It has come to my attention that Parliament has received a petition asking for a referendum on the question of abolishing the House of Lords. Parliament has agreed to debate this petition, which raises the possibility that such a referendum may one day happen.
Parliament to debate referendum on abolishing the House of Lords
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433
Conservativism and sentimentality would ordinarily make such a proposition distasteful to a great number of Britons. The times have changed, however, and the anger of the nation, much like steam in a pressure cooker, is building, still to be dissipated.
The House of Lords is not what it once was. During the Blair years, a great number of hereditary peers, bastions of British conservatism and patriotism, were presented by the Commons with a choice: stay in the legislature, but give up your hereditary peerage; or keep your hereditary peerage, but leave the legislature. A large number chose the latter option, wishing their children to inherit their ancient (usually) title. This meant that the composition of the House swung towards political appointees, the so-called “life peers”.
Furthermore, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Law Lords were removed from the House of Lords and formed the new Supreme Court, to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. This was done in order to improve the separation of powers in the British constitution.
In truth, the power of the House of Lords has been limited in some respects for a long time now. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 mean that where the House of Lords and House of Commons are in conflict, the House of Lords can merely delay the passage of a Bill by one year. Provided the Monarch gives Royal Assent, a Bill passed by the Commons, but not by the Lords, will become an Act of Parliament. This was confirmed in the case of R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262, in which Lord Steyn said that Parliament was composed of the Monarch, the Commons, and the Lords. He went on to say that Parliament could redefine itself for certain purposes if it so chose, and said that this is what had happened in 1911: Parliament had permitted itself to be redefined as the Monarch and the Commons where the Lords were in opposition to the will of the Commons.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/103/contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General
Such has been our state of affairs – but that may not continue. Reform of the Lords has been a vexed question. Blair’s reforms were meant to be a step in making the Lords more representative of the people, more meritocratic, and ultimately more accountable to the people. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, had been planning a further statute to reform the Lords, but this appears to have been delayed (perhaps indefinitely) because of the voluminous work concerned with implementing Brexit.
The Lords’ latest move to keep Britain in the customs union (see Melanie Phillips’ comments on the matter) may be the straw the breaks the camel’s back. Many Brexiteers are angry with the Commons’ opposition to the referendum result. At least the Commons are elected, though. Not so the Lords.
All Along the Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Richard's Watch and commented:
Thank you ‘Nicholas’ for such an informative, succinct summary of the status of the House of Lords…yet we must ask why bishops are unaware of the Lord’s mind on the EU!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. I enjoyed your post yesterday and it got me thinking about the lack of good teaching on listening to the Spirit in certain Anglican circles. Some time ago, I had a dream about the Lord Jesus, after He had returned, cleansing and rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. I am beginning to think now, however, that the dream had a second meaning: He is rebuilding and cleansing His Church, which is also referred to as His Temple in the New Testament by Paul.
LikeLike
Thank you also for visiting and linking into my post on this issue .
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re very welcome. The main readers at AATW are Americans, and a lot of them support our Brexit position. This is a mixed site, denominationally speaking. I didn’t found it. It was originally founded by a conservative Anglo-Catholic lady, who passed it onto a friend of hers who is a convert to Catholicism. He is very busy this year, so I have been writing a lot of the posts recently to keep it afloat. I’m a non-denominational Christian with charismatic leanings. I voted for Brexit and signed the petition yesterday after reading your post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greatly appreciate your expanding the site’s history and it seems we’re singing from the same hymn sheet! (Have RC childhood, as told in ‘I’m Free!’ in ‘About’ hub). My current coverage on Brexit opened via emails from Tony in Tucson (pre-petition posts refer).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not my place to give advice, really. But there are far too many of them, somebody said 600+ to me the other day, that’s more than the entire US Congress (both houses = 535).
Personally, I think the entire life peer thing needs to get kicked into a cocked hat, the hereditary peers (silly as they could be) at least represented a continuity, a history walking about, as it were. Our Senate was designed at least partially to slow things down, to reduce the chance of mobocracy, and that could be the highest service of the HOL. But, like us again, Britain has fractured along political lines, and our ruling bubbles are going to (I think) change, whether they want to or not.
Blair may have been the most destructive PM since Lord North destroyed the first empire by simple obstinance. I’m inclined to think of the House of Lords basically like Chesterton’s fence, not sure that it really has any purpose anymore, but until I really understand it, it shouldn’t be torn down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, as we have all been saying in one form or another it comes down to what you think democracy actually is and the issue of trust. I don’t make the mistake of equating what the majority wants with what is objectively right. As I’ve said, the Lords used to offer some protection but they don’t now and I think its too dangerous to keep them around in the hope that their composition will even back out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like many Americans, including our founders, I’m not a huge fan of democracy. It is all too often been seen to trample the rights of the minority. If the Lords were what they once were, representatives (elected or not) of their county (or whatever) and required to live there, it might be OK, Same with the bishops, really.
I don’t trust any politician and that includes the ones I like a lot. They’re sneaky, you have to watch them every minute, like a two year old, whom most of them resemble.
But you may well be correct, but I wouldn’t rush into it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t trust any of them these days, either. I don’t think I should describe myself as a conservative any more, either. Really, I’m a radical. I’d like to see major changes in our banking law, tax law, and provision of public services, and I would like to see a constitution that prevents the state from making the kind of incursions it has since WWII. As you say, I think Blair has been one of the worst PMs this country has had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of the reason I’m cautious is that Britain problems are more severe than ours, and the patient is a bit more delicate.
I don’t think the HOL is basic. I would (is defrock the right word) the life peers, bring back the hereditary ones. They can’t be worse, and at least they’ve around a few barns.
But what I really think you need to do is to blow up the parties, all of them, or at least get them out of London. I don’t know how you do that, but there, even more than here, the government exists in a bubble completely separate from the people. And of course the Civil Service, while I’ll not cry for Amber Rudd, she was politically assassinated by the civil service. How you fix that, I don’t know. I don’t know here for that matter, but that is much of the cause
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, those are very astute observations of the rot at Westminster. Like you, I’ve decried the parties for years: I hate them. They force MPs to sign up to policies they don’t really like, making them vote against their conscience just to hold on to power, and they often dilute policies that actually need to be stronger if the pressing issue requires a harsh response. The civil service is certainly no friend of Brexit, and it has a vested interest in government interventionism. The fewer services the state offers, the fewer employees it needs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spoken like a proper American! 🙂 And that is a compliment.
It’s hard. I spend a lot of time talking British politics, but the nuances can make it impenetrable. It’s also fascinating, not least because it is the subbasement of our system as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I can see the strain you’ve been under lately, and I feel it too. Our great countries have a common heritage and should be walking together. The only good thing I can say is that God is watching and I believe He is working in both our countries to restore us. It is more apparent in the US with the progress made by Trump, but we have the seeds of a new liberty tree here with Brexit. The devil and his cohort are fighting hard to defeat God’s purpose, but I believe God will succeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The great thing about Trump (apart from his policies which are working just fine) is that he is separating the wheat from the chaff in the Republican party. The midterms are going to be interesting, as are the primaries, because the base is completely fed up with the GOP. There was a Republican debate in West Virginia the other day, that saw ALL candidates running to hide behind his skirt, including one that was a democrat till 2013 (or so). The times, they are a-changin’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is such good news. It looks like the Swamp may see some drainage at last. I was also pleased by the latest abortion law in Iowa – while not a total ban, a definite step in the right direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s starting to look better. If we can somehow wind up this Russian collusion nonsense it’ll improve more. How a country with an economy the size of Texas can be the devil incarnate… Well there was collusion, of course, by the Dems and our so-called civil servants.
Quite a few good abortion laws getting passed these days, not perfect, but improving. And as someone said, our Pro-Life movement has spared us from much of the euthanasia horror, so far. Now if the President signs the new Title Ten rules, that’s another 8 figures out of PP till. And I think he will, so far he’s kept all his big promises. And the new rules allow the states to preclude them, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s got a good track record. By no means perfect, but we’d be naïve to think anyone in politics is. I’d rather have a pirate fighting for me than against me personally. Too many of the “good twoshoes” politicians don’t have the courage to make difficult choices either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Almost none do. It’s more obvious there with Mrs May, but its just as true here, there nearly all terrified of rocking the boat. Pathetic lot, really.
LikeLiked by 1 person