By Ben Evans
edited by Ollie Lycett (Economics editor)
Now more than ever, the cracks in our constitution are beginning to show. The dramatic power imbalance between Westminster and everything else in our unitary state has been exposed. The pandemic response, the hollow ‘levelling-up’ agenda, and the illegal legislation ‘ripping up’ the Northern Ireland protocol all evidence the fact that the Westminster system is not working for all. This is a deep threat to the structural integrity of our union, and a radical solution is needed to bring the UK back from the brink.
The solutions to many problems can be found in their roots. The flaws of the UK’s political system are: a lack of accountability, a lack of representation, and a series of democratic deficits. The UK’s upper chamber, our House of Lords epitomises these flaws. With approximately 800 members, the UK’s upper chamber is the second largest in the world after the Chinese ‘People’s Assembly’ (another huge unelected body). The majority of Lords are infrequent attendees, and those who do attend are unelected yet highly political appointees - Lord Lebedev instantly springs to mind. This has resulted in an oversized, inefficient chamber, with a questionable level of legitimacy for its power.
This does not have to be the case. An ‘advisory’ upper chamber is an internationally rare - yet highly useful - political institution. This function should certainly be maintained, as it allows for the fine tuning of legislation and provides another layer of protection against truly disastrous policies. However, an advisory chamber is not solely beneficial within the status quo; and must be integrated into a program of reforms inclusive of increasing the chamber’s democratic legitimacy, increasing efficiency through reducing its size, and allowing for far more regional representation. Among the ranks of Progressive Politics, an ‘Elected Senate of Nations and Regions’ is nothing new, but with key endorsements from the likes of Andy Burnham, Anas Sawar, and Ed Miliband, it has snowballed in popularity. However, the present discussions have been heavy on the premise, and light on the tangible details of how this idea could manifest itself.
The demand for some form of proportional representation is rising, with such a reform being long overdue in the British political system. Historically, the defence has hinged upon the existence of strong and stable governments who are able to exercise a clear mandate. Previously, the debate has been focused on the House of Commons, spearheaded by the smaller parties desperate for fair representation, but squashed by the two giants seeking to maintain their duopoly. With regards to the House of Lords, this consistent ‘status-quo’ argument falls apart. The last thing a well-functioning ‘advisory’ chamber needs is a majority, dominating voice, which is why the in-built Conservative majority was removed in the House of Lords Act (1999).
A representational system would be perfect to grant the upper chamber more legitimacy. It would also encourage debate and compromise, instead of allowing for one dominant force, as in the Commons. Additionally, the upper chamber could better reflect the UK’s true political kaleidoscope – under First Past The Post (FPTP), smaller parties with more focused policy platforms, such as the Greens with climate change and UKIP with Brexit, have been denied a voice. If the UK desires a truly effective upper chamber for all UK citizens, it should represent all beliefs according to popularity, and force these opposing forces to come to sensible compromises. Populism would not be an inherent issue, as instead of denying emerging forces a voice, their arguments would be discussed, and then denied, or accepted off their merits. The effects of this have been clear in Germany, who dealt with their Populist wave far more effectively than the UK. In 2017, the ‘far-right’ Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 12.6% of the vote, and with-it significant representation, in their proportional system. This gave a platform for the fallacies of their arguments to be exposed, and publicly defeated. By the last election of 2021, their vote share dropped to 10%, and the party lost its status as the main opposition. Clearly, instead of removing the voice of these movements, it’s far better to allow a ‘market place’ of ideas to form the most effective policy. A denied voice only seems to grow, until it becomes a destructive roar. With the recent downfall of Johnson, a reform of this manner would mark the nation truly learning the lessons of his divisive tenure.
Thus, a ‘proportional-representation-like’ system is required, but certainly not direct PR. This is a geographic-demographic problem over all else. The UK is a nation in which a direct voting system in this upper chamber would grant England even more dominance than it currently holds in the House of Commons. As of 2020, the English population makes up 84.2% of the UK’s total, according to Statista. Moreover, the population is even more concentrated, with 18.2 million people living in London and the South-East alone, approximately equal to 27.1% of the population, nearly twice the number living in three devolved nations, and higher than the number living in the North-East, North-West, and Yorkshire/Humber region combined. Clearly, a successful British upper chamber shouldn’t give in to these evident power imbalances and thereby skew itself towards the will of one section of our nation.
Therefore, a more proportional voting system can be combined with a legislative structure akin to that of the Senate in the US, in a revolutionary re-structuring of our upper chamber. Firstly, it would have to be reduced in size in order to make both representation and debate more effective. Potentially, 144 members could be a far more workable number than the current 768. This could then be divided across the 12 distinctive regions of the UK (London, South-East, South-West, West Midlands, East Midlands, The East of England, North-West, Yorkshire and the Humber, North-East, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), all with 12 members each. Members of the upper chamber could then be allocated through PR in that region, with only 8.5% of the vote being the threshold for representation, and no need for distortions such as tactical voting. A system such as this would equalise the demands of the 12 UK regions, reducing the unconscious bias present in our politics. Furthermore, regulations could be implemented to ensure all members live in their specific region or originate from there. A strong affinity for the area, would create a league of ‘regional champions’ both ideologically and locally. Moreover, the relatively low threshold for representation would allow for more participation from smaller parties and specialised movements. All of this would ensure politics is brought closer to the people, by making it more responsive to the populations’ demands.
The benefits of such a radical re-modelling of the UK’s upper chamber are huge, as regions that have previously felt disconnected from the UK political system could begin to reconcile this relationship with a grouping of distinctive local champions pushing for truly transformative change. It could potentially relax the ‘anti-Westminster’ sentiment that has only grown over the past 40 years. Most importantly, it could improve policy for all regions. For the ‘levelling-up’ agenda to truly work, it must combine both a political transition of power, as well as an economic transition of wealth.
Another huge benefit of such a reform would be improving the accountability of our legislatures by tying the upper chamber to the direct democratic will of the people. The removal of the ‘security of tenure’ enjoyed by our present Lords would ensure frequent attendance and encourage members to take greater care when carrying out their duties. However, this would need to be accompanied by the introduction of salaries to allow for proper commitment and the inclusion of members from all classes.
It is certainly possible that this proposal may also create new challenges. Firstly, some may fear that by adding an element of democracy to our upper chamber, it may begin to further politicise the institution and rip apart the relatively high level of co-operation for which it has become known. The absence of any hard power for this now streamlined ‘advisory’ chamber would lower both the stakes and pressure on politicians to uphold the divisions of partisanship. Reform could begin to weaken the controlling and ugly ‘whip’ system to prevent the emergence of ‘grid-lock’, frequently seen in the Commons when there isn’t a majority party.
Another criticism could be that the proposals may remove the ‘expertise’ held by the present Lords, and replace them with ‘cynical’ and ‘ambitious’ politicians. There’s little doubt that this may be a possibility, however one could question how valuable the present expertise held by the Lords truly are. There are many great champions of their fields; nonetheless, for every one of those, there are countless members who turn up just for the title. A nomination for this new ‘Senate’ could be built up from local roots, again furthering the connection to regions.
Regulations such as minimum time periods of years spent living in the region could further ensure this is the case. Additionally, the regionalised PR electoral system would allow for cultural expressions to emerge. For example, if the result was replicated in the 2022 local elections, due to the low 8.5% threshold, we’d even see a Yorkshire Party representative! All of these reforms could ensure members remain untainted by the ‘Westminster Bubble’.
The last decade saw the rise of populist movements from both the Left and the Right. It is too easy to despise them, or simply disregard them. What people often miss is the strong desire for change, and a call for us to consider reform. It is clear that, from young students to ‘left-behind’ workers, people want politics to work for us all. I am not presenting this as the one solution to the UK’s democratic deficit, however, it is this line of thinking that will create transformative change.
With Johnson’s premiership coming to an end, national unity is imperative and must materialise through change from top to bottom. In the face of the cost of living crisis, many view constitutional reform as a luxury we cannot afford - an irrelevant project. This is dangerous thinking. The way in which our governing systems operate shape our political choices, and, as a consequence, policy outcomes. Therefore, now, more than ever, we desperately need to begin crafting a system that truly fulfils the ‘Social Contract’.
Government has been made by the people, for all of the people. Reform is fundamental in marking a move away from elitism and towards a fairer political and social environment. It is now time for our upper chamber to mark the beginning of a more representative and encouraging future.
Comments