From Convenience and Ermine to Eminence
Updated since published in Prospect Magazine and the Lancashire Magazine.
Progressive writers like to have a go at the House of Lords. It is an easy target as it appears old-fashioned, is not elected and therefore is undemocratic. Archaic to some and historic to others. But it works in holding the Commons to account, as far as it is ever going to be allowed to function by the elected chamber. It works by delaying and amending contentious legislation from the Commons for up to a year to allow for pressures and reflection.
The House of Commons is not likely to create a Second Chamber with powers to rival theirs. So, it is not the place for ambitious politicians seeking the higher echelons of politics, unless they were allowed to “regress” to the Commons which has happened occasionally, but not often successfully.
The original concept was of the aristocratic elite and the Chamber will function best if it returns to a genuine, modern day elite status. It does not have to be democratic because it passes very few Laws directly which govern the rest of us.
Recently there is a clear fall in standards of members of both the Commons and the House of Lords, where some Lordships turn up draw their days fee and go to the bar or home. But this opinion of the Lords is caused by the move away from ennobling people of true eminence in their chosen profession, who are not answerable to a party or the electorate, but only to their conscience and wisdom. The independence of their Lordships of the Other Place is why it in general works.
And there is no case for automatic right to attend by inheritance or for the 26 selected Bishops of the Church or England. It is popular to decry the whole institution for these undemocratic anomalies.
The committee that accepts nominations must be strengthened to allow it to enforce minimum standards of “eminence.” No political donors or MPs who need to be moved on from the Commons for electoral conveninece Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet level posts as a minimum for politicians who lost their seats, but no serving Secretaries of State. Only the top leaders of ALL major religions, although that is arguable in these more secular times. The top people in all disciplines, who wish to give meaningful time, should be considered. By all disciplines I mean Engineering, Science, Medicine and well as the Law, Finance and Business. By applying the wisdom of truly successful people in multiple fields it would ensure that Laws sent from the Lower House would return better than they otherwise would have been.
Eminence is a far better qualification than nomination on a party basis. If there is to be any further continuation of the is principle it should be based on the total votes cast for a Party in a General Election. There is a further suggestion of selected citizens, like jury selection, backed by teams of researchers, but I suspect few are cut out to digest the dry fodder of legislation.
There is no need to sack any Lordships, the transition can take place over a number of years. Each Lord would be asked to attend the House for a minimum number of occasions during a session. If they cannot make such an undertaking they lose their membership but can keep their title. With the average age of their Lordships seen on the TV a couple of years would make a significant difference.
Logic says that we should drop the titles of Upper and Lower Houses in favour of Second and First Chambers. But the existing titles are quaint and British, so I for one am against changing them.