The United Kingdom is a great nation and there are no two ways about it. This is a country built upon a thousand years of tradition and custom, and a country which exported the idea of parliamentary democracy across the world. But British democracy is not as stable as it once was. The upper chamber of parliament, the House of Lords, is troublesome. The calls for reform are growing by the day. But should we reform, and if so, into what shape?

First, I shall provide an introduction to the political make-up of the Lords. Currently sitting in the house are some 804 of peers. 92 are hereditary peers, meaning they inherit their titles and the right to sit. It must be mentioned that the House used to have more hereditary peers until Blair's reforms screwed it so royally that we have been left with the mess we have today. The party breakdown of seats is as follows; 252 Conservative, 202 Labour, 178 Cross Bencher's, 102 Libdems, 30 non affiliated and then 26 Lords Spiritual (Bishops). There are also 3 for UKIP, one for the Greens and an assortment of others from Welsh and Northern Irish parties.

The first option that should be considered is to create a chamber of purely cross bench peers. This could mean a chamber of some 300 peers, who would be appointed for life, but would most importantly not be affiliated to any party. At the moment, cross bencher's are, I believe, the unsung heroes of parliament. Amongst the petty party squabbling and vested interests, they represent rather well the views of the average voter. It would be most refreshing to have a chamber untainted by party politics. The Bishops should be retained; but representation should also be given to the other faiths of the UK with seats for Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist and Sikh faith leaders as well. 

The second option is to return to the more hereditary system we had pre-1999. The Lords had a few political appointments, but they were for the most part a whole deal more reputable than those of today. Many were men, and to an admittedly lesser extent women, who had titles, land, and a great interest in how the country was run, seeing as they owned so much of it. Because of their grandfathers’ agreement to the Salisbury convention, they would not vote down anything that had been in a party's manifesto, or monetary bills. They did this because, being members of the aristocracy, they had an inbuilt respect for tradition while at the same time feared angering the lower house for risk of abolishment. Many served in the army, and having to manage their own estates means they came face to face with “real life” far more often than the likes of Lord Mandelson or Lord Hain. So while the House was mostly Conservative in its leanings, Labour governments were still able to cooperate with the Lords based on the grounds of mutual respect and decency. This has been lost with the politicisation of the upper house.

The third, and most ghastly, option I can envisage is that of an elected upper house. I cringe at the very mention of the concept. Under such a new banner, I can only see it functioning as a chamber elected every 10 or 15 years on a regional basis which would act in a scrutinising capacity. Nothing more. This option is by far the more undesirable as it would create more career politicians. These are people who worry more about winning the next election than about their constituents. They rely on the good favour of the leader to gain advancement which may involve them actively voting against their constituents interests. They are open to bribes and are followed around by scandal wherever they go. Although some members are open and good people who serve their constituencies well, I would be very sad to see the Lords come into the levels of disrepute we saw in the Commons following the 2009 expenses scandal. In addition, if the Lords were to compete for parity with the Commons, we may find ourselves with another constitutional crisis.

The more recent scandals in the Lords have come about because it is filled with former council leaders, ex MPs and party hacks. They do the bidding of their party in a way the hereditary peers never used to. The Earls and Barons were very much of their own mind. Entrance is now based on who the party leader nominates into the upper house, and who the peer is now obligated to obey. You end up with the likes of Lord Prescott or Lord Hogg squatting on seats meant for people much more reputable and civilised than themselves.

The move for outright abolition of the upper house would be a mistake. To lose the House of Lords would be to lose a part of our history and democracy. We would be a lesser country for it.  


Colm Lock is a final year Ancient History student at The University of Manchester

Most people are aware of the meteoric rise of right wing populism across the West at the moment. It has been or is rising with rapid pace in almost every country that can be called a ‘western liberal democracy’ and is seeing parties that once were consigned to mere single figure percentages of support, now reaching strong third places or level pegging with the main parties, sometimes even surpassing them.

Norbert Hofer, the runner-up of the recent Austrian presidential election, has been the best example of this. While some may say that Trump is the best example, I would disagree. He piggybacked onto an already established party. Hoffer has led his party from relative obscurity, to coming a very close second in the Austrian presidential election. His party is home to some of the worst kind of race baiting zealots. Yet he came incredibly close to winning, and his party is set for a strong showing in the Austrian Parliament elections. The same can be said for Geert Wilders, the man whose party looks like it could be the winner of the Dutch parliamentary elections this week. He has called on the Netherlands to deal with the problem of ‘Moroccan scum’, and still maintains a solid lead in the polls. So many of us are left scratching our heads asking ‘why will people still vote for them? Why don’t people still lend their support to the two main parties that still dominate most of the chambers of debate in European parliaments?

The answer is very simple and it is one of their own making. The elites' disregard for the people and their embrace of oligarchy. To show an unwillingness to listen to the people can and has spelled disaster for many parties. In this country however, the Conservative party seem to have learnt from their own hard experiences in Scotland and Wales. At the 1997 general election, the Tories were completely wiped out North of the wall, one of the main reasons being the party’s complete opposition to devolution or even referendums on the matter. Scotland and Wales used to have some of the most Conservative parliamentary seats in the country; in places like Perth and rural Aberdeenshire. Anglesey even voted for Thatcher. But they failed to listen to the calls for devolution and so paid the price.

This is therefore one of the reasons the Conservatives are polling so well at the moment at between 39 per cent and 44 per cent and seem to have stumped the populist right menace that is UKIP. They have shown that they are willing to listen to the people. They listened to the calls for electoral reform and held a referendum. They listened to calls for independence for Scotland and held a referendum, and finally they listened to the calls for a change in our relationship with the EU and held a referendum. The fact that so many of their MPs have put their own personal feelings aside to listen to the will of the people and vote in favour of Article 50 will do the party no disservice. In fact, it will only show that the party is prepared to listen to what the electorate say on issues that they may personally disagree with, unlike the Labour party with the likes of Owen Smith and Lord Mandelson.

The populist right is, however, still on the march in Europe. In France, the two main parties are being supplanted by the Front Nationale, a party which, while having been moderated from its frothing at the mouth nationalism by Marine le Pen, is still pretty distasteful in some of its beliefs. In Germany, the Alternative for Deutschland are now the third most popular party in the polls and continuing to rise, making them the possible kingmakers of any coalition that comes out of this year’s parliamentary elections. In Denmark and Sweden, far right parties are on the rise in what were once thought the havens of liberalism and tolerance. In Hungary you have Jobbik, in Greece you have Golden Dawn, in the Netherlands it is the Party for Freedom, the Freedom Party of Austria, and the list goes on and on.

These groups have to be stopped. They harbour dangerous and unsavoury elements whose views on trade and national identity are wrong and could fundamentally destabilise our continent. But they are the symptom of the political establishment on a national and supra national level, which has refused to listen to the wills of the people. The people of these nations have been consulted in referendums, very few and far between, but these were not nearly enough. The only two countries who got to vote on the introduction of the Euro were Sweden and Denmark (both rejected it). Tony Blair would have taken the UK into it as well, had Gordon Brown not intervened.

On matters of European integration, many of the continent’s people have been denied votes. Or, countries such as Ireland, France and the Netherlands, who had rejected further plans for EU integration, did not have their voices listened to.

Many of our political leaders have failed to realise one important thing about Europeans: many will not give up their voices or national identities without a fight. Because, ultimately, this is what it is all about. The massive influx of migrants from outside the EU and the move towards a single EU super-state at the expense of sovereign nation states has led to anger and fear. These people are understandably trying to protect their national identities which they see as under threat from creeping globalism and the EU’s need to extend its hegemony over its ideal and country of 500 million people called simply, Europe.

People are naturally displeased with not being listened to. The problem is they are turning to the wrong people for their voices to be heard. The main political parties of the West need to desperately wake up and smell the bacon that people are much more tribal than they thought. That their voices need to be heard on a regular basis where the most important national issues are concerned. Populism has seen a gap in the market and has exploited it. If the parties of sense and sound economic policy want to regain their lost electorates, they need to show that they are prepared to listen to their voice, even if they disagree with it, and act on the words of their constituents. If they do not embrace a more direct form of democracy, they will never regain the trust or votes of the many millions they have left behind.


Colm Lock is a final year Ancient History student at The University of Manchester