Operational Dynamics of the British House of Lords - Essay Example

Section/# Article Review/Analysis and Response An analysis of the main argument- Indicate whether the author’s main assertion (argument) is valid or not and what significance this holds for the state of American Politics. The author, Meg Russell, seeks to answer the question of whether the recent change in the construction and operational dynamics of the British House of Lords has had a noticeable effect on the way that governance is carried out within Britain. As such, since the answer is most definitely yes, the author proceeds to attempt to categorize, quantify, and present these changes as a function of whether they have helped the House of Lords to gain or to lose power within the political spectrum of the United Kingdom within the past decade or so. Furthermore, the significance that such an analysis holds from the American political standpoint is of course a greater and more complete understanding of how different legislative political bodies gain and lose influence over time. Just as with the United States Congress merely 100 years ago, the amount of power it held was highly disproportional to the position it currently occupies. In this way, viewing a small period of time such as the one that has been displayed within the ebb and flow of the power dynamics of the House of Lords helps the researcher to understand the causal mechanisms that seek to exacerbate and/or weaken political structures over time (MacLean 47). Similarly, as in the case that the author relates, the resulting power structures necessitated changes of their own as a means to seek to incorporate this new and differentiated power into the governmental structure that already existed. In this way, the researcher can note that a change was necessitated not only within the House of Lords as a function of how it saw its role within the structure of governance but also with the remainder of the government as it sought to rapidly integrate and differentiate this altered entity into the power structure that currently existed. In this way, it becomes obvious that regardless of the individual gains and losses that key structures make within the political composition of a given nation (to include the United States), the remainder of the actors will necessarily rapidly seek to accommodate such a change and work to carve out a different power structure and dynamic from the changes that have taken place. 2. Your own argument in reference to whether you agree with the author’s conclusion or not, and why. This argument must be backed up by significant content. This means all assertions and statements that are made in your paper need to be backed up by detailed explanations, quotes, and/or statistics. The author begins by laying out a series of reasons for why the power shift was supposed to equate to a diminished role for the House of Lords. Therefore, by analyzing the ways in which the different pundits, scholars, and analysts of the time expected the House of Lords to disproportionately lose power based on the changes that were effected, the author is able to set up a contrary response in a manner that uses the opposition’s own logic and reasoning to build a firm case for why each of these explanations falls short of answering key questions with regards to the actual data that was measured. Figure 1.0 shows one such metric that the author weighed in terms of seeking to understand the level of political influence and power that the House of Lords wielded both before, during, and after the proposed shakeup that sought to change the power dynamic exhibited within the chamber (Black 4). Figure 1.0 Similarly, the author goes into a further level of detail attempting to chronicle, weight, and categorize the number of government defeats in the House of Lords by Parliament. This one in particular is of special importance due ot the fact that it helps to categorize the level of importance that the House of Lords played within the political process both before and after it’s redefinition by the Queen. Similarly, figure 2.0 shows the table of defeats so that the reader might come to understand the differentiation of power that the House of Lords experienced as a result of the re-categorization/reorganization it experienced in 1999. Figure 2.0 The representation of the overall number of defeats helps the researcher to know and understand the level to which the House of Lords was exercising its power both before and after the reorganization (Russell 875). As such, the growth and redefinition of the entity as a function of how it behaved with reference to this particular understanding of its function and role helps the researcher to appreciate the level to which the entity directed its energies and sought to redefine its role within the British political landscape. 3. A reference to other points of view- Indicate what other authors have said about similar issues, and whether or not these viewpoints support or undermine the author’s argument. With reference to the opposing viewpoints that are held on the author’s belief that the House of Lords experienced an increase of power as a result of the redefinition/reorganization that it underwent, there are a number. Firstly, one should consider the work of Peter Dorey and Alexander Kelso with respect to the fact that these authors published an entire book on the topic entitled, House of Lords: Reform Since 1911 – Must the Lords Go?. These authors determined that one cannot draw a clear analogy between the two iterations of the House of Lords that existed prior to 1999 and the one that has existed since (Dorey et al 18). To do so, according to the authors, would be tantamount to comparing apples and oranges due to the fact that the power structure was fundamentally altered in that hereditary titles were no longer a determinate factor in achieving a voice in the House of Lords. Moreover, as the power dynamic changed, the responsibilities of the House of Lords did not. This of course calls into question the level and extent to which those who had been appointed to the House of Lords were merely acting at the behest of those that had appointed them. Such an understanding naturally calls into question the metrics that the Meg Russell has used in seeking to determine the overall power/strength that the body has gained as compared to its position prior to the reorganization/redefinition that took place in 1999. In the end, rather than viewing the redistribution of power and the redefinition of the House of Lords as a type of cataclysmic action that spelled the end of an era, the researcher should view this as merely one evidence of the way that political power is continually redefined as a function of the way in which key factors affect the way in which government is structured and functions. Moreover, as has been evidenced by some of the opinion that have been expressed within this brief analysis, the reader can readily see that such changes take place on a daily basis within all aspects of government (both within the United Kingdom as well as within all functioning democracies) (Bond 615). Power itself is not a rigid concept that can be implemented and left to remain rigidly and indeterminately unchanged for periods of time. Rather, the political systems demand a near continual recalibration and re-orientation of their end goals as the needs and wishes of key shareholders (to include but not limited to the electorate) see the role of the government and thereby the role of the governing structures that seek to represent their best interests. Of course, in this particular case, the House of Lords was a unique entity that was not determinate on the level to which voter satisfaction chose the members within its ranks. Rather, it was, and remains, an entity that is determined based upon right of privilege. However, regardless of the causal mechanisms through which the House of Lords is chosen, it must be noted that he democratic pressures of a post-modernist age in which the United Kingdom operates, demanded that significant changes be made in order to bring the goals and inner power dynamic of such a group more in line with the process of the remainder of the nation. Although the analysis by the author helps the reader to gain a firm understanding of the determinant structures that help to define the political spectrum within the United Kingdom, due to the fact that the author does not fully consider the methods by which the changes to the House of Lords were ultimately achieved, one can only question the voracity of some of the data sets that the author presents as proof of the overall power increase that the House of Lords supposedly experienced since its reorganization in 1999. Furthermore, a more complete study would have helped to trace the level of the interplay between Blair’s government of the time, the appointments that were made, the level of closed door dealings that helped to define the political spectrum, and the manner to which cooperation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords increased and/or subsequently decreased during the period in question. Works Cited Black, Jeremy. "Changing The House Of Lords." History Today 62.9 (2012): 4-5. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Bond, Matthew. "The Bases Of Elite Social Behaviour: Patterns Of Club Affiliation Among Members Of The House Of Lords." Sociology 46.4 (2012): 613-632. Business Source Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Dorey, Peter. House of Lords reform since 1911 : must the Lords go. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. MacLean, Stephen Michael. "Public Choice Theory And House Of Lords Reform." Economic Affairs 31.3 (2011): 46-48. Business Source Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Russell, Meg. "A Stronger Second Chamber? Assessing The Impact Of House Of Lords Reform In 1999 And The Lessons For Bicameralism MEG RUSSELL A STRONGER SECOND CHAMBER?." Political Studies 58.5 (2010): 866-885. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Read More