News

There is a major scandal in Britain over allegations that rich people have been able to buy their way in to the House of Lords. This is adding to the pressure on Tony Blair to retire well before the next general election.
Scandals over honours are nothing new in Britain. The worst offender last century was probably David Lloyd George after World War I. His abuse of power as prime minister led to major reforms in how the monarch awarded honours.

But there are many basic problems with the composition of the House of Lords. Who should be in the House of Lords and how should they be appointed? What powers should it have? Indeed is the House of Lords required at all?

Unlike most other political systems, which were based on a deliberate attempt to create a constitution to form a parliament, the British Houses of Parliament gradually evolved over the centuries. They continue to evolve, with the latest reforms to the Lords taking place in 1999.

The House of Lords is probably the world’s oldest upper house. It has been a model for other parliamentary systems (not least those in the Australian states and the national parliament in Canberra).

The House’s roots go back to the 11th century, when the English king conferred with barons and religious leaders, usually to get money out of them. The king needed both the political, economic and military power of the barons, as well as the religious blessing of the Christian leaders to maintain rule. No elections were held.

In the 14th century, two distinct houses evolved. The Lords were joined by the Commons (which contained members from the shires).

Ultimate power remained in the English king (or queen). Indeed, this dominance continues in theory to this day with the role of the queen or king overshadowing the “British” institutions. For example, there is no reference to England or Britain in the national anthem (“God Save the Queen”), the military ships are in the “Royal Navy” (not a British one), the national holiday is the Queen’s Birthday.

A notable characteristic in British political history has been the gradual and virtually non-violent way that democracy emerged in Britain. The monarch gradually (and grudgingly) surrendered power to the two Houses. There was no need for a bloodthirsty violent revolution that happened in many European countries or the US (via the Civil War, 1861-5).

Thus, the monarch became part of the “decorative” power of politics, with the real “executive” power residing with the Parliament. In recent decades, the power has moved from the Commons to the prime minister. But the process has largely been a smooth one.

The monarch increasingly represented a figurehead in politics. It was the continuous noble institution that sailed above the fray of the dirty ever-changing world of politics. Queen Victoria in the 19th century particularly created the modern monarchy: the ruler who seemed to be in charge but with the real power residing in Parliament. The transition was done so smoothly that many Britons were unaware of the reduction of the monarch’s power.

But even as the power of the Lords declined, so it remained an attractive place for some people willing to make large donations to political parties. Being a “lord” has a nice ring to it for some people. Appointment to the Lords has always been by royal appointment (either as a peer of the realm, church bishop, law lord or more recently as a life peer), on advice of the government of the day.

Most appointments have been for honourable reasons, such as loyal service to the nation. But there have been question marks over some appointments. This is now the problem that Mr Blair has.