2025-04-11
To some, the House of Lords is a running sore, ripe for abolition.
To others, it is a pale shadow of its former self, now reduced by the Commons to operate primarily as an old folks home for former politicians whose glory days are behind them.
Under the reforming/destructive/<insert-your-favoured-adjective-here> zeal of one call-me-Tony Blair, its function as the ultimate court of appeal was shipped out to a new "Supreme Court" US-style, answerable to ... well, does anybody really know?
The House of Lords was the original parliament of ancient origin where the (hereditary) Lords of the land met with the Lords Spiritual (the Great and the Good of the Church of England) under the Monarch, to provide debate wisdom and guidance, as a formalisation of the ancient Witan of King Alfred.
Following the rise of the conurbations the Parliament admitted additional representatives from the cities, and "in 1341 the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the first time, creating in effect an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter".
The English Civil War resulted in much temporary change (not to mention bloodshed) when the Parliamentarians were victorious ... "However, the monarchy and the House of Lords were both restored with the Commons in 1660. The influence of the Crown had been decreased, and was further diminished after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 was enacted".
It seems that one can have enough of revolutions.
Since 1621 the House of Lords fulfilled a judicial function on behalf of the monarch, but specific Lords Judicial were only created following the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876.
So all in all, the history of Parliament exposes a long tussle for power in the land, out of which a workable compromise emerged at various stages, and the current controversies over the ways in which our land is governed should be seen in that context.
The big difference in our time is that we must also factor in the global nature of our current world, together with the concomitant global organisations that seek to influence, or some believe usurp, our national powers to govern ourselves as we see fit.
Now once more we have a proactive/upstart/<choose-your-adjective> Commons that wants to once and for all remove all remaining hereditary Peers from the upper house, so we must consider whether this would be a desirable, wise, and beneficial step, or whether it is ill-advised, ill-considered, or inconsequential.
On the plus side this is an incremental step in an ancient process, so unlikely to create much confusion around the revised processes that govern us.
On the minus side it isn't clear that the proposal has any great merit beyond increasing the self-satisfaction of those who consider the hereditary principle to be outdated and inappropriate to the modern age.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it!
So, will it be any the less broke if this change is passed?
