PL EN
ARISTOCTARS IN POWER: MAKING SENSE OF BRITISH INSTITUTIONS
 
More details
Hide details
Publication date: 2018-07-12
 
Economic and Regional Studies 2009;3(1)
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The process of modernisation of the British state, and in particular the reform of the House of Lords, a key project of the whole undertaking, became the main issue for the Labour Party coming into power in 1997. The transformation of the Upper House of the British Parliament into an elected chamber, and above all, debarring the hereditary peers from the influence on the legislative and executive governmental spheres, seemed to be an easy task. Few, therefore, had foreseen difficulties with which the Labour governments would have to struggle until this day. The present article sets itself the task of outlining the problems concerning the unfinished reform of the British Upper House in the light of the historical institutionalism theory. It presents the discrepancy between the reformers’ discourse and aims advocating the idealised Westminster model, which allegedly serves as the basis of the British parliamentary practice, and the real comprehensive account of how power is exercised in the United Kingdom. The article illustrates the complexity of any attempt at institutional change in a state characterised by numerous historically grounded institutional interactions, which makes the future of the ambitious project of abolishing the Lords uncertain.
 
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Bogdanor, V., (1999) Devolution in the United Kingdom, Oxford, OUP.
 
2.
Carter, D., (2003) ‘The Powers and Conventions of the House of Lords’, in The Political Quarterly, 74, 3:319-21.
 
3.
Clarke, C.; Venning, L., (2008) House of Lords Reform since 1997: A Chronology, http://www.parliament.uk/docum....
 
4.
Cm 5291 (2001) The House of Lords: Completing the Reform, London, The Stationary Office.
 
5.
Cm 4183 (1999) Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords, London, The Stationary Office.
 
6.
Cook, A., (2006) ‘Hawking Peerages’, in History Today, 56,11:36-7.
 
7.
Cook, R., (2003) ‘Modernisation? We didn’t mean this’, in New Statesman, 25-6.
 
8.
Hall, P.A.; Taylor, R.C.R. (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, in Political Studies, 44, 5:936-57.
 
9.
Hurst, G., ‘Peers vote to retain Lord Chancellor’, in The Times, Jul. 14, 2004.
 
10.
Johnson, N., (1999) ‘Law, Convention and Precedent in the British Constitution’, in Butler, D., et al. (eds.) The Law, Politics and the Constitution, Oxford, OUP.
 
11.
Johnson, N., (2004) Reshaping the British Constitution: Esseys in Political Interpretation, London, Palgrave Macmillan.
 
12.
Low, S., (1904) The Governance of England, London, Unwin.
 
13.
Lowndes, V., (2002) ‘Institutionalism’, in D. Marsh; G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, London, Palgrave.
 
14.
Manin, B., (1997) The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge, CUP.
 
15.
Master, B., (2001) The Dukes, London, Pimlico.
 
16.
McLean, I., (2000) ‘Mr Asquith’s Unfinished Business’, in The Political Quarterly, 99, 4:382-8.
 
17.
Mitchell, J., (2006) ‘Devolution’s Unfinished Business’, in The Political Quarterly, 77, 4: 465-74.
 
18.
Norton, P., (2004), ‘The Changing Constitution’, in B. Jones et al. (eds.) Politics UK, London, Longman, 357-80 .
 
19.
Norton, P., (2004) ‘The Crown’, in B. Jones et al. (eds.) Politics UK, London, Longman, 381-406.
 
20.
Norton, P., (1984) The British Polity, London, Longman.
 
21.
Peters, B. G., (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science: the ‘New Instituionalism’, London, Pinter.
 
22.
Pierson, P., (2000) ‘Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change’, in Governance, 13, 4:475-99.
 
23.
Puttnam, D., (1999) ‘A Democratic and Expert House’, in The Political Quarterly, 70, 4: 368-73.
 
24.
The Queen’s Speech (2008), accessed on Mar. 25, 2009.
 
25.
Rhodes, R. A., (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham, Open University Press.
 
26.
Richard, I.; Welfare, D., Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords, London, Vintage, 1999.
 
27.
Shell, D. (1999) ‘The Future of the Second Chamber’, in The Political Quarterly, 70, 4: 390-5.
 
28.
Taylor, A., (2004) Lords of Misrule, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
 
29.
Wakeham, L., (2000) ‘The Lords: Building a House for the Future’, in The Political Quarterly, 71, 3:277-81.
 
30.
Worf, R., (2001) ‘Lord’s revenge. The revival of the House of Lords’, in Harvard International Review, 7-8.
 
eISSN:2451-182X
ISSN:2083-3725