There is yet to be a comprehensive and systematic study of the views of peers on reform of the House of Lords. This article provides the first such study based on a powerful dataset of interviews with 77 peers during the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government. Albert Hirschman’s typology of reactionary rhetoric is applied to the key themes emerging from the interviews. This article demonstrates that the opposition of peers can be understood as being based on the arguments of perversity, futility and jeopardy. In addition, an important strand of opposition to reform can be characterised as temporality. A systematic understanding of the views of those peers who oppose reform could potentially enable the formulation of more successful proposals for wholesale change than those set out by the Coalition.
House of Lords Legislative reform Hirschman Rhetoric of Reaction
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Archer, R. 2013. From an Aristocratic Anachronism to a Democratic Dilemma: An Elected House of Lords and the Lessons from Australia. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 51 (3): 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, C. 2012. The House of Lords 1911–2011: A Century of Non-Reform. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Borthwick, R.L. 2001. Methods of Composition of Second Chambers. Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, M. 2001. The Politics of Second Chamber Reform: A Case Study of the House of Lords and the Passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorey, P. 2006. 1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and House of Lords Reform. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (4): 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorey, P., and A. Kelso. 2011. House of Lords Reform Since 1911: Must the Lords Go?. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, J., B. Grant, and N. Campbell. 2016. Progressive and reactionary rhetoric in the municipal reform debate in New South Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A.O. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, A. 2006. Reforming the House of Lords: Navigating Representation, Democracy and Legitimacy at Westminster. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (4): 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. 2015. Do Ideas Matter? Peers and Reform of the House of Lords. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 53 (4): 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M. 2000. Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M. 2010. A Stronger Second Chamber? Assessing the Impact of House of Lords Reform in 1999 and the Lessons for Bicameralism. Political Studies 58 (5): 866–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M. 2013. The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar