Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in the House of Commons on Tuesday:
“Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the proposed new House of Lords will cost more or less than the existing one?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We want to reduce the number of people in the reformed House of Lords very dramatically—the draft Bill and White Paper that we published last week suggests 300 Members. Exactly what the cost will be depends, of course, on the proportions of elected and non-elected Members, so it is quite difficult to come up with precise estimates at this stage.”
Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, in the House of Lords on Wednesday:
“Lord Cormack: My Lords, in the fraternal spirit of the earlier questions, would my noble friend agree that a permanent second Chamber composed of some 300 elected full-time senators would be far more expensive and far less expert than the House that we have today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would be more expensive-there is no doubt about that-but whether it would be more expert is a matter of conjecture and personal opinion.”
I have no doubt it will be more expensive, as discussed on other posts. But what does Nick Clegg mean by the cost depending on the proportion of elected and “non-elected” members? I don’t remember the white paper suggesting the appointed members would be paid less than the elected ones. The only exception was the bishops.
Of course, the most important point to emphasise is that the average attendance is less than 400, so saying the size will be reduced from 800 to 300 is meaningless.
The declining number of transitional members would continue to receive the non-salaries allowance regime as they currently enjoy.
Frankly this measure is not primarily about cost reduction but achieving a better measure of democracy and a more efficient revising chamber. Whether it achieves either is the issue under debate.
Nick Clegg’s answer implies that some members will be unpaid in the reformed house, not during a transitional period.
The cost of the reformed house is a valid point of discussion, but I do accept some people may not see reducing the cost as a priority. However, what is not acceptable is that some people in the reform camp keep claiming the new house will cost less in an attempt to sell it to the public: they are deliberately misleading people.
dandfilson: The White Paper says all members of the transitional House will be salaried.
Well, going by today’s news outlets, can you believe a word they say, ever? If we are told it will be less expensive, expect the costs to more than double. Think of the Olympics, Trident or any other government project. What they tell the country is a pack of lies from concept to conclusion. It always ends up costing the tax payer way over the odds.
I feel it’s time the public insisted that people who run for office be imprisoned for lying in order to get votes. This is blatant misrepresentation.
To run on a manifesto that promises to give a nation what it wants, then, within a few short months, have the audacity to turn around and tell that same nation, they cannot do what they promised initially as their hands are tied by some law or other, is downright fraud.
All the people currently in the cabinet and, the previous cabinet, are fully cued up on government ability. They know long before they take office what is possible and what isn’t. So they knowingly hide the truth in order to gain our vote. This must be considered a jail-able offence. Otherwise we are no better than a people governed by tyrants.
We cannot any longer accept we are a democracy.
So, these new ‘Senators’ are going to be so incompetent that for a population of 60 million we need 300, where as the USA, with a population of 300 million, needs 100.
It’s all about troughing.
Lord Blagger: And have you seen the resources, not least staff, made available to a US Senator?
And how many resources does a New Zealand senator need?
Trick question – perhaps on for you quiz.
Can you drive the costs down below the cost of NZ?
I suspect if the population of New Zealand were to get above that of, say, Scotland, it would soon see the need for a second chamber. The Scottish Parliament only manages to get the legislation it wants courtesy of Westminster and Legislative Consent Motions.
1. You still haven’t answered why 300 are needed for the UK, when the US manages with 100. You’re argument about NZ applies.
So when the UK population gets above 300 million we would need 100 senators.
Next, you’ve been legislating for 100s of years. You still haven’t got it right, and carry on creating law after law after law.
What makes you think you will get it right in the future when its blatantly obvious that the political system has failed.
How’s it going banning criminals from the Lords by the way? I notice yet another fraudster has been convicted today. A short sojourn in prison, then its back to the expenses. Isn’t it time the Lords plugged that little error and said that if you are convicted, you are kicked out permanently, as well as if you fiddle expenses, you are kicked out permanently.
One way of getting a major reduction in the number of peers, wouldn’t it?
I thought Q1 was answered quite well – look at the staff employed by a US Senator and tot up the bill. They only get one vote per senatorial staff, too, so I suspect the cost per vote is much higher. They’re also not equal – a Californian Senator represents over 18 million people, whereas a Wyoming Senator represents about 250 thousand.
Dave H, the only real comparison is with California or New York states, both with a population bearing up to that of the UK.
California is under represented.
I wonder dave, how the wage for state senators and representatives varies between the different states of the Union of the USA, using perhaps the two states that you have mentioned?
Red herrings such as reference to Scotland or new Zealand or Wales are just that. Irrelevant and an endeavour to derail the argument.
Dear Lord Norton,
It will be very interesting to see how Lord Strathclyde pilots any House of Lords ‘Reform’ Bill through your House given he seems to be undermining it with every utterance and at every opportunity. Is he becoming the Conservative version of Vince Cable, I wonder?
Howridiculous.
If I may ask, as again, I feel that not being a citizen under the reign of the English Parliament, I can only grasp so much-this is encluding reading all of the hansards, arguments, and watching the debates- I would like to first have a few things clarified.
First, I am to understand the the Prelates and Primates are not effected by this movement?
As I personally believe spiritual developement is an important aspect of governance, it would be wise, in my opinion, to keep them.
Second, in this day, do the Arch-Bishops hold more sway then the bishops?
But, to return to the subject at hand.
“I suspect if the population of New Zealand were to get above that of, say, Scotland, it would soon see the need for a second chamber. The Scottish Parliament only manages to get the legislation it wants courtesy of Westminster and Legislative Consent Motions.”
Two thoughts on this…
Firstly: Does this mean that Scotland is actually going to break away and have it’s independance?
As I have said, I have been reading the hansards and find little, if any on this topic. Could it have something to do about the population debate?
Second: As it stands the USA is far from it’s former glory, their sense of ordered government and balance has become a chaotic mass at best. The resources permitted to each senitor are, though rediculas, also the least of their problems. Certainly, however, not a matter to be copied.
I can assure your lordships, firsthand, that the form of governance, is currently, at its BEST day eqivolent to the house of commons.
With so many issues all 100 senitors are scrabling everywhere. Whereas, with 300 lords, many obsticles can be overcome at once.
Has the queen, herself, decided on an opinion?
I believe that, from where I stand, the house of lords is most stable, with the acception, not of members, but of prowess. Each lord/lady should be Hand-Picked by the queen, for services to england, approved of by the lords, and admitted into the house.
Rather then set a total number of lords and go around recruiting at first glance, one should choose new ones for what they can do and ensure the growth of england.
Each lord should be chosen for a strength, not to fill a place.
Forgive me, I beseech you, if this was not my place to say. But none the less, I feel it had to be said.
-Syst
@st55555: The people of the UK have been trying to escape rule by monarch for centuries and you want us to bring it back.
You must be joking? Of course you are!
Syst55555: Whether any of the prelates remain depends upon whether one goes for the 80% or the 100% elected option. If the latter, then none of the Lords Spiritual will remain. If the 80% option is selected, then the Government propose that some remain. The Archbishops tend to be accorded a higher status that the Bishops, as reflected in the mode of address (which virtually no one can remember).
On Scotland, it is unlikely to break away, though clearly some would like to to. I agree with your comments on the form of government in the USA, which is not something to be emulated, but which in any event would be difficult to replicate given that its actual practice is largely dictated by the exceptional US political culture.
As the Queen has to act in a way that is predictable in order to remain above politics, I doubt if she would wish to be handed the task of hand-picking peers, even though formally all peerages are created by the Crown. I agree totally that each peer should be chosen on the basis of a strength and not in order to fill a place.
What is the current average cost-per-peer?
Matt: The figures are usually produced each year. The cost per peer to the public purse usually constitutes about a quarter of the cost of an MP (though in some years the figure has been closer to one-sixth).
The last time a comparison was made with MEPs, it was found that the cost of a peer was approximately one-tenth the cost of a British MEP, though I suspect the methodology employed for the purpose of this particular comparison may not have been that reliable so the figure has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Lord Norton: Thank you for your reply.
Would I be right in thinking that the Lords sit for about 150 days a year? If so, a full-time, directly-elected member could, under a continuance of the present system, pick up 150 X £300 = £45,000 a year. How does this represent an increase or decrease in costs??
Matt: There are no plans for a continuation of the existing system. A full-time elected member will be salaried – the intention is at a salary between that of an MP and a member of a devolved legislature. So, say, £45,000 (probably higher) as the actual salary. You then have the on-costs (national insurance, pension etc), which one does not presently have (as there is no salary). You then have the allowance scheme, as envisaged in the Draft Bill, to enable the members to fulfil their parliamentary duties: this will cover expenses presently wrapped up in the daily attendance allowance as well, including secretarial and research costs. I doubt if full-time elected members, returned from large constituencies, will be able to cope without some full-time secretarial and research support. If you then have an allowance scheme for running a second home as with MPs (again presently wrapped up in the daily attendance allowance) then I don’t see how the cost can be anything but substantially greater.
Whatever the current plans may be, I don’t see why the current allowance system could not be continued – the new members would be doing the same job after all – that of tweaking/rejecting bits of legislation??
Matt: The posts would be full-time. Furthermore, given that they would be for fixed 15-year terms, those holding them would expect them to be pensionable, which means there has to be a salary. At the moment, we get the House of Lords on the cheap in that a great many members are, in effect, subsidised by the bodies that they work for (time off, research/secretarial support and the like): that would disappear with a full-time House.
The consitutional arrangements for different states of the USA varies I believe, but the senate of California, probably spends a good deal on paying Senators’s salaries.
If the European union had anything resembling a senate then Senator Blagger would have something sensible to say above.
As it is the Union of the EU is Uni-cameral. The Federal USA is not.
Gareth Howell: THe European Parliament does not accept that the EU is unicameral. It regards the Council of Ministers as the second chamber.
@Lord Norton: Why isn’t the UK more involved in the working of the EU and therefore offering up sensible objection to the lunacy they write into our laws?
No EU State is happy on many levels with what is now ‘law’ from that, seemingly, inexperienced bunch. Why have we let them get so out of kilter when it comes to running a well formed, oiled and organised democracy? The financial fiddles there are outrageous, yet we sit in acceptance. Could it be because it is infiltrated with too many American advisers telling Europe how to follow their reckless lead?
And finally, sending the horrendous creep, Mandelson, back there for another gravy train ride is a gross insult to the people of this country. As was the traitor Blair and the negligent Brown’s appearance back in our Parliament to help blow magic dust on the superstar President they look to for solace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_General_Assembly
Take the expenses paid to senators and representatives of The Kentucky Assembly and you will have a more accurate view of the facts Blagger. It is Bicameral, the same as ours.
So far as I am aware, all the several states of the United States have bicameral legislatures, so what with Congresss also being bicameral, there’s a lot of legislators around! I really wonder whether raw cost is the real issue – I’d like more focus on added value.
For example, does a general debate – at the end of which the motion is by leave withdrawn – actually achieve added value in terms of a more informed executive? or a more informed legislature? Or is it just blowing off to massage egos.
Second example, when an amendment is moved but likewise after brief debate withdrawn, the point may be made for the record, but does it actually affect the legislation under debate?
The House of Lords professes to be the revising chamber but save when Tory backbenches block frontbench proposals, I am not sure how much actual revising (as opposed to blocking) they do. I’m stirring to some extent, but it might be interesting to know.
danfilson: 49 of the 50 states in the USA are bicameral.
The advantage of generating a debate is that it forces a response from the Government. Ministers have to listen and react. What they say is on the record. Withdrawing the motion for papers at the end of a general debate is a procedural hangover that has no particular relevance. It is what is said in the debate that matters.
With amendments, some are probing, designed to get the Government to explain a particular provision. If the response is not satisfactory, one can pursue it. It is not unusual for a minister to resist an amendment initially, but then to see the peer or peers concerned afterwards and attempt to reach agreement on a change to be made at the next stage of the Bill. On occasion, one achieves not a formal change but a commitment by Government to take a particular course of action. What takes place in the chamber is but part of a much larger picture.
I did somehow expect your response on these lines, but is there evidence of how often this occurs (I mean the Bill being amended by the Government as a result of behind the curtains discussions following a moving of an amendment that was defeated or withdrawn)? As to general debates, yes ministers have to listed and react, but their response whoever is in power is often cursory. I find the whole process of ministerial response fairly vacuous as it often comprises little more than a trotting-through of the names of those who spoke and a one-sentence (if that) summary of what they said. The same is also true of the summing-up from the opposition benches of other speeches. Rumblings from the PLP or the 1922 Committee seem to have more force.
danfilson: There is certainly plenty of evidence, but there are not aggregate data that allow us to generalise in terms of the full extent to which it occurs. Trying to source the origins of amendments is notoriously difficult. J. A. G. Grffith attempted it in his classic and now dated work. Trying to up-date his work will be a major undertaking.
I agree that some ministerial responses can be cursory. Getting a response is important because it is on the record and ministers can make important commitments. They can also offer responses which are pretty poor, at times pathetic, but this can count against them. It gets noticed and the Government are none too keen on getting a poor reputation, especially among their supporters. We do talk among ourselves as to which ministers are or are not up to the job.
http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files_dpm/resources/house-of-lords-reform-draft-bill.pdf
Read it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Assembly
Or better still the California state Assembly (which is a legislature)which under represents its people.
It is also bicameral and any idea of cost and value may be checked comparatively with a state having 2/3 the population of the UK and a great deal more land mass.
@Gareth Howell:
As a footnote, Arnie Schwarzenegger was the last Governor of California and left the state broke. The people who are suffering grossly for his ‘Republican’ platform is of course the poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger
He left the place in chaos.
http://www.prisonlaw.com/events.php
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/05/10/appellate-court-rules-poor-va-mental-health-care-for-vets-is-unconstitutional/
California fiscally akin to Greece.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/03/24/who-will-default-first-greece-or-california/
And we are singing the praises of this hell hole of democracy for the world to follow.
It’s in chaos because the electorate had the democratic right to say, no more taxes. They voted for it.
Rather than cut back on spending, Arnie just carried on, like the politicians before, with lots of spending.
So what’s needed is a hard cap on borrowing and taxes, subject to a democratic decision by the voters.
Not that the Lords are ever interested in giving the electorate the say.
They just like dictating what we have to do. Unelected, with no rights about kicking them out when they commit fraud or get it wrong.
@Lord Blagger:
So, are you suggesting we follow the sad judgment of dear ‘Arnie’ and bring our state to the level of Greece then? Because you feel that’s the way to go?
No country has ever recovered from the serious fiscal situation we have and are heading for by the policies you suggest. It is too late for that.
The Germans appear to be raising their game and outshining all those who claim it cannot be done other. I think we should be imitating those who are winning not losing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/economy/14charts.html
http://www.rol.vn/newsdetail/17/12720/german-commercial-property-market-recovered-from-downturn-of-2009/
I agree its too late. The debts (all of them) are too large for the government to pay.
Ignoring bailing out those with no pensions, including all the debts you get to 6.8 trillion.
Government income is 0.5 trillion. 13 times geared. On par with Tony Blair’s mortgage that he got when he was PM.
Including in bailing out the feckless, and we are on the hook for 20 trillion. (These are present values. The actual payouts go up in line with inflation). That’s 40 times geared.
From the tax revenues, the public will want their NHS, their police, roads, defence etc. The Lord have been quite categorical, they want their large cut. Doesn’t leave much for paying out on the other bits.
Don’t assume the Germans are in a better place either. They run huge Ponzi pension schemes. Their banks have large positions in PIIGS’s debts. If the PIIGS default, the banks capital goes down. Banks loan multiples of capital, and the governments in the EU just reduced that ratio. That’s demanding more capital or less lending.
That’s why Vince Cable is a twit. For an economics professor not to know the relationship between capital, capital adequacy, and the amount a bank can loan confirms it.
So lets see. Greece is gone. The EU won’t lend them another 10,000 a head this year like they did last year.
With Greece gone, Portugal and Ireland are very vulnerable. However, the real victim is likely to be the ECB itself. It’s made the loans.
So what we actually need is
1. More truth from politicians.
2. Politicians under the control of the electorate.
Ever wonder why Switzerland never seems to have these problems?
Suddenly we need a truly-representative term for the forthcoming new House of Lords, or new Upper Chamber
as we still need “Ecolonomics” to complete the obviously-wrong equations that Economics is still stuck-upon;
and as we need new civilisational Workplaces and Lifeplaces to both transcend mere “sustain-ability” and become truly longest-possible-term “Sustain-worthy”
(Remember? – The Third Reich, had it not been for Allied-Military-Destruction, would probably have been “sustain-able” for the Thousand-years intended in its Manifesto;
but most sane and sober people world-wide now see that it was not sustain-worthy)
so already we face a “Senilate”;
but the One-Party-State British Power of the Day (with its Five, Ten, Fifteen, Fifty, one-hundred years whatever constitutional timeframe) will do all the “electing” of the new senilators
whilst continuing to continually take the Name of the People in vain;
and as some other sober heads have already noted continuing to be super-costly snouts-in-troughs, sucking-mouths-in-gravy-boats, and hands-in-tills;
together consuming and destroying both One-and-One-Half Earths, and individually taking from the Common Purse many more than the one-human-living each human-being needs and should have not only a guaranteed-right but an enabled and enforced-limitation to.
If only we
(that is, you esotericly sequestered Upper-classes, Parliamentarians, Judges, Civil-‘Servants’, Captains-of-Industry, Lawyers, Royalty, Religious-‘Leaders’, Education-experts, and Community-committes)
could find truly long-term Competent People and Affordable-Hows, possibly the current consumption-rate could be levelled-out, happily prevented from going on rising above the mere One-and-a-Half Earths that your 7-billion world-population Needs (as at today, and tomorrow, and Tomorrow ? or as at the time-of-last-measurement, in 2009 ?)
Surely you can improve upon Plato’s ideal and affordable government, comfortably and securely sequestered and room-serviced atop in-depth-defended, unassailable, splendid-panoramic-views, very safe hills and mountains ?
1800 2605 JSDM.
Do you mean money they extract from us, or money that it costs us?
I presume a daily figure will suffice, and we ignore the wine cellar, the subsidised food, the security, …
THe European Parliament does not accept that the EU is unicameral. It regards the Council of Ministers as the second chamber.
I did suspect that Lord Norton would remind me of that when I wrote it down.
Reflecting on the comparisons made with other
assemblies and legislatures, it does seem to me that it won’t get very far.
The 15 year term of election is simply foolish.
The ‘aside’ that it might be an election of all 300 from the outset is the most sensible
opinion of the whole Draft bill, and yet it is only an aside.
Its difficult for mere mortals like us to understand Lord Blagger because he tends towards Occam’s Razor and the ‘lex parsimoniae’ which means the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness. However, Lord Norton favours Karl Popper when Popper says “that a preference for simple theories need not appeal to practical or aesthetic considerations”. Lord Blagger often fails to provide an epistemic justification for what he is saying. Is Lord Blagger practical? Should we regard his aesthetic qualities as an art form in need of an artistic license? Perhaps the Scottish Parliament can provide us with these answers because I will be blessed if the blogs Parliament can?
Even Senex is getting wittier by the day!
“Should we regard his aesthetic qualities as an art form in need of an artistic license?”
It must be the unusual weather conditions causing flurry.
Ha!Ha!Ha!
In earlier eras (until 1963, I think) there were the Scottish representative peers, elected by those with Scottish peerages. The House of Lords Act 1999 brought back representative hereditary peers, with 15 elected by all the peers and 75 elected by party groups.
Could having a whole Senate of representative peers (both hereditary and life) be the way forward? Having a peerage wouldn’t automatically give you a seat in the Senate, but would make you eligible to be elected to the Senate and make you a member of the Electoral College that chooses the Senate.
Each election time (and if we follow the Irish example, Senate elections would follow the House of Commons ones by 90 days), there are a fixed number of Crossbench Senators to be elected by the Crossbench peers, and then, depending on the number of votes won in the general election, the peers from the main parties would elect a certain number of Senators from amongst themselves.
You then have a smaller upper chamber, one which is indirectly-elected. It is then up to the Senate whether peers who are not Senators are allowed to take part in debates (but not vote).
I prefer a slightly larger electoral college and no role at any stage for anybody whose has got there by heredity. We really cannot persist with any hereditary element in 2015 onwards.
Personally I have no problem with the continuation of speaking (bot no voting) rights for anyone who currently has a seat in the house. The attrition rate would reduce the numbers outside the 312 members proposed by the coalition quite quickly. It would look odd however to viewers of BBC Parliament and the News to see people who have got there by heredity and then selection by their peers still having speaking rights.
Doesn’t look at all odd to me. They are, as I have said on previous occasions, the most engaged/engaging 92 out of 750. They attend frequently, and keep their speeches brief. They are, in so many respects, the house at its best.
No doubt they are all charming, polish their shoes, hold their knives correctly etc. but there cannot be any continuing justification for people to have a voting role in our legislature who are there by virtue of their birth; being there by virtue of their connections is bad enough.
On the contrary, I think there is a lot to be said for it. I speak as someone who would EXPAND the principle to include people selected entirely at random, in our decision-making bodies. Why the fixation on one neat solution? I prefer interesting, quirky and multi-faceted.
I have no problem with the continuation of speaking (bot no voting) rights for anyone who currently has a seat in the house.
Elitism is a word that Matt may be looking for.
The noble Baroness Deech in most of her remarks,if the moderator will allow me to make comments about the style of other contributors,seems to be of the opinion that because she is the best of her year, as it were, she has a natural right to be a member of an exclusive place.
The principle of multi-voting democracy of whatever brand to become elite for just a few years is quite lost on most members of the second chamber. They hope that being there will be for ever, especially if they get a promotion to hereditary after years of good work. (I find that kind of graft particularly unpleasant)
Elitism excludes the right of the masses to vote them in or vote them OUT, but it does require that they have legislative powers over those masses whose mandate they refuse to seek.
On a positive note the HofL even now, does allow ANY honourable gentleman to seek an audience with their Lordships, more particularly, by requesting it of the Lord speaker in a particular and time honoured way, in the chamber itself.
The same may be done in the other place but I never succeeded in drawing the attention of the HofC speaker in such a way that I could speak from the (strangers) gallery. Nor did I feel inclined to do so, on account of the remoteness of the public gallery from the Members on the floor of the chamber.
In the strictly physical sense of the chamber layout, the elitism is far greater in the other place than in the HofL, but exclusivism of a very specialized kind!
Again I have always found, and other acquaintances of mine too, that attendance at HofC committee was always sufficient to be able to attract the attention of the chairman of the committee, to say what I felt needed to be said, viva voce, not forgetting that opinions expressed there are oft repeated when the committee resolves in to the main chamber for a debate, open to all members.
The Lords select committees never did allow such an “interruption” even if requesting to do so, by the good services of the Society of Doorkeepers, who have always done splendid work.
I am in favour of a 300 seat HofL, fully elected, and limited terms of office to say two of five years at the most.
@grahamofsouthampton
Something like what you suggest should have happened a long time ago. Would have saved everyone a lot of bother. If only the bulk of life peers could snap out of praising themselves to the hilt for their own golden ‘expertise and experience’ (if i hear those words again i will scream).
A special plaudit goes to Lord Lucas in The Times today for saying, “I’m eminently replaceable” – there’s three words you won’t hear very often coming out of a peer’s mouth (and it’s not even particularly true in his case!).
Hear! Hear!
Matt: If you don’tr like reference to the Lords being a chamber of ‘experience and expertise’, you may need to invest in some ear plugs or move abroad – perhaps Lord Blagger has a spare room – as you are likely to hear it quite a lot in coming months.
We are all replaceable but that does not detract from the value of the House as one of well, experience and expertise.
A rather ‘catty’ response coming from you, Lord Norton. I don’t think there is a single person on this site who would take issue with the value that you add to the house.
There are at least 200 other peers of which the same could certainly not be said. I think we could all pitch in with at least a dozen nominations each – and I think you know this.
Warm, generic platitudes about, lets call it, ‘E and E’ get us nowhere – that’s all I was saying.
Matt: I thought it was rather a humorous response. The presence, or rather non-presence, of peers who do not add to the status of the House as one of experience and expertise does not mean that this is not a defining characteristic of the House and one that would be lost if it were to become an elected House. Your point is an argument for removing certain members from the House rather than changing the whole basis on which it is constituted.
Lord Norton – Apologies for my lack of humour. True, I am more interested in reducing the numbers of sitting life peers than in anything else.
Matt: That is the view of existing members as well – we are keen to reduce numbers. We will be taking the first step in that direction on Monday week, when we debate the report of the Procedure Committee on voluntary retirement.
Lord Norton: I notice in the last joint-committee report that very similar objections were made against the 80% elected option:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1708.htm
However, they had good things to say about the 40% elected option.
What are your thoughts on that … And can you envisage a dutch-auction bargaining process ahead, to get down to a less ‘disruptive’ elected percentage??
I really cannot see how, once the coalition has proposed 80% elected and with Labour ostensibly committed to 100%, anything less than 80% stands any earthly chance. So not worth wasting time on this option.
A reminder, danfilson, that many peers are rather keen on 0% … and that’s less than 80, too.
Well it would certainly be novel for the Government to introduce legislation providing for at least 80% of the House to be directly elected and for the main opposition party to support 100% for that not to go through in one form or another, though experience tells us there is many a slip. But the chances of a 0% elected house are, I think, negligible. How many “rebels” might there be?
Danfilson: Well let me put it this way … I don’t think that Lord Strathcylde, who has the main job of championing the bill, would be so bold as to use the word, ‘negligible’, in the way that you have.