<p>The Labour government’s move to abolish the House of Lords may be seen as part of Britain’s democratic evolution, though electoral considerations may have influenced its timing. The unelected House has been an anachronism for long in a vibrant democracy like England. Though the House once had a role in restraining the monarch’s powers and making the idea of accountability to parliament accepted, it had long since outlived that purpose and become a body of the monarch’s own men and women. The British love for custom and tradition had kept the House alive and made it a part of the parliamentary system. The bill being planned by the Gordon Brown government will replace the House with an elected body, much on the lines of the US Senate.<br /><br />The new Upper house is proposed to be elected on the basis of proportional representation and the elections will not be on party political lines. It will be much more compact with just over 300 members as against the present strength of 704 peers. One-third of the House would be elected for 15 years at the time of general elections. There may even be some mandatory representation for women and other social groups. There is a welcome provision for recall of the members too. The main weakness of the present system is that the members are hereditary claimants or appointees. Hereditary entitlements had been reduced over time to less than 100 but since the membership was through appointments the House lacked democratic character.<br /><br />The House of Lords had progressively lost most of its powers through centuries and last year it lost its functions as a court of last resort with the formation of the supreme court. A total abolition was only a matter of time and though the Lords are certain to oppose there is no way they can prevent it. There is sympathy for the House among some Conservatives but they cannot afford to be seen on the wrong side of history when the general elections are imminent. The abolition of veto power enjoyed by the House of Lords was in 1911 when the Parliament Act was enacted by the House of Commons. When that radical measure which changed the balance of power most decisively between the two Houses is about a century old, the House of Lords is itself set for abolition. It had a historic role but will now recede into history.</p>
<p>The Labour government’s move to abolish the House of Lords may be seen as part of Britain’s democratic evolution, though electoral considerations may have influenced its timing. The unelected House has been an anachronism for long in a vibrant democracy like England. Though the House once had a role in restraining the monarch’s powers and making the idea of accountability to parliament accepted, it had long since outlived that purpose and become a body of the monarch’s own men and women. The British love for custom and tradition had kept the House alive and made it a part of the parliamentary system. The bill being planned by the Gordon Brown government will replace the House with an elected body, much on the lines of the US Senate.<br /><br />The new Upper house is proposed to be elected on the basis of proportional representation and the elections will not be on party political lines. It will be much more compact with just over 300 members as against the present strength of 704 peers. One-third of the House would be elected for 15 years at the time of general elections. There may even be some mandatory representation for women and other social groups. There is a welcome provision for recall of the members too. The main weakness of the present system is that the members are hereditary claimants or appointees. Hereditary entitlements had been reduced over time to less than 100 but since the membership was through appointments the House lacked democratic character.<br /><br />The House of Lords had progressively lost most of its powers through centuries and last year it lost its functions as a court of last resort with the formation of the supreme court. A total abolition was only a matter of time and though the Lords are certain to oppose there is no way they can prevent it. There is sympathy for the House among some Conservatives but they cannot afford to be seen on the wrong side of history when the general elections are imminent. The abolition of veto power enjoyed by the House of Lords was in 1911 when the Parliament Act was enacted by the House of Commons. When that radical measure which changed the balance of power most decisively between the two Houses is about a century old, the House of Lords is itself set for abolition. It had a historic role but will now recede into history.</p>
