Advertisement

British Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 234–247 | Cite as

Understanding the opposition of peers to an elected House of Lords through Hirschman’s Rhetoric of Reaction

Forward Thinking

Abstract

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.

Keywords

House of Lords Legislative reform Hirschman Rhetoric of Reaction 

References

  1. 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
  2. Ballinger, C. 2012. The House of Lords 1911–2011: A Century of Non-Reform. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Borthwick, R.L. 2001. Methods of Composition of Second Chambers. Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Dorey, P. 2006. 1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and House of Lords Reform. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (4): 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorey, P., and A. Kelso. 2011. House of Lords Reform Since 1911: Must the Lords Go?. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Hirschman, A.O. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kelso, A. 2006. Reforming the House of Lords: Navigating Representation, Democracy and Legitimacy at Westminster. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (4): 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reid, R. 2015. Do Ideas Matter? Peers and Reform of the House of Lords. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 53 (4): 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Russell, M. 2000. Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Russell, M. 2013. The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Governance and Policy AnalysisUniversity of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations