L2 UK PArliament: text n° 3 p. 62-63 by Colin Low

Lords reform: the Lords is more diverse and more democratic than the Commons

Colin Low, the author of the article, is a member of the House of Lords.

In Colin Low’s view, although the Lords[1] is not democratically elected, it is more representative of society than the Commons /

Or:

According to C. Low, despite the fact that the Lords is not democratically elected, the Upper Chamber proves to be more representative of a cross-section of society than the Commons.

Indeed, C. Low contends, ethnic minorities as well as disabled people or women are all represented in greater proportion in the Lords.

Not only are women better represented, but they hold key (/ prominent) positions in the House.

Or:

Not only are women better represented, but they also are entrusted with key positions.[2]

Besides, the fact that Peers are not elected makes them more immune from political pressure.

Or:

Another argument is that precisely because peers are not elected, they are less subject to political pressure from party leaders (/ party heads / party “big wigs”[3]) and from political strategies (/ political manoeuvres / party politics / politicking).

On account of its diversity and also because it is much less partisan than the Commons, the Lords is generally more inclined to respond to the concerns of the specific groups they represent

Or:

On account of its diversity and also because it is much less partisan than the Commons, the Lords tends to be much more receptive to the needs of society).

At first sight, Colin Low’s argument seems quite compelling. His point seems all the more convincing that the First-past-the-post system that makes it possible for an MP to represent a constituency without winning an absolute majority of votes, which is also questionable from a democratic point of view.

The Liberal Democrats who are quite under-represented in comparison with the popular support they enjoy across the UK have long campaigned for the adoption of a more proportional system.

Nonetheless, one may object to Colin Low’s theory that the appointment of members of the upper house is quite political.

Since Life Peers are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, the make up (composition) of Second Chamber is to some extent determined by the majority party in the lower house. (By convention the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders can propose a certain number.)

Note lastly that there is a tendency towards the inflation of the number of Life Peers as each Prime Minister is tempted to appoint to new peers sharing his political leanings. There is no fixed number of Life Peers. Over the last decades, Conservative Prime Ministers have created on average 20 life peers per year in office, and Labour Prime Ministers an average of 27.2 per year.

---

[1] i.e. the House of Lords

[2] NB: Not only (just like “never” or “neither”) at the beginning of a sentence is followed by the following structure:

Auxiliary + Subject + verb ê Are women represented (Passive Structure))

[3] Note that this expression is quite informal.