The electorate should decide who’s in and who’s out of the Lords

Lord Tyler

The House of Lords is in the news, with much lamenting about the size of the House and the impending arrival of new entrants. Yet since the House remains unreformed, of course we need new blood. Otherwise we will simplify fossilise.

The only democratic way to shed numbers must be for the electorate to decide who is in and who is out. The country cannot rely on the political party whips to do so fairly, and it would be ludicrous to expel effective Peers just because they had reached a particular age.

The Coalition Government’s Reform Bill was given a huge majority of 338 MPs in July 2012, with large majorities in all three parties. As I pointed out in the Lords on 21 July “it would have progressed to the statute book had it not been for some silly party games of the Labour leadership with Conservative Back-Benchers.” [HL Deb, 21 July, Col 1001]

Three years later the problems of the Lords would have been well on their way to solution by now. Rather than ineffectual tweaking the House needs root and branch reform.

3 comments for “The electorate should decide who’s in and who’s out of the Lords

  1. 27/07/2015 at 2:20 pm

    That’s not the reason the House of Lords is in the news today; I think we have a candidate for the next reduction in size of the House.

    But would the sort of system you are most likely a proponent of actually give the electorate a say over who is “who is in and who is out”? I doubt it. Instead, they would choose a political party, and it would still be up to “political party whips” (as opposed to the type of whip that might go with an orange bra) to decide exactly who is in or out. The trouble is, the electorate are sick of political parties. Do they really want another House that replicates the Commons?

  2. Lord Blagger
    27/07/2015 at 10:52 pm

    Yet since the House remains unreformed, of course we need new blood. Otherwise we will simplify fossilise.

    ===========

    Actually, you need abolishing. Completely.

    All peers should be expelled. You are not democratic.

    Now we have with the latest, that Peers are spending their expenses on hookers and coke.

    So why would there be state secrecy about when peers walked through the gates?

  3. maude elwes
    28/07/2015 at 8:07 am

    I agree with you, Lord Tyler, almost 100%. However, what you are not daring to cite is, how would all those peers who should never have been there in the first place be expected to accept their obvious demise? Not to mention those remaining in situ by reason of birth brigade. Those fortunate few really will miss no longer being able to dress in ermine in order to hide a rampant desire to be led devilishly astray as they invite much evil to sit on their face, whilst they snort a wild line with a rolled fiver?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11763582/Lord-Sewel-filmed-snorting-cocaine-with-two-prostitutes.html

    This one being a chum of the Blair creature as well! Just goes to show how they’re all in it together, doesn’t it? Now I wonder how long it will be before Blairs internet naughty notoriety will out, so he can join his chum in shunhood?

    ROTFWL

Comments are closed.