Yesterday’s debate on a motion to take note of the case for reform of the House of Lords occupied almost nine hours with sixty-seven speakers. Many speakers, myself included, distinguished between reform and destruction. Getting rid of the House of Lords is not reform of the House. Most of us who spoke favour reform in order to strengthen the House but are opposed to destroying it. I was speaker number 33. I followed 30 back-bench speakers and on my count 26 of them had spoken against the Government’s proposals. There were some excellent speeches. The Government had few supporters and in winding-up for the Government the minister, Lord McNally, was clearly aware of that.
For some strange reason, ‘take note’ motions are not amendable, so Lord Steel – who had wanted to table an amendment to make the case for the provisions of the Steel Bill – had to table a separate motion calling on the Government to bring forward motions on the issues covered by the Bill, such as creating a statutory appointments commission. After the main debate concluded shortly before 11.30 p.m., his motion was put and rather than withdraw it he put it to the vote. Although many peers had left, not expecting a division, it was carried by 44 votes to 29. All the cross-benchers who voted (including former senior civil servants Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Williamson of Horton) voted for the motion, as did the Archbishop of York. Five former Cabinet members were also in the lobby. The message of the day was clear: peers favour changes to the House but not its replacement by an elected chamber.
Good News Indeed! I do wonder what Reforms are thought necessary though. I hope not more prattle about “Elected Peers” because frankly, I don’t see how holding an Election equates to making something legitimate, and don’t see Unelected Peers as Illegitimate.
Well spoken words! I agree. Unelected Peers are not Illegitime.
My lord, thank you for including links to “debate” and “motion” respectively; each of which and the Contents lists thereto I wish the Lords of the Blog to try to include in other Lords and Ladies posts, too, please.
The enormous complexities, and historical-uncertainties, not to mention the fogs that sit impenetrably over issues of clarification, discussion, debate and inevitability of decision/division (such that we poorly-prepared public can not begin to know one such from the other such-and-such) certainly now strengthen my rationale for having a number of deep-ish Strata of ‘Governance Knowledge for the Citizen’, within each level of which would be similarly graded layers. Call it ‘education’, I relent.
I too am able and willing to tune-in to some of the Parliamentarians’ speeches, interventions, and questions, my lord.
If Lord Higgins was right that electing all the Upper House members would not increase democracy, for one thing because we already have 100% democracy, concentrated into the Lower House (the Commons) then the only part both the Lords and The People can take is to woffle-on, we shall never be heard let alone have the Needs we submit taken any notice of.
We owe it to this Earth’s Lifesupports if not to God-Himself to not waste ourselves.
We should sit back eyes closed until it’s time to cost the Taxpayer more non-renewable funds at the next Referendum and Election by taken up 40 million or so pencils and wasting 40 million or so pieces of ballot-paper and Lord only knows what overtime pay-cheques for the greater number than ever of civil-servants that we can wager will be employed to receive every citizen’s vote in every Polling Station, next time around.
Certainly there is never going to be a Participatorily Cooperative Democracy; nor a House Legislative nor Non-legislative that receives and in a fully governance-responsible sense acts upon, the Needs and Constructive Submissions of the serious individual-citizen and of serious-groups of citizens.
If any House needs deeply radical reform it is the House of Commons. It wields powers uncontrollable by any people (except the Big-Bank-Owners who direct Governance all around the World and out into future Space) to tell Parliament and the Citizenry (‘Public’) utter lies and deliberate distractions and cover-ups.
One very very tiny but cancer-like instance of which is the Coalition and practically all other politicians and professionally-interested stakeholders telling us that “We are not working in our own interests, but for the survival of the British People, of Britain itself no less”.
That latter malfeasance, my lord, is mortally a taking-of-the-name-of-Britain-and-of-the-British-People in vain.
In vain: second only to Blasphemy and Criminal Malfeasance.
[ Incidentally, my lord, another lord in the red chamber of the House of Lords (and Ladies) holding the floor from a very powerful Government position, was seen and heard (I am unable to mince words here, my lord) not only totally avoiding a respectfully serious and legitimate question put forward by a much more slenderly-built Lady opposite, but brazenly and bullyingly attacking the Lady and totally mis-representing her Reason for asking the question.
Need I quote that lord’s exact words, my lord ?
I had rather not, in the interests of our Common need to bring in and entrench Friendly Method III Needs and Hows recognition and win-win-win participatorily cooperative problem-solving.
——————–
Perhaps I should declare at this point an ‘interest’ or rather ‘predicament’:
that I am by no means yet fully enabled (informed and proficient; and thereby sufficiently empowered) to participate in British Democratic Citizenship.
[I have a British passport but do not use it any more since I have been succeeding as an “earth-citizen” in steadily lowering my personal carbon-footprint].
So, rather like wanting to set one foot on the lowest rung of the UN Human Development Index ladder, of Longevity x Knowledge x Wealth = Level of Human-ness
(whereby the younger you are, the fewer PhD, MA, BSc, published-works and Academic or House of Lords membership-years you have collected, and the fewer £millions and Private-properties you have amassed, the lower down near the bottom rung or further below, beyond and out of reach of the bottom rung you are)
so one such as this writer is placed in the shadow of the current and future-planned British Citizenship and Democracy ladder – not yet within walking distance of the bottom-most rung, my lord.
The messages of every day that we off-the-bottom-rung peoples face are as clear as the message those high-up whom you represent face, who favour ‘change’ (without telling us clearly in which direction ? of what quality ? of what quantity ? of what constructive-benefit to the masses below ? and of what real-life-sustainworthiness value ?); but the messages we are facing are of a very contrastingly different nature, and of clearly one-sided foreboding.
——————
(JohnSydneyDentonMiles0015Th010710)
Getting rid of the House of Lords is not reform of the House.
—————–
Yes it is. It’s a start on saving 600 million over the next 5 years.
It can be replaced with proper democracy, where the public get the final say, and not a group of failed politicians in the Old People’s home for the no longer wanted by the electorate.
Of course you favour retention. Do turkeys vote for christmas?
Replacing the Lords by giving the public the final say, isn’t destruction.
It’s the creation of democracy.
Why are you so set against allowing the public the final say on their laws?
I can think of the reasons as to why.
1. I won’t get any more expenses. (ie. There is nothing in there for me)
2. Plebs. They are all plebs. We can’t let the plebs tell us what we can do and what we can’t do.
Lord Blagger.
Ps. 44 + 29 = 73 peers. Where are all the others to make it up to 400?
The silly season is very nearly upon us!
Agreed
This whole reform-area, and Zarove’s quandary within it, is potentially-productive I think; and the whole Problem-area of reform-of-parliament needs quiet calm deliberation to disentangle every knot and face up to every “Not”.
From what many Parliamentarians as well as ‘outside’ Experts and People are intimating, we need to design and then construct what might turn out to be the greatest Governance Radical-Reform yet.
At least a large number of Lords have already spoken out, soundly reasoning why having even a small number of elected peers in the Upper House would corrupt its historically unique success
and would start-up an irreversible trend into 100% politically-elected “senators”, who would in short-order become in direct competition and horrible conflict with the House of Commons, and for – what ?
First and foremost for Power; in which event Britain would languish like a failed extra-state of the USA, the only practical-political outcome of which must sooner or later be political, police-state and military Oligarchy/Autocracy.
Secondly, for money; in which event again Britain will languish because it will have much faster completed its already dangerous subjection to ownership, by the Big-Banks and Financial-Cartels of the greater world, than the USA has for years been secretly doing.
But let us gently turn away from that (so as not to injure our workplace-stiff-necks) and see what else could be made to happen for the better.
There is a Leadership book one of the chapters of which is curiously, and needle-sharp-pointedly called “Being The Leader Will Never Make You One”.
Similarly we can say “being elected ‘advocate-and-legislator’ will never make you one”.
—–
Overall Democracy-and-Parliament Reform:
It has previously been briefly submitted that a possible winwinwin course would be to create a Non-Legislative House of Knowledge and Life-Experience; and also to make a comprehensive Long List of all British Experts in every Area-of-Knowledge and of Life-experience (not just of those already in the Legislative House of Lords but nonetheless including those Lords who wish to be listed thereto whilst the Overall Reform Strategy is being implemented, see below).
.(1) Assemble and publish CVs of all British Experts: of both the Real-Life-Grass-Roots hands-on experts, and the trained Academic ‘memory-and-thinking’ experts;
and of both the known willing-and-able [willing and able to serve in a new British Non-Legislative House of Knowledge and Life-Experience (and not in the Civil Service all pre-legislation-experts of which should be transferred to, re-employed by, the new Non-Legislative (British) House of Knowledge and Life-Experience)]; of the unknown willing-and-able; and of the ‘swinging- middle’ experts.
(2) Hold successive voluntary postal-listings (not win-lose voting, but to re-arrange the List “in the order the citizen thinks best” ). Every citizen arranges the Lists of prospects into order of preference. A mandatory voting requirement would be to select a comprehensively all-round list, covering each and every area-of-expertise with at least three of the Long-listed experts under that heading. (This is a bit like having to have Mathematics, English-language, and Human-Fitness teachers in every school).
(3) As the long List is thus shortened, within a few months there should be a List just the right length to fill all the available Seats (in the new Non-Legislative Knowledge House) and have a back-up number in Reserve.
During that several months of narrowing-down, some candidates may have withdrawn; but they will not be forgotten, and should be mandatorily held on a ‘Sleeper-Experts’ sub-reserve list (something akin to an Emergency-only back-up Body, like the Territorial-Army, or the reserves for a Football match).
Should there be a demand for a one-off Polling Station turn-out in addition to the Postal-Listing sequence, that might be arranged on an alternative-or-tranferrable listed-vote method involving only the Key top experts in each area-of-expertise.
As a Caretaker and ‘buffer’ provision, there should be ‘filtering’ avenues, plenum-chamber and holding-committee rooms Seats, through which all existing members of the House of Lords can both continue their present Legislative Role and list themselves for other Service when the last stage of this Reform takes place.
The last stage should be a great narrowing-down of the number of seats in the Upper House within which would be a major reduction in the number of possible Appointment seats, a complete ban on politically-elected seats, a natural-attrition narrowing-down of the Hereditary seats, and a new Citizenry-Poll to elect existing members of the Non-Legislative House of Knowledge and Life-Experience to a major number of seats in the Legislative Upper House.
May I [seek leave to] submit the above as a Starting Point for general discussion.; the while remaining yours attentively
———-
(JSDM20022Th0107).
“Getting rid of the House of Lords is not reform of the House. Most of us who spoke favour reform in order to strengthen the House but are opposed to destroying it.”
It is not as though the two are ‘antithetical’,
Getting rid and ‘reform’.
The building is particularly beautiful both internally and externally, and a holistic part of the Palace.
Getting rid of the greater number of the kind and class of people within the HofL, certainly is highly desirable.
The effect on the HofC of the recent Hereditary exclusions from the Second chamber/HofL, may not be obvious, but in my own voting constituency, South Dorset, one ancient peer has now taken his place in the HofC, in the name Mr Soandso.
Whilst the ancient aristocracy has always tended to choose its members, or at least patronize them, in the Commons, the prospect of 30-40 former ancient peers in that commons place taking the wages for themselves along with the venison from their country estates, shows up the trickery of democracy in a very bad light indeed.
Democracy has far more strong points than that.
It was at least acceptable to know in the 50-70s that a hereditary peer did not also have his fingers in the till, in quite the same way as was proved to be the case in the recent ‘Expenses’ scandal.
Disclaiming peerages is a thing of the past; if you are not an elected hereditary peer, you are not one.
Planning developments outside every country town perhaps but not fingers in the till, in quite the same way at all as the petty corruptions of commons parliamentary ‘expenses’.
I hope somebody can add to this strand of thought.
Some video moments from the debate:
Tip! Click the pause button before you move the slider, then press play. If you get out of sequence it will lock up and you will have to start again by closing the web page. Unfortunately, the BBC Media Player does not show a time index as you move the cursor and you cannot manually set a ‘start from’ time on the Democracy Live video web page. It is particularly bad on low bandwidth internet connections.
To make things equally difficult Hansard on the Parliament site has its ‘Next Section’ link at the bottom of the page but does not have the same link at the top. If you set the browser page ‘Find’ function to search on a word which is found automatically indicated by the box background changing colour then if not found you must page down to the bottom LHS of the page to move on; designed by techies with little imagination or user empathy.
Lord Lowe (Part 1, 1:35:22) Indirect Elections, Electoral Colleges
Baroness D’Souza (Part 1, 42:43) Explains why XB peers will not be sat on the committee for the draft bill. Why fix what ain’t broke?
Lord Norton (Part 2, 2:02:30) What is a settled view?
Lord Gilbert (Part 3, 56:26) Tom-Toms and some Oiks.
Baroness Hooper (Part 3, 1:03) Indirect Elections, Electoral Colleges
Lord Selsdon (Part 3, 1:14:05) Elected Committee and Dignity
Lord Tyler (Part 3, 2:17:30) Manifesto commitments, role of revised chamber
Lord Lucas (Part 3, 2:31:15) Last to speak, Steele Bill, appointed peers chosen from a closed list elected from an open list. Train wreck.
Front benches closing remarks (Part 3, 2:36:58) White paper, ‘Break the Deadlock’. Medical definition of term ‘Grandfathering’. Use of Parliament Acts.
No mention anywhere of LIFO Peers, Last-In-First-Out?
Ref: Reforming the HoL; Breaking the Deadlock; Jul 05, 2007
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/119.pdf
Health Professions Order 2001: Part III: Article 13(2.a)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20020254.htm#13
Part 1: Lords Reform Debate, Jun 29, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8774000/8774158.stm
Part 2: Lords Reform Debate, Jun 29, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8774000/8774185.stm
Part 3: Lords Reform Debate, Jun 29, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8763000/8763218.stm
We have been bemused by the fact that this excellent debate seems to have received little or no press coverage, but have attempted to redress this balance by publishing a summary of the main arguments raised during the debate at http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/news/articles/33/