As several Peers quoted in the debate last night (referred to by Lord Norton), the problem we were discussing can best be resolved when the unfinished reform of the Lords is completed.
As Lord Norton says, “it is a matter for electors to choose” who represents them. I agree. Now let’s get on with making the choice of our legislators – in both Houses of Parliament – a matter for the public, rather than the Prime Minister. The Government’s recent White Paper, reflecting the overwhelming vote of MPs and the committed policies of all three main parties, offers the way forward.
Why are we waiting? Let the people have freedom of choice!
I’m an in two minds about electing the second chamber. We have just seen Peter Mandelson made a lord so that he can assist the government. Whether you think this case is right or wrong, he is at least in the House or Lords where he can be held to account. If there was not this provision, Gordon Brown would have needed to employ him as an unaccountable advisor, which I think would have been worse.
I am sure, also, there are many people who would serve the country well but are not interested in the politics of getting themselves elected.
Lord Tyler,
As you know I am opposed to election to the second chamber. I feel it has a far higher degree of independence, quality of work, long-term consideration of issues, collective brains, and insulation from the fads of society than the House of Commons. I feel it should stay for the reason that elections would undermine all these benefits. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has reduced the scope the Prime Minister has for patronage, but I feel his job requires some special influence when appointing Ministers (such as Lord Mandelson).
I do, however, agree with you that the influence of the party leadership in controlling Parliament should be reduced. But I do not see how that will be addressed by electing the Lords. On the contrary, it will extend executive dominance yet further. The chief flaws in the Constitution lie in the elected chamber – the House of Commons, NOT the House of Lords.
I feel that the party leaderships are well aware of this, however, and so seek to deflect criticism by criticising the only chambers outside their exclusive control (and thereby doing a good job) – namely the Lords. They insist the Commons is fine. Well, they would, they control (or will control) it!
I would be interested to learn what your objectives for change would be, and the rationale for them. But I feel that many ‘reformists’ of late have been pointing the finger at the wrong things, while the chief problem is right under their noses.
Lord Tyler,
Any backup system should have as little as possible in common with it’s primary. So two houses should be as different as possible to maximise the countries protection from ourselves and others.
The Parliament Act is sufficient insurance that ‘the people’ have the final say, which is as it should be.
What need then do we have to put both our houses in the basket of democracy?
Lord Tyler: Your faith in the electorate is commendable but somewhat naive.
I watched with interest the recent ‘Dinner with Portillo: American Election Special 2008’. Michael sought to discover the essential differences between British politics and those of the Americans.
There was disagreement except on one issue. Michael entirely agreed with the premise offered by one of his American guests that Americans pursued their politics in earnest whilst we pursued ours with cynicism. A view I entirely agreed with.
Now lets say that we could roll back time and it was the case that a certain Tyler (Life Baron), Paul Archer Tyler was up for election to the House of Lords.
http://biographies.parliament.uk/parliament/default.asp?id=25295
Lets also say bill had a job that left him with little personal time and even less disposable income. He looked at the profile in the link above to determine whether this individual should have a life peerage. How would bill pursue this, in earnest or with cynicism? And why should bill care anyway?
I’m afraid the House would quickly fill with people in the pursuit of bills.
Ref:
http://www.gordonpoole.com/?artistID=425
Please use:
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm#D
And widen the scope to any peer. Your own link, cut and pasted does not a peer to work?
Now that this Government has got rid of most of the Hereditary Peers, the House of Lords is a “free for all” of any Political Party that comes into Office. However, as usual, all in those wonderful Houses of Parliament seem to forget the people that pay and, as far as the Commons is concerned, vote for them. At this late stage in this Labour Government, it might be just as well to leave it for a new Government before making any more changes in that House. Just keep the costs down PLEASE. Please address the realities of ordinary life. The people simply cannot afford any more expense.
Just as the people were ignored on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, should it ever become active, and legally it is a DEAD treaty at this point in time, according to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, there will be no need of a full first house-just enough for an EU Region for England and no need at all for a House of Lords.
The people simply cannot afford to continue paying for a Government here in the UK and our new Government in Brussels. As Brussels will take precedence over our own one sovereign Government, the people will eventually realise the truth of the matter.
Dear Lord Tyler,
Are you advocating that we have a referendum on whether or not to elect the Upper House?
If you are not, then electors aren’t having the freedom of choice about who represents them in the Second Chamber. The majority of the electorate may not wanted an elected Upper House.
If you are advocating a referendum, how much will that cost? And whatever the cost, surely there are more important things for tax-payers’ money to be spent on at the moment.
Howridiculous.
More to the point, howridiculous, how will the electorate be able to make an intelligible answer outside of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’?
In any case, referendums are illiberal and should be prevented!
Not sure about the point of this post. Freedom of choice of electors is an important principle, but one that applies where there are electors. One has to establish the case for having an electorate and I don’t see that you have done that. There is no electorate for the House of Lords, nor should there be one. An earlier post on the blog had a link to the research done by Meg Russell at the Constitution Unit. It reported the survey showing that people valued what the House of Lords presently delivers more than they did election of the second chamber.
If you want change, you have to make a case for it and not simply assert it.
Has the good Lord done a runner on this subject again?
I feel he’s playing knock down ginger with us!