bolitics

(portmanteau of political and bollocks...)

Apparently some are pushing for an elected House of Lords.

Here, in my considered opinion, is why this would be a grievous mistake.

1. The House of Commons is an inherently evolutionary body. The House of Lords is an inherently conservative body. One exists to preserve the cultural, ethical and constitutional foundations of the British Isles. The other exists to remodel society according to the changeable desires of the population at the time. The whole POINT of the House of Lords is that it is a continuity from the past. It is an artefact. Ours is one system that actually recognises the value of artefacts.

An elected House of Lords would be nothing more than a transient slice of vox populi, a role that is already taken.

2. The facetious 'representative' argument has been dragged out again. The essence of the fallacy is as follows: the more resemblance there is between one person and another, the better qualified that person is to represent the other's interests, and the more competently they will do so. This line of thought would apparently have us believe that female barristers are more successful when they represent female clients, that union representatives argue more convincingly and with greater success when those they represent are of a similar ethnic background, and that football managers should always match the majority of team members in terms of gender and skin colouration. It is insulting in the extreme to claim that a black politician cannot adequately represent a predominantly white constituency. Yet, if we reject that proposal, it stands to reason that similar proposals cannot stand either.

The only way in which this 'representation' works is in its presumption that a person will feel better if someone who is speaking on their behalf looks like them and talks like them. No doubt for some this is true. But an issue of comfort cannot and should not be allowed to decide issues of government. Resemblance does not enure sympathy - Thatcher was a woman, after all - nor does it ensure competence.

3. Personally, I'm increasingly sceptical of the idealistic and the progressive. The crusty old edifice from the past that is seen as so very embarrassing, outdated and autocratic is the bastion of inherited freedoms and rights. Some would have us believe that the way forward is to continually tear everything up and rebuild it according to the latest Enlightened, Modern Canon of True Liberty.

There IS no magic system that will automatically make everyone more free than they were yesterday. The House of Lords is a vital reminder that there are certain ongoing principles and privileges over which we have NO CONTROL and about which we have NO CHOICE. That is ALWAYS going to be the case, and no amount of misguided socialist rhetoric is ever going to change it. Tear down the old edifice, and a new one moves into the space it used to occupy.

By having our dinosaurs where we can see them, we keep them in focus.

So, don't fall for the optimistic but fundamentally unrealistic hype that all we have to do is Democratise Everything and that will make everything better. The principle of autocracy and hereditary privilege SHOULD be involved in government (and always is), and currently it is in exactly the right position - as the wicket-keeper, not the bowler.

Of course autocracy and hereditary privilege are involved in all governments. The simple truth is when they are not involved blatantly, they are involved behind the scenes. Unless one thinks the election of two George Bushes is a coincidence, of course, or that inherited wealth does not influence politics in other countries.

When something was 'intended' to be changed a hundred years ago and still isn't, then one has to ask oneself if it is really broken in the first place. This is Britain, a unique and priceless constitutional monarchy. Other countries can have their Democracies, and the problems that attend them. We manage a very successful balance of elected and unelected authority.

Being elected doesn't make a body more or less competent; yet to listen to the advocates of an elected second chamber speak, one would think that election itself was some sort of hallowing process. Choice isn't a miracle salve that sanctifies the outcome of that choice. Having the decision to make doesn't mean always making the right decision. Yes, freedom of choice is essential for living; but it has its limits.