Constitutional Reform

There is an interesting article in The Times today by William Rees-Mogg on the need for immediate reform in The Lords and the entire constitution.

He makes the valid point that over the past 20 years the Lords has already undergone great change – most of it for the worse. He comments that the old separation of powers between the Commons and the Lords worked well, but has since been scrapped by Labour, and that the banishment of most of the hereditary peers was bad for the Lords because they were more apolitical than their life peer replacements.

Of course the perfect solution to all this would be to restore the House of Lords to its former glory and undo the demolition work undertaken by Labour. However in today’s world any party that suggested returning to a system whereby a few privileged landowners are allowed to adjust legislation from the Commons would be electoral suicide. It would be the best possible solution but is not viable.

So what of the alternatives being put forward? Labour wants a wholly elected chamber but this would cause many problems. Why should the Commons have priority over the Lords when both are elected? What if the Commons is dominated by the Conservatives and the Lords by Labour? Why should the Conservatives be able to push through legislation when both parties have equal support from the electorate as a whole?

Another alternative is a fully appointed chamber. This has the problem that those appointed to the Lords by the government would be there to push forward the government’s agenda – hardly appropriate for a revising chamber. The only other suggestions being put forward are a split between elected and appointed representatives. For me this has the combination of problems for the other two options.

Rees-Mogg continues in the article to suggest that more than just the Lords needs reform. In commenting on the poor devolution of national assemblies he says that

“Too high a proportion of recent constitutional reforms has been a reaction to events and to the political pressures of the time. We need a new constitutional convention and a written constitution.”

I’m not quite sure why everyone suddenly seems to want to change and codify what is already a very good constitution. Our constitution has evolved over the past 800 years or so, being updated and upgraded through Acts Of Parliament when required. There is absolutely no reason to change the British Constitution whatsoever – and even if there was would we really want the same people who cannot even write legislation well let alone the devolution of national assemblies to write a new British Constitution?

Codifying a constitution does not eradicate problems. Take the American Constitution for example and how it gives every American citizen the right to arm themselves – a right that was probably very useful back in 1776 but which now causes problems with excessive gun crime across America. Even if this new Constitution is absolutely perfect how are they meant to make it suitable 100 years from now or even 50? The world is constantly changing and we need a constitution which can do the same. Luckily we already have one, it’s just a shame that so many commentators want to dispose of it.