15.11.2001

House of patronage

Last Wednesday saw the publication of the government white paper, The House of Lords - completing the reform. These plans follow on from the report published in January 2000 by the royal commission on Lords reform, chaired by Lord Wakeham.

The new report inadvertently explodes the myth that ?bourgeois? democracy comes in some sort of ?one size fits all? package along with capitalism. On the contrary, democracy is something which is constantly subverted by the ruling establishment and - in reality - exists in spite, not because of the bourgeoisie.

Reading The House of Lords - completing the reform confirms this basic Marxist proposition, and shows once more that it is vital that the Socialist Alliance militantly struggles for the perspective contained in its general election manifesto, People before profit - whatever difference we may have with the phrasing: ?Abolish the monarchy, the House of Lords, the Privy Council and Crown Powers - these archaic institutions have no place in a society of free and equal human beings? (p17).

It turns out that even the ?best? of the three bad anti-democratic options contained in the original Wakeham report - which contemplated the possibility of allowing a third of peers to be elected - eventually proved to be far too radical for the Labour government. A clear majority will be subject to undiluted patronage: 332 are to be nominated by the political parties; 120 - the so-called ?independents? - will be selected by the already discredited appointments commission, and a further miserable 120 by actual, real elections. The surviving 92 hereditary peers will be removed.

No wonder reformist liberals were outraged. The Independent slammed the ?timid tinkerings?, which quite nakedly aimed to grant the ?absolute minimum? in the way of democracy (November 8). The Guardian damned all those who are ?looking to collude in the creation of a second chamber in which only some of the members are elected?, and commented that the government white paper is set ?to continue to exercise the patronage that is at the heart of the existing system? (November 8).

There are even some strings of discontent on the Labour benches. A total of 117 Labour backbenchers have signed a critical early day motion in the Commons calling for a ?wholly or substantially? elected second chamber. In response to questions Robin Cook - leader of the Commons - suggested that a greater number of elected members could be included in the new chamber if the ?three-month public consultation period? supported it. In other words - forget it.

The peers nominated by each party will have their numbers set according to their share of the vote in the previous general election. However, this begs the obvious question - where does this leave the smaller or ?major-minor? parties? The purported theory behind the white paper is that the total number of political nominees at any moment should, as nearly as possible, reflect the proportion of the votes cast. Thus, based on the 2001 general election, today Labour would have 135 representatives, the Conservatives 105 and the Liberal Democrats 61 and ? the SA? Scottish Socialist Party? The Socialist Labour Party? The British National Party?

But Completing the reform is very coy about the proportion of votes the smaller parties would need in order to get a Member of the Lords (ML). On the election figures there ought to be 31 such representatives.

The elected peers will get there thanks to a proportional representative voting system, based on party lists in large multi-member regional constituencies - the same system now used for the European elections. Then, in a mockery of secularism and even - so you could argue - the official state ideology of multiculturalism, the white paper proposes that Church of England bishops should remain in the Lords (ie, Anglicanism should remain as the state religion), but with their numbers reduced from 26 to 16. But - no doubt disappointingly for some - there are no guaranteed places for representatives of other faiths, such as islam or hinduism. But you can be fairly confident that the appointments commission will choose key figures from the non-Anglican faiths and denominations.

However, the white paper partially redeems itself in the eyes of the politically correct liberal establishment by its attempts ?to reverse the domination of the upper house by middle and upper class white men?, as The Guardian put it (November 8). The white paper lays down a quota, ensuring that at least 30% of the appointed members are women, and declares that the ?appointed members must reflect [the] racial and cultural make-up of the UK?.

Existing peers will be offered ?retirement packages? and current life peers will have the right to retain their Lords seat for the ?transition period?, which will be for at least 10 years. Nice work if you can get it.

All in all, The House of Lords - completing the reform is a brilliant depiction of what passes for democracy in the UK of 2001. What we have is no longer even the pretence of ?democratising? the upper house - such a claim is no longer tenable in view of the paltry 20% of elected members - but clearly an attempt by Blair to ensure the stability of the system by conferring additional bureaucratic powers to the government and establishment parties. By and large, the stalling power of the Lords will be left intact. For example, the new Lords will no longer have the right to veto so-called secondary legislation - just the power to delay it for three months.

Communists, unlike the 117 Labour rebels and others, call for the immediate abolition of the House of Lords. Not for us the ?checks and balances? of the second chamber, which all bourgeois constitutions - where possible - try to introduce. Quite understandably. The existence of a second chamber acts to frustrate the popular will - to dampen the democratic impulses of the masses. Keep things ?calm and orderly?. After all, if you did not have a second chamber anything could happen, and that would never do, would it?

Yes, there is the ?death penalty? argument - ie, without a delaying second chamber then we might see legislation to reintroduce the death penalty rushed through parliament. But communists are not fooled by this anti-democratic scare tactic. Backward and reactionary ideas tend to originate from a despairing feeling of powerlessness. The greater the sense of powerlessness, the more anti-social sentiments will flourish. Abolish the second chamber and promote real, effective, indeed extreme, democracy.

The Lords reform package once again shows the centrality of the struggle for democracy for communists and socialists, who must be its most consistent advocates. After all there can be no socialism without democracy and there can be no real democracy without socialism.

Eddie Ford