Having just spent the best part of a week in the House of Lords at the kind invitation of Lord Hunt, observing at first-hand how they work on a day-to-day basis, what have I learned that is not already described in the current available literature? Here I’ll try to summarise my thoughts and reflections whilst they are still fresh in my mind.
The most overwhelming impression I gained from this week was that the Lords takes seriously its role as the ‘conscience’ of parliament. As the textbooks will tell you ad nauseum, it is principally a bill-revising chamber. Rarely does it attempt to block legislation from the Commons. But it does try to lend expertise and a less partisan perspective to scrutiny of government bills and to propose amendments that are in the wider national interest or, sometimes, in the interests of the most vulnerable in society. It tries to safeguard the rights of citizens, as with this week’s debate on the Child and Social Work Bill in which there was reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or, indeed, with the Tax Credits debate earlier this year (the government ultimately chose to give way on this issue). The crossbenchers (such as Lord Hope) and the Lords Spiritual are influential in this. Secondly, it is acutely aware of its undemocratic nature as an appointed, rather than elected second chamber. In demonstrating this awareness it seeks not to thwart bills coming from the (elected) Commons. Amendments to bills are tabled, but are mostly withdrawn after a debate has taken place on the tabled amendment. Rarely are there votes (or ‘divisions’), although we did witness three in one evening (all triggered by the Liberal Democrats).This ‘compensation’ for being undemocratic reinforces their role as a ‘revising’ chamber. They went to great length in all the relevant debates and meetings this week to emphasise the point that, as a chamber, they have absolutely no intention of blocking Article 50. That would be unpalatable and blatantly undemocratic. They have a strong survival instinct and would do nothing to counter the popular will. In providing expertise it does, however, cause the government to pause and think during the passage of a bill, and to this extent it acts as a check and balance on ill-conceived legislation and potentially on the rise of demagogic populism. Thirdly, it is a more collaborative chamber and far less partisan than the House of Commons. The peers conduct themselves without vitriol or rancour and seek to develop policy in the national interest. The Whips hold little sway and peers are more likely to view an issue as a matter of individual conscience (they are freer than the Commons from the influence of ideological dogma). The opposition propose amendments and the government carefully considers those amendments, often giving assurances to the House that the amendments will be taken into account for a later reading of a bill. Thus, without the need for a vote, arguments are taken on board. This was apparent in the Child and Social Work Bill (Report Stage) and in the Police and Crime Bill (Committee Stage). Co-operation between the parties was evident in the ‘behind-the-scenes’ discussions between Lord Hunt and the Conservative Chief Whip, which took place to one side during a debate. It underlined the opposition’s desire to influence rather than defeat the government. Ministers in the Lords might still have to discuss amendments with the Cabinet, but the Lords does (not infrequently) prompt the government to ‘think again’ on the details of its bills. Fourthly, currently Labour peers organise themselves in the Lords without little reference to the shadow cabinet, which seems to have little interest in them. On the one hand they welcome the latitude this gives them in seeking to influence legislation. On the other hand, they would equally welcome stronger leadership and direction. Fifthly, the notion of a ‘Westminster bubble’ is overblown. That is not to deny that such a bubble is apparent. While we were there, protests were vocally evident from Parliament Square, but they were heard from behind the more visible security screen. However, that does not mean peers are unaware of the issues that confront citizens in the wider society. For example, while we were there we observed presentations from groups representing regenerative medicine, those suffering from arthritis, and those suffering from dementia. In strategy meetings there was reference to the challenges of economically deprived areas in the UK, particularly post-Brexit (the Brexit debate and forging a successful post-Brexit UK is exercising the House considerably at the moment). Peers are also exposed to the issues of the wider world through friends and families. For example, Baroness Wheeler juggles being a carer with her role in the Lords; Lord Hunt’s wife works in further education. I came to the conclusion that the so-called bubble is little more significant than the ‘bubble’ in which employees find themselves wherever they work (the ‘university bubble’, the ‘college bubble’, the ‘company bubble’). It is a prism through which the world is inevitably viewed, but its distortions are not insurmountable. The peers are for the most part ordinary people doing an extraordinary job in an extraordinary institution. Finally, the House is not without need of reform. Although it works well, its operation is hindered by its size. Thanks to Cameron’s recent honours, the chamber now has 860 peers. Many of them are ‘active’. On a practical level this mean that peers have to queue for up to two hours in order to table an Oral Question (the equivalent to PMQs) and most backbenchers will only have the opportunity to table one amendment per session. There is widespread acceptance that the chamber is too big. Some, like Lord Hunt, go further and suggest that there should be a root and branch reform (its practices are undeniably archaic) and that the UK would be best served by an elected second chamber, as in the US. This, however, risks gridlock or an ‘elective dictatorship’ and there has been little appetite for such radical reform from successive governments. It seems highly unlikely therefore that significant reform will happen soon. From what I have observed this week I am not convinced of the necessity for such radical reform. The Lords take very seriously their role in revising legislation and in the scrutiny of government policy, but are extremely mindful of the government’s mandate within a representative democracy. In our system of government, ‘the other place’ certainly knows its place.
0 Comments
Like it or not, the fragmentation of British politics is here to stay. Gone are the days when 90% of British people voted either Labour or Conservative on an 80% turnout, as they did in the fifties. Gone are the days of solid majority governments with clear mandates and an unassailable determination to force through unpopular policies. What the wake of the 2016 local and regional elections have shown is that the UK is now a multi-party system and that party politics are has gained a new fragility. The era of knife-edge politics has dawned.
Two events are instructive in this argument. The first is the outcome of the local and regional elections. The second is an incredible U-turn by the Conservative government on Academy Schools in the face of potential backbench rebellion, serving as a reminder that even the national government’s majority is slender. The results of the local and regional government elections are very revealing about the state of party politics. In Scotland, the SNP did not secure an overall majority, they were just two seats short. As one witty journalist observed, they have SNPeaked. Equally revealing is Ruth Davidson’s remarkable achievement of raising the Conservatives to become the party of opposition in Scotland, leaving Labour trailing a poor third. The Greens and Lib-Dems secured just a handful of seats each. In Wales, Labour failed to secure an overall majority by just one seat. They won 29 seats to Plaid’s 12, the Conservative’s 11 and, (this is important) UKIP’s 7. In the local elections the Conservatives lost 35 seats, but Labour (who should have done better) lost 24. The Liberal Democrats (gained 39 seats) and UKIP (gained twenty six seats) were the big winners of the night. What this tells us is that the stranglehold that the Conservative and Labour Parties once had on British Politics has gone, probably forever. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, and particularly UKIP (because it has wider national appeal) have gained traction. As a consequence, nowhere in the national and regional legislatures in the UK does a political party have a secure overall majority. Even in local government, 23 local authorities are in ‘no overall control’, with 8 others, like Southampton, enjoying only a slender majority for the party in control (a 3 or fewer seat majority). That amounts to over a quarter of all local authorities. And even in national government, the Conservatives have such a small majority that Cameron dare not risk rebellion over the Academy School’s policy, which was much trumpeted in George Osborne’s last Budget speech. Other recent U-turns by the government in the face of potential backbench rebellion include: plans to cut tax credits were abandoned; Cameron has agreed to accept more refugee children; further talks are taking place about junior doctor’s contracts; and Sunday trading hours were not extended as the government wished. A new politics is emerging, driven by the continuing 21st century fragmentation of the party system. A new politics where parties cannot expect to have overall control of legislatures and where compromises have to be made. A new politics where fragile minority governments (at all levels) seek support from other parties on a vote-by-vote basis, and where coalitions are far more likely. This is the knife-edge politics of today. Obama: Inside the White House was excellent this week. It demonstrated that Obama was not a 'lame duck' president. He has used executive orders on gun control and immigration, passed the Affordable Care Bill and the Dream Bill, taken on the Republicans on state-funded contraception, used his powers as Commander-in-Chief against Bin Laden, and won a second term. He can, however, be regarded as a divisive president.
|
Author
Archives
November 2016
Categories |