Will the appointed peers be evicted shortly to make room for an all-or mainly-elected Upper House/Senate? I will not rehearse the arguments for and against, which are well known, especially to those who read this blog. When I heard that the LibDem-Tory coalition had firm plans to evict us by Christmas, I was very upset. Not just for myself, only really getting going after 5 years as a peer (I was told when I joined by an experienced peer that it takes 10 years to become totally familiar with the ways of the House and to be able to contribute most effectively) – but for all the honest expertise that might be lost. If peers are to be elected, they will need a party platform, because the mechanics of election would not allow, in my view, for independents like myself to mount a campaign. Nevertheless, my intern immediately called me and said he was ready to start campaigning for me on a human rights platform and we had a right old discussion about that . . .
Then I cheered up when I read the small print and noticed that the parties’ promise is that a committee will formulate plans by Christmas for an elected House, and that in the meantime the parties may nominate more peers to join the House in the proportion reflecting the share of votes they received at the General Election. This will no doubt mean many more LibDem peers and quite a few more Tories. Once they have joined us, will they want to vote for their own eviction? or will they persuade their party leaders that, after all, we do a good job? I have noticed that while party leaders call for an elected House they do not refrain from nominating their colleagues for peerages when they find them useful.
I think it likely that the government will attempt to use the carrot of the offer of being put on the list system of any elected house as a sweetener for reform (assuming that is the system we get). It is tragic that we would have to endure the loss of the cross-benchers though.
I can only hope the committee will find a way to accommodate you all in some way, or (perhaps more likely) will repeatedly extend its deadline and eventually create a report which will promptly be forgotten.
Well, Baroness Deech, I for one will be sad to see you go! I’m not sure members of the public actually wanted an elected Upper House… I’d rather a carefully selected one!
As I said in reply to Baroness D’Souza’s post above, it’s essential that the crossbench element of the House remains as it is: experts who are appointed. The remaining 75% of the House could then be elected along party lines.
What would be even better is to have an elected house completely detached from party politics. The Appointments Commission could select around four times the number of candidates required, then the electorate could choose the ones they most wanted to see in the House.
With PR voting along party lines, all the usual party hacks would be elected. But with the system I suggest, the public could choose between, say, former MP Mr A. Fatcat (whose expense claims were decidedly dodgy), and Professor Ruth Deech – I know who would get my vote.
Such a system could be made to work through the use of e-voting. Imagine a House that retained all the traditions and ceremony of the Lords but with the most high-tech voting system in the world. Unfortunately I realise this is a pipe-dream!
On your last point, it is good to see that the new government has so far chosen ministers from among MPs and existing peers rather than nominating random people – something that really troubled me towards the end of the last government’s term.
Thats why I oppose an Elected House. heck, thats hwy I think that we should stop making appointments political, and allow the Hereditary peers in the House again. A true sense of independence doesn’t exist in how we practice Democracy, its base don winning a popularity contest by joining a political faction and pushing its ideals.
I never saw this as a logical guaranteer of freedom or as a move evolved and developed system, nor do I see it as more enlightened. I see it as rule by those who make the most promises to the most influential people.
One thing though, can the Lords refuse further reform if it comes to that?
It’s very simple. Lets just get rid of the lot of them.
We can all vote, via a proxy, on the final say of a bill.
We can all change our proxy if we change our mind.
Very simple. Very cheap. With the abolishment of the House of Lords we save lots of cash.
Democracy, you can’t beat it.
Elected dictatorships on the other hand can be beaten
Notice all the bleating. What will we do without the expenses? What about our club? Where will be drink on the cheap in central London.
Heavens forbid, I’ll have to pay my own fare to get to the country pad
I completely, utterly agree. Please: do not elect the Lords. It would be absolutely disastrous for this country.
Is there a real thirst in the country for more career politicians legislating for us?
Of course there isn’t.
I am horrified that a new government could feel it has a mandate to purge our Parliament of hundreds of its legitimately constituted members.
When are we going to get our say on this?
“told when I joined by an experienced peer that it takes 10 years”
Cupidity from a career lawyer and professor?!
“Once they have joined us, will they want to vote for their own eviction?”
This is the point. Between now and December it might be better to suffer in silence, with no additions. New political peers, mainly from the retired Conservative bench in the HofC will not he that great, and a good many retired Labour MPs are sufficiently democratic not to be in the least bit interested in the HofL, so the problem of numbers may be self regulating, until the Bill is discussed in December.
I would be sorry to see some of the Lords go, the ones who engage with the public, for example Lord David Alton. But for ones such as yourself Baroness Deech I would be cheering as you went. The reason being you are out of touch, and when you meet people you dismiss them and don’t listen. If they don’t fit into the way you see things you look down your nose.
I think the House of Lords need a reform but it doesn’t need filling with more career politicians to replicate the Commons.
Lord Blagger, Aristotle once said that Democracy was the Worst form of Government, and democracy really is just Mob rule. I don’t think its good. Why should I?
BD: Were you aware that the new ‘Lay Judge System’ is now one year old in Japan.
http://baldycenter.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/valerie-hans-japans-new-lay-judge-system-deliberative-democracy-in-action/
I mention this by way of contrast to trials without juries in the UK. The Japanese system is intended to replace juries by appointing six lay persons to sit at the side of three professional judges for serious crimes like homicide.
One effect on law enforcement has been to have formal interviews videoed. The lay Judges were not happy and wanted reassurance that confessions had been made voluntarily.
The house has been looking at improving the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of laws. These are really matters of Quality Assurance. The Commons designs laws and they come to the house to undergo a process of design verification until both houses feel that the design is ready for statute.
The improvements Lord Norton is suggesting amount to Validation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_validation
These are a series of tests to establish whether the law is fulfilling its original purposes from the design requirement. It would seem sensible that the process of producing the requirement should involve a number of lay people.