Let's Reform the House of Lords!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

David Cameron has given his strong backing to reform of the House of Lords despite Tory predictions of ministerial resignations and a large-scale rebellion over the plans.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, published the House of Lords Reform bill, which proposes to reduce the number of peers from 826 to 450, 80% (360) of whom will be elected. The remaining 20%, representing 90 members, would be appointed by a statutory appointments commission on a non-party basis.

Under the bill, members of the reformed house would only be allowed to serve for one 15-year term.

Linky.

... Or not.

I've read a few common criticisms so far. The first is the "we have more pressing matters" or "this is a waste of time and money" tactic. I dismiss those out of hand.

I do think creating an elected "Senate" is a bad move. Perhaps I read biased sources, but the common thing I hear about the Lords is that they are inoffensive so far as they are powerless, and are probably on the way out. But reading the latest news articles there are absolutely glowing descriptions of these wise "specialists". Maybe people require some direct harm like the People's Budget debacle (peerages for loans, anyone?). I personally see the harm as an intrinsic thing (the democratic socialist critique ). If you told me you thought up a government model and handed me the current state or even this reform to me, I would probably get out that damned laughing dog smiley.

Anyway, an elected "Senate" gives legitimacy and can lead to conflicting popular mandates to the two Houses. Not something that should be done, IMO.

 

[The Don]

I'm properly in two minds about an elected second house.

IMO one of the advantages of an appointed House of Lords is that they don't need to pander to their constituents in order to get periodically re-elected and so they are able to take a more nuanced and longer term view (although some do pander to public opinion). As long as there is a political balance including some genuine independents then the second house can effectively perform its job which is to scrutinise the commons.

My problem with it is that it perpetuates the class system (which I feel is very damaging to the UK) and the kinds of apparatchik that manoeuvre themselves into being selected are often exactly the wrong sort of person to have in that position, someone who owes their appointment to years of loyal service to the party machine.

Maybe it is the least worst alternative.

As for an elected second house, I am reminded of a friend of my Father who, when quizzed on why he didn't cast his ballot said "I never vote, it only encourages the *********"

 

[Beerina]

The whole point of an upper house of "old men" is to slow down changes so as to avoid the problems with the blowing winds of political passions.

So look to people displeased with the slowness as probable drivers of this. And look with a jaundiced eye.

 

[mikeyx]

Linky.

... Or not.

I've read a few common criticisms so far. The first is the "we have more pressing matters" or "this is a waste of time and money" tactic. I dismiss those out of hand.

I do think creating an elected "Senate" is a bad move. Perhaps I read biased sources, but the common thing I hear about the Lords is that they are inoffensive so far as they are powerless, and are probably on the way out. But reading the latest news articles there are absolutely glowing descriptions of these wise "specialists". Maybe people require some direct harm like the People's Budget debacle (peerages for loans, anyone?). I personally see the harm as an intrinsic thing (the democratic socialist critique ). If you told me you thought up a government model and handed me the current state or even this reform to me, I would probably get out that damned laughing dog smiley.

Anyway, an elected "Senate" gives legitimacy and can lead to conflicting popular mandates to the two Houses. Not something that should be done, IMO.

Its the UK, who cares?

 

[lionking]

A 15 year term?? Too long surely.

 

[lionking]

Its the UK, who cares?

Yeah hilarious. Why bother posting when this is all you can offer?

A couple of more posts in AAH.

 

[Multivac]

Its the UK, who cares?

People who live in the UK? People who care about how democracy works, even if it isn't the country they live in? People who's world view encompasses more that the town they were born in?

 

[mikeyx]

People who live in the UK? People who care about how democracy works, even if it isn't the country they live in? People who's world view encompasses more that the town they were born in?

dude, you almost like a muling frenchman...............

 

[Beerina]

dude, you almost like a muling frenchman...............

I think you mean "mewling".

Oh, wait. No you don't. n/m

 

[psionl0]

Anyway, an elected "Senate" gives legitimacy and can lead to conflicting popular mandates to the two Houses. Not something that should be done, IMO.

That depends on the function of the upper house.

Upper houses tend to give more weight to voters who would otherwise be disadvantaged by one vote - one value. For example, the senate in the US and Australia is known as the "states' house" because each state returns the same number of senators regardless of its population. It means that the prime minister has to do more than win the Sydney electorates to get a mandate to govern.

In Australia, the senate also has the advantage that each state is a multi-member electorate which means that minority parties can get members elected in proportion to the vote they receive - something that doesn't happen in single member electorates.

The House of Lords has such limited power nowadays that any talk of electoral reform for it is almost academic. A voting system that lets parties get elected to the HoL in proportion to their support would be a useful gesture. (I can hear the Lords "harrumph"ing now).

 

[The Don]

The House of Lords has such limited power nowadays that any talk of electoral reform for it is almost academic. A voting system that lets parties get elected to the HoL in proportion to their support would be a useful gesture. (I can hear the Lords "harrumph"ing now).

My bolding.....

The House of Lords is very active in the scrutiny of legislation. IIRC the recent NHS reforms had a very turbulent passage through the upper house.

 

[psionl0]

The House of Lords is very active in the scrutiny of legislation. IIRC the recent NHS reforms had a very turbulent passage through the upper house.

The House of Lords can not block legislation - only delay it for a limited amount of time. It can still be a thorn in the side of the government but at the end of the day, the House of Commons will win the legislative battle.

 

[Multivac]

dude, you almost like a muling frenchman...............

Sorry dude, but I don't get the reference.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have mixed feelings on this.
I see some good in the idea of a body of unelected people with a long term view who are not beholden to current political patrons or affected by passing fashions.
Whether the HoL as constituted now fits that description is another issue.

But if not from the hereditary peerage, where are we to find such a group?

Perhaps the ranks of the retired?

I would hope we are not about to create another tranche of "professional" politicians.
This is a species which, in any rational world, would be endangered. Sadly, they breed like flies.