A New ‘Second Chamber’

By | July 6, 2019

I have in front of me Peter Allen’s The Political Class, which I read a while ago and which is about optimum forms of ‘democratic’ representation and decision-making in politics. It is not my intenton here to summarise his analysis of different options. I will rather summarise his characterisation of the extant ‘political class’, then offer my own very provisional ruminations on the possible merits of a new type of second chamber.

It should come as a surprise to nobody that the current political class or elite is anything but representative of the electorate. This is immediately clear from its members’ personal characteristics. Consider MPs. When the Tories win an election, the overall percentage of MPs with occupational backgrounds in business is higher; when Labour wins an election, the percentage of MPs with occupational backgrounds in the wider professions, including teaching and the civil service, is generally higher. Two long-term trends are clear however. First, the numbers of manual workers have declined to almost zero over the last 40 years; and second, the number of ‘political workers’ has tripled over the same period. Allen’s research suggests that MPs who have served political apprenticeships (my phrasing) prior to being elected are more likely to reach the front benches than colleagues lacking this experience.

There have been ‘dramatic improvements’ in the proportions of women (29% in 2015) and people from black and ethnic minority (BAME) backgrounds (6% in 2015) in the House of Commons since the 1980s, though both groups remain severely under-represented (women were 52% of the population in 2015 and those from BAME backgrounds between 11-14%). The wealthy are also over-represented, although Allen judges extent of wealth difficult to gauge. As some indication, 2016 data showed that a third of MPs let property as landlords (compared with 2% of the population as a whole). Unsurprisingly, MPs schooling differs from that of the general population. Looking once more at the House of Commons after the 2015 general election, the Sutton Trust found that 32% of MPs were privately educated, compared to 7% of the population as a whole; and of course private education reflects the unequal distribution of wealth. 89% of MPs are university graduates, with 25% of this group attending Oxbridge universities. The ONS calculated in 2010 that around 40% of the population was university educated.

Finally, I must refer to Allen’s summary of what he calls ‘the political-class narrative’, or the way MPs come across and are perceived. He lists the following ‘characteristics’: male-dominated, white, ‘posh’, wealthy, privately educated, professional politicians, career politicians. As for ‘attitudes’: ambitious, metropolitan, London-centric, elitist, Europhile, politically correct. And ‘behaviour’: self-serving, lying, spin-obsessed, badly behaved, using political connections for personal gain, sleazy.

I am not going to dwell here on this representation of our putative political class or elite, which obviously needs addressing. My own sociological perspective is epitomised in the concepts of class/command dynamic and governing oligarchy/plutocracy, and it would be an unduly indulgent and tedious conceit to repeat myself yet again.

I must add that Allen doesn’t see easy answers in addressing the composition of the political class. Membership, he insists, requires education, expertise, experience and a degree of continuity. Nor am I here going to respond to his subtle analysis of variable forms of representation and his somewhat disappointing consideration and evaluation of alternative political chambers. Ways of making the House of Commons (far) more representative obviously demand urgent consideration, but that is not my focus here. Instead I’m going to stick my neck out by suggesting a replacement for the House of Lords.

I recall as an undergraduate at Surrey University hearing Asher Tropp’s warning that it would be only too easy to replace the House of Lords with something far more dysfunctional. Well maybe, warning heeded; but the present chamber is unambiguously unacceptable, isn’t it? If the House of Commons reflects class and establishment interests …

So what is my notion? Drawing on the concept of ‘deliberative democracy’, more specific perhaps than that of the ‘people’s assembly’, I invite consideration of: (a) the abolition of the House of Lords; and (b) its replacement by an entirely new type of second chamber, possibly to be entitled (the House of Commons having assumed and long since corrupted the obvious nomenclature) the People’s House. The People’s House would comprise adults – that is, people aged 16 or more – randomly selected, and recompensed, to participate for a given period, say five years. Its agenda would mirror that of the House of Commons. The People’s House would not have executive or legislative powers, but it would: (i) have underwritten and funded access to experts and expertise, (ii) operate according to the core principles of deliberative democracy, and (iii) publish and disseminate the results of its deliberations. (ii) and (iii) in particular require elaboration. The key precepts of deliberative democracy require a preliminary expression of opinion, calls for expert evidence ‘for and against’ a proposition/policy, and a second deciding vote. What is crucial here is (iii), the translation and projection of any ‘deciding vote’ into civil society and the public sphere. The upshot is that a People’s House could publicly present and promote a (sometimes critical, challenging, corrective) point of view to that obtaining in the House of Commons.

This is a suggestion in line with my notion of ‘permanent reform’. I agree with Ralph (not at all with David, and only marginally more with Ed) Miliband that socialism, the new communism (see other blogs) – indeed any effective move towards a better, post-capitalist society – will not be achieved by parliamentary means. It all comes down at the end of the day to mobilising enough people into a movement to occasion a crisis of legitimation for our governing oligarchy, leading to its displacement. My proposal here for a People’s House would be but a tentative step in what might hopefully be the right direction.         

 

 

Leave a Reply