Assembly Project

I haven’t intended this as a blog for responding to recent news stories, as it’s not my strong point, but I couldn’t help notice that on Thursday, a group of protestors from Assemble disrupted the House of Lords by throwing leaflets into the chamber. They were advertising Assemble’s campaign to have the House of Lords replaced with a randomly-selected citizens’ assembly, in a manner inspired directly by the suffragettes.

What is the House of Lords?

Like many features of the British government, the House of Lords is a bizarre holdover from pre-modern times. It is one of the few legislative chambers in the world to be unelected, mostly appointed with a minority being hereditary peers from the old noble families and bishops of the Church of England. It is officially the ‘upper house’ of Parliament, emphasised by its over-decorated chamber in comparison to the austere Commons.

It once was the more powerful of the two chambers, reflecting the power of the aristocracy and clergy, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, power gradually shifted to the elected Commons. Today, the Lords can no longer veto laws, and can only delay them and suggest amendments. Not only do the Lords have no mandate to represent the people, but the current appointments process has allowed prime ministers to reward party donors with peerages (i.e. a noble title with Lords membership).

Few are particularly happy with this arrangement. A 2023 poll from YouGov found that only 10% wanted the Lords to remain as it is, while 69% supported one of several options for reform.

So why hasn’t it happened? Part of the problem is that it’s never a priority for voters, who are typically more concerned with issues like jobs, health and education. Then there’s the problem that proponents of Lords reform are divided over what to replace it with. For most recent governments, including the current Labour government, Lords reform is assumed to mean an elected chamber, which 18% in the YouGov poll supported. But the most popular option, with 23%, was a citizens’ assembly, exactly what Assemble propose.

But maybe, just maybe, politicians have held off abolishing the Lords because they actually do some good. When Assemble launched their protest, I just happened to be reading How Westminster Works… and Why It Doesn’t by Ian Dunt. Though he criticises the appointments process, he argues that the Lords are one of the few parts of the government that function well. Why? If you’ve ever seen a Lords debate, it is so much better than the meaningless partisan theatrics of the Commons. The Lords discuss bills like grown-ups and actually give them proper scrutiny. I’ll post more about Dunt’s book soon. [Edit: Done.]

So the Lords have not been abolished and reform has instead come in phases. In 1911, after the People’s Budget crisis, the Lords were stripped of their power to veto laws. In 1999, Tony Blair’s government removed most of the hereditary peers, turning the Lords into a mostly appointed chamber. More recently, the law lords were split off into a separate Supreme Court and members were allowed to resign from the chamber.

The limits of protest

So what do I think of Thursday’s protest? I’m not going to argue for or against it. Perhaps at this stage, any publicity is good publicity. But there are dangers with these kinds of protests.

One danger is that they’re at risk of landing on the wrong side of the public. This is less of a risk for a protest involving dropping leaflets, though even that was still something that disrupted Parliament. It is a bigger risk if they decide to go further. If a protest, including its methods as well as its aims, is too much for the public, you end up in the same rut as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and nearly every protest movement of recent years.

This is linked to a risk of alienating local groups. Perhaps we need both a radical group to agitate for assembly democracy at a national level and an inoffensive one to support its growth at a local level. Assemble cannot be both.

Finally, the episode also showed a limitation of this type of protest. While many national news outlets picked up on it, the wave of publicity seems to have gone as quickly as it came. Perhaps colourful, headline-grabbing protest has its place. But more importantly, the only way for assembly democracy to gain lasting traction is to spread it by boots on the ground, conversations on the doorstep and gatherings at churches, community centres and other local halls.