Has the Salisbury Convention Been Broken? A Complete Constitutional Analysis

The Salisbury Convention is one of the more prominent yet informal relationships between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK. Formulated in the context of post-World War II, its purpose was to prevent the unelected upper chamber from blocking the elected government’s pledge to its electoral platform. Critics and political commentators have subsequently questioned whether the convention has really diminished or been formally breached in different contexts. This article offers a thorough constitutional analysis of whether the Salisbury Convention has been breached, how it has developed, and what significance it has in contemporary British politics.

What is the Salisbury Convention?

The Salisbury Convention began in 1945 when the Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, won a landslide victory in the House of Commons. At that time the Lords were overwhelmingly filled with hereditary Conservative peers. As a result, in order to save face and avoid a constitutional impasse, the Conservative leader in the Lords – the 5th Marquess of Salisbury – agreed that the Lords would not block bills that were implementing the government’s electoral manifesto.

The convention essentially says that:

1. Should a bill be pledged in the governing party’s platform, the House of Lords won’t vote against it at second reading.
2. The Lords should not unreasonably impede or slow such bills.
3. Giving first consideration to the elected House of Commons, the convention supports democratic legitimacy.

Though not legally binding and unwritten, this is still a foundational component of the constitutional framework of the UK.

Why the Salisbury Convention Matters

Rather than having a single codified constitution, the UK’s political system runs on customs, practices, laws, and legal precedents. The Salisbury Convention matters because it:

1. Safeguards the democratic mandate of the administration chosen by the people.
2. Avoids the elected House of Lords’ blocking of important government legislation.
3. Strikes a balance between political authority and legislative oversight.
4. Offers political stability during change, especially following elections.

Legislation paralysis develop from frequent clashes between the two houses absent the Salisbury Convention.

The Scope of the Convention

While its first goal was to safeguard manifesto bills, the scope of the Salisbury Convention has been much debated. Some of the most important issues are:

1. Does it apply only to legislation expressly stated in the governing party’s platform, or does it include more general policies consistent with election pledges?
2. Is it appropriate similarly for coalition administrations, which might not have a single platform?
3. When public sentiment is strongly against the government, can the House of Lords reject or defer legislation?

Lack of convention codification leaves these problems open to interpretation, hence commonly generating conflict.

Criticisms of the Salisbury Convention

Many constitutional experts and politicians have attacked the conference as outdated or unfairly applied; common criticisms include:

1. Democratic Shortcomings Argument: Some contend the unelected Lords offer essential checks on a government that may have been elected with only a minority of the popular vote.
2. Coalition and minority governments: Single-party majorities are uncommon in today’s political environment. In alliances or minority governments, the convention gets more difficult to use.
3. Modern politics includes several parties, local influences, and fresh political movements, therefore making manifesto promises less simple.
4. Public Opinion vs. Manifesto Commitments: Occasionally governments chase contentious manifesto pledges that subsequently drop public approval. Critics contend the Lords should not have to accept them uncritically.

Has the Salisbury Convention Been Broken?

The primary question is whether the Salisbury Convention has actually been broken.

Case studies that suggest a breach took place:

1. Labour Government 2005–2010: The House of Lords’s decision to reject elements of the Labour’s identity card scheme, notwithstanding it having been a manifesto pledge, was deemed to breach the convention by critics.
2. Coalition Government 2010–2015: Peers rejected and challenged aspects of the coalition program, including welfare reform bills and constitutional reform bills. These were not linked to a single manifesto. Some suggested the convention no longer applied in this scenario.
3. Brexit Legislation (2016 onwards): The House of Lords sought to amend and delay bills associated with Brexit. The notion of Brexit was central to the Conservative Party’s manifesto, but the Lords defended their actions under the guise of scrutiny and not outright rejection.

Counterarguments

Supporters of the actions of the House of Lords contend that the convention has not been broken but that it has been adapted to the change in circumstances. For example

1. Blocking or amending bills is not the same as outright rejection at second reading.
2. In coalition governments, the lack of a single manifesto arguably decreases the applicability of the convention.
3. The role of the House of Lords is to scrutinize, amend, and improve legislation, not necessarily to rubber-stamp it.

So whilst breaches have been understated, many constitutional experts have stated that the Convention has been strained rather than broken.

The Salisbury Convention in the 21st Century

When considering the future of the constitutional convention of Salisbury-Addison (or just the Salisbury Convention), it is first important to acknowledge that the Salisbury Convention has been relevant throughout the 21st century. We are faced with whether the Salisbury Convention, consisting of these manifestations, is currently relevant. 

1. Minority Governments: Even in the context of majoritarian elections, it is increasingly difficult to persist in terms of claiming that the significance of manifesto commitments reflects the unilateral mandate of the public. 

2. Assertiveness of the Lords: With the continued removal of hereditary peers since the Lords Act of 1999, we have varying oral and written expertise from life peers across disciplines. This allows ordinary lords to become more assertive with their views on the legislation presented before them, including manifesto views. 

3. Public Expectation: The contemporary citizen expects the Lords to influence the conduct of the government and its use of a manifesto. 

4. Constitutional Debate: The expectation for codification of the convention into law, the proposal of wholesale repeal, and the continued discussion of the Salisbury Convention in the channels of Parliament.

Does the Salisbury Convention still have relevance? 

The answer will ultimately depend on how you feel about the topics of democracy and constitutional balance in the UK. Yes, it is still relevant. The Salisbury-Addison Convention protects the democratic mandate of any elected government. 

No, it is irrelevant in the current context. We have certainly evolved in terms of the political realities that govern us. We have moved from relying on the public’s legitimacy, dependent on the manifesto. Most people will agree that the conference has been tested and maybe bent but has not been completely disregarded. It simply continues to evolve to our current circumstances.