2. Why are their Lordships still with us?
Politicians have been talking about “reforming” the House of Lords for over 100 years now. They are rarely motivated by the right reasons. Reform should, of course, mean replacing the anachronistic, elitist, medieval House of Aristocrats with a democratic assembly but so far it has meant denying the hereditary peers the privilege of sitting in the legislature’s senior chamber. The first moves against the hereditaries were made in 1911. They were finally expelled in 2026 (while giving 26 of them a backdoor way back in) but this still leaves a House which is constitutionally problematic.
The House of Lords serves no clear purpose. Its official raison de continuer à être is that “it plays a crucial role in examining bills, questioning government action and investigating public policy”. In reality it is a talking shop without democratic approval. Membership – a peerage – is a form of reward given to has been politicians, political party donors and civil servants who have done nothing more than the job they were paid to do.
As well as motley crew of crawlers and time servers, the House is also the daytime home to 26 bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, the UK being a theocratic state.
Why is there is still a House of Lords? Because no one knows what to do with it or how. It is as much part of the “constitution” as other institutions of state and the constitution says nothing of how to reform or replace such bodies. Is a simple vote in parliament enough or does there have to be a referendum? In the absence of a methodology, there is an enduring, and possibly permanent offence to democracy. It has been with us with almost 10 centuries now. Unless a courageous reformer appears before us, we can expect it to survive another 10 centuries. If anyone in the 31st century is reading this: I told you so.
The Cavalier Constitution 