The BBC says that we are to have full Lords reform early in the session, with a move to complete proportional representation.If that turns out to be the case, I think that we should welcome it.
Our political representation is almost PR as it is. We’re used to minority parties – we’ve had Plaid and Greens and several UKIPs, not to speak of Monster Raving Loonies. They fit in well.
We will want to make sure that the House of Lords which emerges is at least as good and effective as the House of Lords that we have now, but given that the reform process is taking place under a friendly government over a decent timescale, and given the sceptical views on election to the Lords of backbenchers on all sides, we have considerable power to make a mess of the legislation (or of legislation generally) and I am sure that we will find that our views are listened to. Most of Lord Norton’s proposals are workable in an elected house – if we get the Bill right.
This blog will doubtless be full of ideas as to how to achieve this. Here is one from me:
There should be 25% appointed independent members. A coalition government would then have to command two thirds of the party seats in the House of Lords in order to have an absolute majority. I suspect that the five years to come will be a lesson in how the effectiveness of the House of Lords is reduced when the governing party/coalition has voting control.
Lord Lucas,
I hope the 25% is a good solid representation of the full aristocratic tradition. I certainly appreciate hearing from inside the hereditary circle (unless I am mistaken) on this blog. I hope that continues with some frequency.
I know that I’m likely seen as a stark raving mad, possibly completely stupid poster here, but…
…Why not Reform the Lords by simply restoring the Hereditary Peers?
Does “Full reform” mean removal of the lat 90? I hope not. To be honest, I do not look forward to “Proportional Representation”. I want the Lords to be independent of the Political Process of the Democratic Chamber, the Commons. I would like to see it not under the sway or heel of the Commons, and able to act more like the US Senate, with real power to revise or block Legislation.
And I’d like to see the return of the Hereditary Peers who do not owe their alliances to political factions.
Democratic Ideals be Dashed, I don’t care. It doesn’t work but to cause division and idealogical divides to widen.
I’m really rather tired of Reforms, especially that lend more power to the Commons, who I already see as an Embarrassment, and increases our love affair of popularity contestants ruling over us.
Likely I don’t have any replies. I usually don’t. But its how I feel. I’m out of step with the times to be sure, but this is where I stand on it.
I know that I’m not likely highly respected on these Blogs. I barley show up and my posting is uneven. I also am well out of step with the times, which may make me seem insane or stupid to many. Still, I’ll have my say and be prmply ignroed, as ever.
I actually don’t look forward to further Reforms. I think that, as with most of the Reforms we’ve seen, it will not result in better Governance, but simply more power to Political Factions.
I mean, proportional Representation? Aren’t the Lords suppose to be Independent?
If we are to reform the Lords, why not repeal the last few Acts of Parliaments concerning the Upper House, Restore the Hereditary Peers, and let the House of Lords act more like the US Senate. Grant it real Power to revive, and even refuse Legislation. ( I’d let the Commons have the ability to overturn the Legislation by 2/3rds vote if they didn’t like the Lords refusal.)
Let the Lords be free and independant to act. Let it be free of the interferance of the House of Commons. Avoid Electing Lords at all Cost.
Yes I know, what I’ve just said is horribly undemocratic and not suitable for the 21st Century, but do you really think that with the embarrassing state of our Politicians around the world that we should owe unquestionable allegiance to glorified popularity contests and their winners?
Lets let the Real Lords resume their seats and grant them actual powers.
Lord Lucas,
I myself have been skeptical about reforming the House of Lords, but perhaps you could help convince me.
Most of the arguments I see in favor of a partially or fully elected house are based on democratic arguments. In fact, some seem to think that this argument alone justifies reform. Personally, I am not convinced that this is necessary for a revising chamber that can be overruled by the elected Commons.
That aside, what I would like to hear are some arguments as to why an elected chamber would be better. By that, I mean, how would it produce better legislation and do its job in a better way? Personally, I find the diversity which is created with an elected Commons and an appointed Lords truly provides a wide-range of benefits to the legislative process. I would be very interested to hear some more practical arguments about possible reforms and how the system would be improved.
Zarove,
What you have said makes sense about keeping the House of Lords independent. If the partisan politics stays out of the Lords that means that the bills will have greater scrutiny.
Interestingly the Peers are not permitted to vote. If they are not permitted to vote for a party, why are they in there based on party appointment and affiliation?
I realise I have a lot to learn about British politics, this blog is a good place to ask questions though.
Sue
I should probably apologise for two posts saying essentially the same thing. To be honest I’d forgotten I had posted because it didn’t clear moderation, and unlike in the past I can no longer see my pre-approved posts.
But I agree with both Sue and Cowl, and especially Cowl. I don’t think the argument from Democracy works, because it assumes Democracy is a self-evidently good thing. Well, why?
We have seen Republics become tyrannical. CHavez in Venuzuala was Democratically Elected, and the rsult is that peopel liek Sean Penn think he can’t possibly be a Dictator…
I don’t think Democracy is self evidently good, and I really don’t’ think we need to Reform the Lords just to make it Democratic.
Democracy is not good in its own right, and I prefer sensible legislation over Democracy.
The House of Lords Reform is an marxist-socialist project that should be rejected by the new Tory-Liberal rule in the Commons.
Labour want concensus, and that we the Torys should bend to their ideology inspite that we got the power. The same concern they do not have for us.I am supriced that so many Lords back the Democratic Reform, its an communist one. Let the House of Lords belong to the World Herritage instead.
In my opinion the House of Lords is quite efficient as it is. Why fix something that already works?
The House of Lords provides an excellent counterbalance to the House of Commons, as it allows people who might have never stood up for an election to participate in politics. There are experts of medicine, arts and even politics sitting in the House of Lords at the moment, which allows the Lords as a whole to give a different point of view on legislative issues.
Together the House of Commons and the House of Lords provide a parliament that even though not completely democratically elected, provides excellent and sensible legislation. Which is exactly what the public needs.
Lord Lucas I agree with your notion that the house should contain some appointed independent members. I would refer you the last comment on retired law lords and also this blogs prospectus for an elected house:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/11/25/putting-our-own-house-in-order/
Prior to 1856 hereditary peers had fulfilled the role of law lords however an increasing workload and somewhat unreliable quality of individual caused the house to appoint Sir James Parke, a judge of the Exchequer Court, in January 1856, Lord Wensleydale for life. This appointment was reactive based upon the needs of the house. Other such appointments followed, not to fill a quota, but to meet that need.
Reading the house library note and chapter 10 of the book linked below I was struck by parallels and ironies concerning Parliament now and during the Commonwealth/ Protectorate.
On the Feb 6, 1649 the Commons voted, by a majority of 44 to 29 that, “the house of peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished”. And so it was abolished. Its footnote says: “The peers were allowed to retain their titles but they lost their privileges in return they became eligible to be elected into the House of Commons”. Note here that they could have appointed those peers but chose to elect them instead.
On Feb 8, 1649 six judges resigned and a “Supreme Court” or upper-bench replaced the Kings bench. What I find particularly unsavoury of this time is what is said about allegiance: “writs were to run in the name of the Keepers of the liberty of England by the authority of parliament an engagement to be true to the commonwealth of England took the place of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.” The judiciary is separated from the monarchy and used to condemn it and its supporters.
I think this is what has made me so unhappy about removing the law lords from the HoL. A republican agenda could pass laws in the Commons that does away with the Monarchy and the judges free of their allegiance to it have to enforce the law.
Page 243: “The parliament met Jan 20 1658 it presented the ancient form of the two houses the protector having summoned by writ sixty persons to form the Other House. Cromwell addressed them in the ancient style My lords and gentlemen of the house of commons.” Here Cromwell has changed his mind on the second chamber and I’m not sure why. I contrast this with the ranting of the SNP leader in one of his election debates when he said he wanted to do away with the HoL. Perhaps when he declares himself Lord Protector of Scotland he might change his mind.
The Commons still does not produce a white paper on just how the house should be elected. The tories want an appointed house which is a complete volte-face to the views held by their antecedents. My own view is that the house should promote business and supply side economics as well as its reforming role but it needs to have access to both primary and secondary legislation and legitimate links to commerce.
Ref: The History of England, Vol 2; Thomas Keightley, 1844; Page 192
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n4DSAAAAMAAJ&pg
LL: Just some clarification to the blogs prospectus for an elected house and hereditary peers forming a group(s) for election to the House. This is possible due to the precedents set out in the Acts of Union 1700, 1800.
Ref: 18th Century, Act of Union
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldhist.htm
I’m amazed that there is such a one sided debate on House of Lords reform. Anything that contradicts the concept of a wholly elected upper house just doesn’t seem to get published in our nations press or given air time on radio or TV.
In my view much of the country would prefer to dabate many more options than another elected poodle of the controlling government in power.
In its current format the House of Lords is an excellent revising body which has gained in legitimacy since hereditaries numbers were reduced. It represents – in an unplanned and perhaps flawed way many of the bodies that contribute to the continuing development of our country.
My belief though is that a wholly elected House of Lords would add no benefit to the country and in contrast could destroy the qualities of intellectual rigour and thought which the House of Lords currently apply to legislative proposals.
In a question of political mandate the Commons should continue to control.
In matters of revision though we must apply different criteria. Yes we do have peers who can speak with authority on the arts, science, military matters, religion, regions industry and commerce. The hereditary peers, representing centuries of commitment to the country and a large part of its wealth display a quality of commitment that can and should continue to have a voice even if well below its current level. There is however no structure in place to seek out the best from the various walks of life in Britain and who can then scrutinise legislation with authority.
I am sure that the country would be grateful if the arguments about the proper range and functions of our revising chamber could be broadened.
In its current format the House of Lords is an excellent revising body which has gained in legitimacy since hereditaries numbers were reduced. It represents – in an unplanned and perhaps flawed way many of the bodies that contribute to the continuing development of our country.
No its not.
It’s had many members engaged in fraud.
It hasn’t prevented the government running up 5 trillion plus of debts.
It hasn’t prevented rolling back civil liberties.
It’s only amended 2,500 clauses a year, and almost all of those are amendments by the government itself.
It costs over 2,000 pounds a day to run one peer.
It’s awful.
Lets axe it and go with the cheap option, referenda by proxy.