown into the role they knew they’d inherit, for whom the question is “What’s for the good of the people of this country?” rather than “What gets me re-elected?”. I might disagree with their politics, but I can’t fault the motivation.
A few decades ago that might have seemed unexceptional. The debate was once around how to ensure that an elected upper chamber isn’t simply a re-run of the Commons. But we’re now in very different times. In many quarters it seems to be acceptable to prey on people’s fears, or generate outright lies, to get elected. The Trump campaign in the US seems a particularly grizzly example, but the problem is not confined to the other side of the Atlantic.
A snapshot of the change was contained in John Major’s evidence to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in July 2022, where he said: “A majority at the ballot box gives the Government power; it does not give the Government licence to do absolutely anything they wish to do.” The words were a barely-veiled comment on the Johnson government, but they aren’t confined to them.
A sharp illustration is the degree to which the Leave campaign in the EU referendum won by lying. Michael Gove’s infamous “people have had enough of experts” became a justification for ignoring people who actually understood the EU. On the Remain side, most of us failed to call out the Cameron government for failing to plan for Brexit, which meant people couldn’t compare two credible alternatives — accidentally making it easier for people to say whatever they needed to say to win, without regard for the impact that would have on the country.
Right now we’re caught up in an absurd storm about “rape gangs”. Unwise comments from Elon Musk have ignited a storm on the political right, weaving together fears of ethnic minorities and fears of sexual violence to get attention. A wise leader would see both sides of that as damaging. Someone actually concerned about sexual violence would make sure the police have the resources they need to address all sex crimes, and stay out of their way.
This is not to present the Lords as a bulwark against what’s going wrong in our politics. The few hereditary peers I’ve met are people whose circles overlap with mine — which doesn’t make them typical. Most of the life peers I’ve met are Liberal Democrats — people who take the role seriously and who I am glad to see in parliament — but also not typical.
But with post-truth politics doing real harm, particularly in the hands of the right wing, it seems essential that reforms of the upper house don’t undermine its ability, as a revising chamber, to ask “What is in the best interests of the people of this country?” rather than just “Who told the most convincing lies to get elected?”
* Mark Argent was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Huntingdon in the 2019 and 2024 General Elections.
15 Comments
Abolish the Lords, simple.
“What’s for the good of the people of this country?”
Whatever you think of the hereditary peers, any reform of the HoL has to ensure as many members as possible think their job is to answer this question rather than “What gets me (or another member of my party) re-elected.
I don’t think another elected chamber is likely to get the better answer.
I have always taken the view – and I believe it’s one of the policy areas the main party and I disagree on – that reform to the HoL is necessary but an entirely elected second chamber is not. As has been correctly noted, it’s a chamber that – for the most part – provides a balance to those in the HoC who are constantly thinking “what gets me re-elected?” It means, for the most part, that the HoL sends back decent amendments and suggestions to bills.
In the USA, every politician is actively campaigning for re-election the majority of the time, even in the Senate where elections are every six years for a third of the chamber. There is also the risk of election fatigue; unless you run the HoL elections at the same time as a general election, and be careful about when by-elections are run, you just risk a cycle of low turnout and so no real representation.
We need to have a sit down, a careful examination and a proper think about a sensible alternative, or modification.
There is another angle to the House of Lords which warrant further discussion/debate etc and it relates to the nature of the UK, I understand Party Policy is for a Federal UK which impacts the composition of the second chamber. Daniel Stylianou mentions the United States Senate which a third is up every 2 years as they are divided into 3 classes. The US Senate has specific competences like advise and consent with nominations, trialling impeachments and ratifying Treaties to name a few. The American Model is one model to look at but there are others like the Australian Senate ands the Canadian Senate. Both Australia are Federal States with a Westminster-based system. The German Bundesrat which represents the German States or Lander at the Federal level also warrants looking at given the Prime Minister’s plan for a Council of Nations and Regions.
To conclude, we should be looking at other second chamber’s around the world in terms of composition and competences and apply them to a future Federal UK State.
In Ireland, elections to the Seanad are indirect and held just after those to the Dáil, by deputies, councillors and outgoing senators – in the Irish Free State it was directly elected, with a quarter of its members elected at a time, for twelve years, but turnout was low, with voters finding it time-consuming to have to rank nineteen candidates in order of preference, and was scrapped.
Belgium has done away with direct elections to its Senate completely, with its members now co-opted from its regional parliaments, but as England does not have devolution, either on an England-wide basis or a regional one, English membership in an indirectly elected ‘UK Senate’ would have to be drawn from existing councils, like the old regional chambers were.
Morgan – looking to the Australian model doesn’t really help because members of their Senate are directly elected, just as in the US system. It goes back to the problem I mentioned which is election/voting fatigue. We can’t keep asking people to go to the polls repeatedly when our turnout is so low as it is, and if you elect them at the same time as the general election, they’re essentially just another politician which goes back to the whole “voting for what’s right rather than what will get me elected” argument.
@Daniel Stylianou “they’re essentially just another politician which goes back to the whole “voting for what’s right rather than what will get me elected” argument.”
This can be ameliorated by having long, but non-renewable, terms, as Michael Meadowcroft pointed out in the comments to David Murray’s article on 2nd January.
Reform of our second chamber is certainly needed. Tony Blair’s reform were limited and reduced the hereditary element and left us in the strange position where the only elected members are the few remaining hereditary members!
Starmer’s reforms are equally limited and do not address the key issues. It is another example of change masquearading as progress – perhaps Starmer’s epitaph.
We need an urgent review of the role and composition of the House of Lords. It does not need to be fully elected and its members should not have a job for life. I see no problem with the idea of Lord Cameron or Lord May or Lord Clegg of the Metaverse providing that they are prepared to make a real commitment to ongoing public service. We should reflect that the presence of individuals such as Lord Timpson in the upper chamber has the possibility of addressing urgent national issues and increasing the effectiveness of the upper chamber. However elected members should form the majority of the second chamber, and elections must be staggered to try to limit the number of political placeholders.
It is a shame that our national policy continues to take a simplistic approach to what is a difficult and nuanced challenge. Perhaps the Lib Dem peers could produce a report and recommendations for a future conference to discuss.
Wise intervention. Proceed with caution to avoid unintentional consequences.
Mark: The UK needs a 2nd Chamber in Parliament. The Commons now spends very little time examining legislation, which has become the Lords’ main job. (Recall that Ian Dunt declared that the only two things that work well in Westminster are Commons select committees and the Lords.) Some hereditaries work hard and care about country more than party; but so do a good many lifers; and some hereditaries are highly partisan. We need a radically reformed 2nd chamber.
Daniel Stylianou: There would be no by-elections to a reformed HoL as under PR you can always appoint the next one on the party list or recount STV. That’s how my daughter got to be an MEP after her predecessor resigned.
More generally, I agree with William Wallace on the need for a revising chamber. I would have the senate elected on a regional basis by STV with a long but single term of say 9 years, perhaps elected by thirds after the first election, when the last 3 elected would serve 3 years and then be eligible for re-election, nos 4-6 serving 6 years.
A very good point on HOL reform.
The solution that seems least-worst to me is –
– All HOL members to have non-renewable terms of max. 15 years.
– 30% of HOL members to be indirectly elected in direct proportion to the vote share of parties at a general election.
– 10% of HOL members to be independent crossbenchers appointed by an independent commission, again for non-renewable terms of max.15 years.
Other models could of course account for, eg. a federal UK, and the proportions above could be tinkered with (eg. 25% with the fourth reserved for Federal proportionality – whatever). But I think the combination of proportionality to multiple successive elections and long, single, non-renewable terms is important.
One highly significant consideration has been totally overlooked I all the discussions to date: just how much time and effort is actually needed for a typical bill to pass through all stages.
Looking at the Climate and Nature Bill, the HoC has only allocated 5 hours to the second reading debate, which as we know from previous bills will be much about rhetoric and political posturing than actual scrutiny. So when it gets passed back to the Lords, how much time will they get and is that really sufficient?
I suggest until we have a better handle on the workload of the HoL (and HoC), and the resources it needs to perform the task assigned to it, reform (particularly with respect to numbers) will always be questionable. I suspect the data is available, the ONS et al only need funding to undertake the work…
The Lords has to go, the state simply cannot modernise if unelected (or selected) persons are in a second chamber. I’d replace it with a meaningful chamber elected via PR. And while am at it, I’d replace FPTP with the French system with provision for run-offs.
Interesting! Perhaps that is an argument for a House of Citizens that I think is something Compass is advocating. Taking the HOL out of politics and using it to give citizens more of a voice might be one way forward.