The seemingly endless flow of new peers (ALL of them no doubt very worthy and able to make a significant contribution) is worrying on at least one major count, namely the approach of an overall coalition Government majority.
The Lords Norton and Lucas have already blogged about this but it is worth more words. The main function of the House of Lords is to revise legislation and thereby hold the government of the day to account. This is achieved mainly by winning amendments to legislation. If the Government has a built in majority it will never lose its legislation. This is a significant constitutional matter.
It is reliably rumoured that the Government is planning to bring in yet more coalition peers come the Autumn. It already has a working majority of approximately 38 (the numbers change from day to day due to influx of new peers) and could have a majority nearer to 80 or more. This would place it in the same position as New Labour in the House of Commons in the last Parliament. That mattered – but marginally less – precisely because there was no overall majority in the Lords and the balance of power was usually held by the Liberal Democrats . In effect this meant that depending on who the LibDems voted with the Government either lost or won amendments but significantly did lose some crucial bits of legislation particularly those affecting civil liberties.
If the present recruitment to the House continues one could argue that there is little point to the second chamber unless its only task is to debate topical mattters? What really concerns me is that this constitutional issue is creeping towards us inch by inch and it appears there is nothing we can do.
Except, when it comes to revision of legistlation, the cat was let out of the bag in the wash up.
Namely, there was the sight of the Lords approving bills, and in particular a controversial bill without any oversight what so ever.
It’s the same with expenses. Why didn’t the lords do what they claim they are experts at, and make sure that the expenses were correct?
Instead what we have had is Lords in the dock, and the report into why made a state secret. The person responsible for expenses, performed the review with the approval of the Lords, and then made the report into his own handling of expenses secret.
I’ve repeatedly posed the question as to why this report is a secret and so far not one single Lord has had even the decency to comment in any way. That in itself is very telling. It’s Sir Humphrey’s way of dealing with the questions that you can’t answer without revealing the actions of Peers, and that they are wide spread.
As for your conclusions as to the way the Lords is going, its for the chop.
If you can’t manage public money without trousering it, if you can’t revise legislation when its before you, that leaves its other functions. A nice retirement home for failed politicians, and a nice club in Whitehall that the public pays you to use.
On civil liberties, you voted them away over the last 20 years. That’s your achivement
The Lords of the Blog thought that what they needed was a more-fully instructed Public about the essentials and uniquenesses of Upper House nobles and their work.
It is emirically obvious that such one-way Public ‘education’ has been little better than a well-meant one-way indoctrination, but of a pitifully tiny and un-organised number of ‘people’, some of whom may not even be British citizens and voters.
The question will remain, if only in one or two history-minded individuals, as to how far a really enabling information and education service could have been launched and grown throughout Britain not just in Wesminster, in time to win a critical-mass of mindskill-improvimg-citizens sufficient to swing the Media around onto The People’s basic Needs, Hows and Affordable-Costs side, and thus also achieve Petition power and, I do not hesitate to use the following terms escalatorily, peaceful-revolution, civil-disobedience and populational-boycott powers.
—————
I fear that your Parliamentary and Life future, as with that of not only Britain in general but of the USA and Europe,
is going to be one of increasing puppetry to a one-way top-down small, super-wealthy and powerful Oligarchy, dominantly Foreign.
Worlwide ‘finance’, ‘economics’, ‘politics’, ‘defence’, ‘governance’ and ‘primary medical care’ qua anti-pandemics and epidemics and other ‘disasters’. look increasingly likely to become conjunctory;
then goodbye civil-liberties,
hello military-junta…
———-
There never has been an adequate British Democracy. Nobody knows how or whether it could be achieved any more.
———-
The oldest generations may be lucky enough to live out their few remaining years in comparitively comfortable frugality.
We have reached no friendly Method III win-win-win Participatorily Cooperative Problem-Solving resort with middle-aged, young, nor our youngest generations.
Now there is no time available to institute and establish such resilience.
Britain, and the USA, daily grow more brittle and more lkely to break under accidental or deliberate-foreign or internal pressure.
In one sense. our foreign enemies need hardly lift a finger against us; this present coalition government, which you might have already noticed in more than one debate and rushed-legislation is referring to itself no longer as a Coalition but as the Conservative-Government, is going to break Britain into jagged fragments without any need for further foreign mole-ing, sabotage, take-over, or outright military-defeat.
I see no hope.
Nevertheless, please be assured Baroness D’Souza and others similarly trying to look Reality squarely in its increasingly ugly face, “work” will always prove more satisfactory and satisfying than “worry” !
——–
I shall simply sit reading-up on all those neglected resilient-advances that our ‘Leaders’ and ‘advocates’ have themselves been ignoring and been. however inadvertently and with good-intent, been denying to the People and the Peoples’ Children under their Governance.
———————
I have only one prayer left now:
“For these and all lifesupports, thank you”.
It is anybody’s guess what I may be holding in my hands, or surveying with my eyes or mind as, until the final Governance-Shroud is finally drawn tightly over my face, I daily and nightly mutter those few simple words of Grace.
=================
jsdm21557T20072010)
Speaking as a fan of the House of Lords, I think it ill behoves you to complain too much about this arrangement. It sounds like you are protesting too much.
The Lords is an anachronism and is not meant to work exactly like the ‘fair and democratic’ Commons and it does have anomalies like the hereditaries and the bishops.
So to complain too much about this new imbalance seems a tad pointless unless you are willing to vote for wholesale reform.
I can see why you are frustrated, and can see why you criticise this arrangement, but the House Of Lords has always had a number of well-known snags, but has kinda worked because/despite of them.
If you are really angry about this, then are you agitated enough to say ‘Well, let’s abolish the current set-up, forget about the status quo ante, and start again from scratch’..
Just like the Americans who are annoyed about BP but, er, not QUITE annoyed enough to stop driving, I think this protest will blow over in a month and be a damp squib.
But you could yet prove me wrong…
I very much agree, Baroness D’Souza. As Lord Lucas commented only a week ago during the Local Government Bill debate, if this flooding of the House goes ahead then the peers on the government side will have to (re)learn rebellion.
The creation of a real working majority in the House of Lords feels like a vandalism of the House, and that the government is happy to do this is worrying in and of itself. If the House of Lords is not assertive and confident, it will be too easily dismissed by the public when reform comes around. Yet, if it is, the government will feel the need to neuter it.
The more this coalition government is in office, the more strongly I feel the need for a more independent appointments system for the House. It’s truly tragic that I don’t see this happening any time soon, even with the new atmosphere for procedural reform which has swept the chamber.
I wonder, my lady, if you know when the next round of appointments from the Appointments Commission is due to occur? And I also wonder if they would be willing to appoint more cross-bench peers, what with the coalition’s plans.
This really does highlight one issue with the composition of the House of Lords, especially if, as I hope, Britain adopts PR.
The only case in which there is a government majority in the House of Lords is in the case of a rainbow/national coalitions. One solution is to introduce more crosss-benchers, or alternatively to find a way of encouraging Lords to be much more rebellious. I don’t see how it is possible to encourage Lords to rebel against their parties more, so I suspect the solution is cross-benchers.
I rather feel the coalition is being a little cowardly with their approach to Lords reform. If they came and said they wanted an elected House we could have a reasoned debate. As it is they’re packing it full of their supporters so as to make it impotent, at which point it loses it’s authority and purpose (in a way that the House of Commons doesn’t in the case of a government majority) and I, and many Lords supporters, would find ourselves in the regretable position of having to support significant reform.
I’ve said this to death, but here goes.
Lets undo the reforms of 1999, and lets allow the Lords some real Revising Power, including the Ability to refuse Legislation passed by the Commons.
This way the Lords can act as the US Senate, only Minus the unnecessary Political Wheening.
Lets also put limits on the Number of Peers a Political Party can introduce per Decade, and while we’re at it, lets let the Hereditary Peers back into the House.
The Lords of the Blog thought that what they needed was a more-fully instructed Public about the essentials and uniquenesses of Upper House nobles and their work.
It is empirically obvious that such one-way Public ‘education’ has been little better than a well-meant one-way indoctrination, but of a pitifully tiny and un-organisable oddity of ‘people’, some of whom may not even be British citizens and voters.
The question will remain, if only in one or two soberly-balanced unfinished- history-minded individuals, as to how far a really enabling information and education service could have been launched and grown throughout Britain, not just in Westminster and up amongst the Straight-A super-elite, in time to win a critical-mass of mindskill-improvimg-citizens sufficient to swing the Media around onto The People’s basic Needs, Hows and Affordable-Costs side, and thus also achieve Petitionand Demonstration power.
Surely there have long been sufficient millions, if not more than a billion, of sufficiently educated people around the World to be able to drive Peaceful-Revolution, even if having to resort to non-violent civil-disobedience and boycotting tactics ?
—————
I fear that the British Parliamentary Life future, as with the Future of not only Britain in general but of the USA and Europe,
is going to be one of increasing puppetry to a one-way top-down small, super-wealthy and subtly powerful Oligarchy, dominantly Foreign.
Worldwide ‘finance’, ‘economics’, ‘politics’,‘defence’, ‘governance’ and ‘primary medical care’ qua anti-pandemics and epidemics and other ‘disasters’. look increasingly likely to become conjunctory;
insidiously already, goodbye civil-liberties. Goodbye ‘human rights’;
hello. I deeply fear, Military-Junta…
———-
There never has been an adequate British Democracy.
Nobody knows how or whether such could ever have been achieved.
———-
The oldest generations may be lucky enough to live out their few remaining years in comparatively comfortable frugality.
We People and Parliament alike have failed to reach a friendly Method III in common; gone now any win-win-win Participatorily Cooperative Problem-Solving resort between the generations, and between The Parliament and The People.
Now there is no time available to institute and establish such resilience.
Britain, and the USA, under accidental or deliberate-foreign or internal pressure, daily grow more brittle and likely to break.
In one sense. our foreign enemies need hardly lift a finger against us;
this present coalition government, which you might have already noticed in more than one debate and rushed-legislation is referring to itself not as a Coalition but as the Conservative-Government, seems totally unaware it is bent upon breaking Britain into jagged fragments without any need for further foreign infiltration, sabotage, mole-planting, take-over, or outright military-defeat.
I see no hope.
————–
Nevertheless, those who have ears to hear could still be assured that little stints of rightful “work” will always prove more satisfactory and satisfying than tsunami-like waves of wrongful “worry” !
——–
‘Join’ me, in simply sitting and reading-up on all those neglected resilient-advances that our ‘Leaders’ and ‘advocates’ have themselves been ignoring and been. however inadvertently and with good-intent, been denying to the People, and to the Children, under their Governance.
———————
I have two prayers left now: the shorter one is of the so-called ‘arrow’ variety:
“For these and all lifesupports, thank you”.
It is anybody’s guess what I may be holding in my hands, or surveying with my eyes or mind, as I stumble onward daily and nightly trying to utter those seven simple words of Grace.
============
“ ‘Is there anybody there ?’ said the Traveller, Knocking on the moonlit door…
And a bird flew up out of the turret…
And he smote upon the door again a second time,
‘Is there any-body there ?’ he said.
But no one descended to the Traveller,
Where he stood perplexed and still.
But only a host of phantom listeners That dwelt in the lone house then Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight To that voice from the world of men…
For he suddenly smote on the door, even Louder, and lifted his head–
‘Tell them I came, and no one answered,
That I kept my word’ he said;
Never the least stir made the listeners, Though every word he spake Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house,
From the one man left awake.
Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup, and the sound of iron on stone.
And how the silence surged softly backward.
When the plunging hoofs were gone”.
=================
JSDM0755W21072010)
The possibility that the Lords becomes a political mirror of the Commons is one of the reasons why I am against the idea of an elected upper chamber.
A voter who likes Party X for the Commons is hardly going to vote for Party Y for the Lords.
The diversity of members and lack of need to pander to a fickle electorate is part of what makes it such a good revising chamber.
Let us not so too astonished at this most recent round of manipulation of a voting system by Government, it isn`t the first time it`s occured. It certainly won`t be the last especially if Nick Clegg`s Lib-Dems have their way.
Politics is a competitive sport and the teams do like to stack the odds in their favour, of course all the time shouting from the roofs “It`s the will of the people”, which I don`t think is true and how the h*ll would they know.
There was a time of course the House of Lords had the power, were on equal footing with the other place but that`s been allowed to slip away. The sure way of changing something is to become part of it and change it from the inside, this is what has happened. The Lords unfortunately sat back and let it happen.
Baroness D`Souza is correct there is nothing they can do, they failed to implement reform before now that could have stopped this occuring and many other things could have been put right also. The Lords have failed in their duty and responsibility, sat back thinking like Gods they were immortal whilst the political parties manipulated the system, the very root our Parliament, into something where they won each and every time.
The noble Baroness states there`s nothing they can do, is this a cry for help ? I doubt it but there`s nothing I, the man in street, can do anyway. All the main parties it seems would manipulate the Lords so they won, so there`s no choice there.
Is it a cry for sympathy, I doubt that too. There is nothing noble in that.
It is however, I feel, a cry for justice but too late. The Lords gave over their power to become the slaves of the Commons, stood by and did and nothing except theorise on possible reforms for generations. Dragged their feet for so long that the deliberate sabotage of the system was easy.
One has to ask why the appointments committee has no teeth, why this authority has been given no power to do it`s task in a just and fair manner ? Why it has allowed the bosses not only to join the union but become it ?
The House of Lords should be akin to a Jury, hearing evidence for and against and giving it`s wise verdict. The authority overseeing the Jury has not done it`s job. The Jury has been nobbled and the Law Lords bought.
It is a catastrophe for the Nation and the end of a system of politics but protest as I might, though I won`t be bringing my tent to the Square, there`s nothing I can do either.
Unjust, unfair, not in the best interests of the public or the Nation but not a rule broken. I didn`t make or allow the rules.
This is probably one for Lord Norton but I guess a lot depends on how often Tory and LibDem peers rebel against the whips in the lords.
I sympathize with Baroness D’Souza’s concerns. It was the threat of packing the Lords with government-supporting peers in 1911 that forced the House to give up a great deal of its power.
I think the Lords are an easy political target that has little relation to the work they do. Surveys continually show that the British public consider HoL reform to be a low priority, but it’s a nice campaign slogan to talk about “getting those undemocratic fat-cats out of the People’s business.” At the same time, the lack of popular concern over the issue means there is little opposition. It ignores the reality of the situation and is used to distract from more serious problems. Additionally, any government would love to quell opposition in the upper house as it makes their job easier (government tends to be easier when their is less opposition).
I am not sure what suggestions I could offer to suggest how the Lords could have reformed themselves to avoid having had it imposed upon them. Doing what is politically popular (or at least, unlikely to cause much popular opposition) is not the same thing as doing what is best. The Lords add diversity to British democracy by having legislation reviewed by a group of (generally) less politicized individuals, many of whom are experts in their fields and not constantly seeking political funds or votes. The Lords might not have offered alternatives to major reforms simply because such reforms were not needed. Claiming that the HoL is “anachronistic” is implying that it no longer has a use, which is clearly not the case. Even if this last wash-up was not perfectly conducted, I have to give the Lords some credit for how they handled having so many bills forced upon them at the last minute. If the Lords had been packed, then there would have been very little or no review of any of those bills, and they all would have been passed in the Commons’ form.
I also firmly reject the idea that if there are some issues/problems/anomalies with structure of the HoL, that the solution is to totally scrap the whole thing. I think everyone can agree that the HoL does a lot of good work, even if there is disagreement on some decisions and some of the weaker points of the constitutional arrangements. There is no reason to jeopardize unnecessarily this good work to try to fix these other problems with wholesale reform. Rather, one should be more precise and careful. A doctor wouldn’t cut off your leg because you sprained your ankle. A delicate tool is needed rather than a blunt instrument.
I suppose you could put down a private members bill restricting creations by year or proportion which would give you and others chance to debate the problem. I’m not sure what else you can do about it.
An old problem; The Peerages Bill 1719 [1] was:
“in truth, an audacious attempt to limit the prerogative of the crown, and discourage the granting of just rewards to merit, for the sake of perpetuating a close aristocratic body, – independent of the crown, and irresponsible to the people.” The bill having reached third reading was abandoned.
Mr Pitt on Jan 16, 1789 is attributed as saying:
“the exercise of the prerogative was required to reward merit, to recruit the peerage from the great landowners and other opulent classes, and to render the crown independent of factious combinations among the existing peers…to tie up the hands of the regent, was to perpetuate the power of the minister.”
Mr Pitt is clearly concerned that if the Royal Prerogative was to be constrained then the Monarchy would be unable to maintain a house [2] representative of society. The problem for the Monarchy constitutionally is that there are no defined limits to the size of the house therefore all it can do is rubber stamp appointments so long as the appointments make for diversity.
In an indirectly elected HoL peers would come and go pro rata based upon what had happened in a general election. This would guarantee a majority for the government.
One could argue that the Life Peerages Act 1958 is governance on the cheap and that Parliament might best invest itself of a statutory body similar to the US ‘Congressional Research Service’ to house its hundreds of expertise.
This would leave the balance of power at critical times in the hands of a fixed number of balanced apolitical people of noble cause honest intention, virtue and endeavour. The cynics would counter by saying that no such people exist?
Ref: [1] Erskine May: Chapter V; pp. 273-281
Increase of the Peerage
http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emay273.html
[2] Erskine May: Chapter V; pp. 281-290
Changes in the Character of the House
http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emay281.html
But look at what’s replaced that. For all the idea of independence, what we have is this.
1. Lords offering to take cash to change legistlation.
2. Lords in jail and still up for the vote.
3. Lords who think, because I’ve paid taxes, I’m entittled to get some of that tax money back in expenses. (from this blog)
4. Lords who think taking cash for changes isn’t an issue. They woudn’t have got away with it, being the quote from this blog.
5. Lords who haven’t a clue as what a mess the expenses are. Again from this blog. So much for supervising anything.
6. Patronage, and more patronage. The criteria is brown nosing the PM. Or handing over large sums of cash. Statistics again.
The lords are an irrelevance. The problem is they are a very expensive irrelevance.
Take your choice.
a) Employ lots of defunct politicans
b) Have some decent health care. Think what 600 million could buy over the next 5 years.
I hope Lord Lucas will forgive me but while researching the Erskine May post I noticed that he has a rather nice secret; he is a ladies man and in more ways than one.
He occupies a unique place in the history of the English nobility in that his letters patent have both a remainder ‘to heirs male’ and ‘heirs female’ through Mary Grey, Countess of Kent, suo jure 1st Baroness Lucas of Crudwell in the county of Wiltshire.
Baroness Lucas was one of many ladies to join the peerage down the centuries usually as a Life Peerage only her line was to be extant rather than extinct. I found this quite refreshing in a history dominated by men.
Not to encourage hope in Lord Norton that the house might remain appointed but there were male Life Peerages too, but very few of them. See Aneurin link.
One Baroness stands out heads above the rest in my view and she was suo jore Baroness Manny, Duchess of Norfolk who uniquely held the title of Lord Marshall thereafter a title held only by men. She had real power in medieval times and in a man’s world. Her life would not have been out of place in a ‘Mills & Boon’ novelette.
So the ladies of the house have a role model in the Duchess of Norfolk and who knows, perhaps a champion for women’s rights in Lord Lucas? And by the way ‘suo jure’ is Latin and means ‘in her own right’ the position held by every Baroness in the House today.
Ref: Limitations of the Remainder
http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/creation-of-peerages.aspx
Charles II: Baroness Lucas of Crudwell, 1663
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_created_for_women
Thanks go to Aneurin for his note on the British Peerage.
http://everything2.com/user/aneurin/writeups/Life+peer
Baroness Manny; Duchess of Norfolk (suo jore for life), 1397
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret,_Duchess_of_Norfolk
Senex. As I remember it it much more unusual than you suggest as the remainder is not ‘heirs female’ which would actually amount to the standard ‘heirs general’ remainder of all peerages by writ but in effect ‘heirs general without division’ meaning it cannot fall into abeyance. (The special remainder is much longer and more complicated than that indeed something of an interesting read)
Warning: some of the following may be found impossible or too difficult to be both faced-up-to and constructively engaged with.
(Kindly let my above 0755amW210710 re-submission stand; for there is much deeper trouble to be emphasised in Britain’s, and the Whole World’s, Strategic Civilisational Mapping).
==========================
Dictionary:
*** holistic-optimisation = Seven-Life-Domains Balancing:
I Physiologicals
II Emotionals
III Mind-Functionals
IV Environmentals:
1 Bio-
2 Built-
3 Habitat-infrastructure –
4 People- ( i Friendly, ii Neutral, iii Hostile).
5 Longterm Geophysical/Cosmos Lifesupports
V Spirituals:
1 Internally-Innate (Divinity-Direct- Relationship)
2 Externally-Imposed (Organisationally, Religiously Dogmatised & Imprinted)
VI Immediate-Subject-Sanctuary (for the individual-subject’s needs to be met without detriment: i.e. a temporary ‘adjournment’ of court, or ‘suspension-of-hearing’ for the subject’s immediately-pressing need(s) to be met).
VII Separation of Workplace Job and Career Skills and Exigencies from all of the Above Life-place Factors.
————–
** Life-efficient = in the 75% timeframe of the individual’s life, being minimally-drawing upon the Common Purse and minimally-destructive of the Common Lifesupports; as distinct from the 25% timeframe taken-up by the Workplace (‘Employer’).
————–
* “… a Blasphemy” = (As reasoned by Oliver Wendell Holmes).
=======================
THE CASE:
1. One human-being needs one human-living, sufficient to maintain him/her-self holisticly-optimised***.
Since Britain’s (and The World’s) best professional and governance brains have judged that minimum-sufficiency-income to be the perfect Index 1.0000 (i.e. 100% life-efficient**) currently at £200 per week, then one human-being drawing (being paid or given) twice that sufficient-living scores index-wise 0.5000 (i.e. only 50% life-efficient).
———–
2. “When we unskilfully break the body and shed the lifeblood of this Earth , it is a Blasphemy”*.
=============
“It is necessary to make things simple, but not too simple” (Albert Einstein).
The more human-livings being given to, or taken-by, one person from the Common Purse, the more the directly-proportional inefficiency, and the directly-proportional lifesupports-destructivity, of that person is. (That is regardless of the life-inefficiency and lifesupports-destructivities of those Governance-Workers who give or permit-to-be-taken from the Common Purse such multiple-livings amounts).
Therefore the higher up the Religion-‘Pay-Grades’ the pay-recipient is, the lower their personal-life-efficiency, the higher their lifesupports-destructivity, and the higher their level of Blasphemy.
(The above so far: Signed: John Sydney Denton Miles)
===================
The reader has by this point in this Case probably been able to ‘intuit’ the very seriously implicit Scopes dragged into surface-daylight by the simple ‘but not too simple’ fact-assembly, formal-argumentation, moral-reasoning, life-experience, and overall constructive-intention of the Above.
Therefore, and since at this midway point a challenging sub-conclusion could be addressed and answered, namely “How can any moral-business be justified when its Owners and serving-employees and beneficiaries are grossly overdrawing from the Common Purse, grossly over-destroying the Common Lifesupports and grossly Blaspheming (against the Very ’God’ they claim to Serve) ?
==================
That
“We should be really worried..”
becomes instantly very real;
but I suggest that now it should be seen as a gross-understatement, noble Lady.
================
(JohnSydneyDentonMiles0657Th22July2010).
The seemingly endless flow of new peers (ALL of them no doubt very worthy and able to make a significant contribution)
I’ll be in on Monday!!
As the Baroness wisely points out the second chamber has little value except to debate some fine points possibly missed by the other first place.
It is an encumbrance to the way of life of these islands, and an encumbrance to the law making procedures of them too.
Little as I like noble lord Norton’s ways of thinking, for example there must even so be a use to which his analytical skills may be put.
The answer is in a much less populated chamber of a hundred or so, with an electoral college of hereditary peers; if it can be an entirely elected chamber then may it be so.
I do not see any objection to a publicly elected President of the HofL at the same time.
Having a head of state AND an elected President is surely not a problem, in the modern world?
Status of those two offices in the HofL would be unchanged.
Our system of so called “democracy” is being changed, no not changed, manipulated to become five year dictatorships. It is a deliberate act by successive Governments to rule without proper scrutiny of their intended legislation.
In the Commons the Government hold sway by use of majority and the bullying of back benchers by whips. Committee`s state openly there that not enough time is given to scrutinise proposed bills. The only scrutiny or questioning on proposed legislation comes from the House of Lords which overtime has lost its power and independence through successive Governments use of promoting loyal party members to that House. The use of “The Usual Channels” to omit crossbenchers from a range of important issues and placements is a travesty, their independence is crucial to the work of the House, one might say these were the original intended occupants. Independence of party, though one may hold a view similar, is crucial to the democratic process and a necessity if Parliament is to be successful in its democratic processes.
For successive Governments to go on filling the House with its party “yes men” is criminal. Governments from time immemorial have tried to rid themselves of anything that dared to question their judgement, yet this is a vital part of our Parliaments process. It was designed this way as a failsafe where the ordinary people could go to their Lord and plead a case as an ordinary man, supplying evidence that proposed legislation was unfair. Politicians in the Commons have no time or at times backbone to stand up for the common man, they are career politicians and it is more vital to them to make their chosen path as smooth as possible.
Governments don`t want the House of Lords, it is an impediment to their dictatorial viewpoint, they see their way as the only way without question. They cannot remove the Lords so they seek to fill it, to sabotage it and make it unworkable, expensive, a hindrance in full public view. Governments do not want democracy, no matter what they may say, they do not want evidence bought before committee`s that may question their party line. They manipulate and set out to destroy everything that stands in their way, which dares to question the belief of the party leader.
Without the Lords there is no failsafe, the whole of this Nation could be governed, ruled by as few as a dozen individuals by use of party whips. It would appear as democratic as the Mugabe regime that is there apparently by consent of the people. The House of Lords is the most vital piece in the democratic jigsaw.
It is crucial that members of the House of Lords stay as impartial as is possible, that only knowledge and evidence is used by them to guide their decisions, that time for correct and proper scrutiny is allowed.
An elected Lords will not work as it was proposed it should, it will not allow the impartiality that comes from the freedom of not having to be accountable to the electorate every few years. It is being accountable that breeds the deceit and lies we hear from politicians so often when we near an election, they need our vote so tell us what we want to hear.
An elected Lords will only be an extension of the commons, elections are for politicians and celebrities who can manipulate the public, you will not get the truth because the truth is often damning.
Democracy needs, must have, a free House of Lords, free from the manipulation of Government. Whilst Governments can rule on its make-up, its procedures and hold sway in the House it is benign, impotent and not serving its intended purpose.
The Appointments Committee must have more power, it must have a free hand, the ability to limit numbers, retirement and other such major issues. The House of Lords must have free will, not be hindered by Government in its ruling of itself. If Government are controlling its make-up and impartiality then its freedom is lost and any hope of justice with upcoming legislation lost with it.
It is vital to our democracy that the House of Lords exist, that its members are free from the chains and whips of Government, that its expertise and wisdom is the best this Nation has to offer. I will put my faith in a free man of wisdom and impartiality, a peer whose judgement I respect. One who WILL say this is not right, this is not what is best for the people of this Nation even if he alone is singular in that action. I will not get that from Politicians whose intent is to further their career, who know if they disagree with you they will not be elected again.
Scrutiny with a view to being re-elected is not impartial. Scrutiny with a view to serving a party is immoral.
The Lords must be free from the restraints of Government, not threatened or manipulated by it. It must have the ability to scrutinise and amend without fear of repercussions. It must be a separate entity but within the confines of Parliament, its members chosen not by Party or Government, not by popularity but by wisdom and worth.
I am responding a little late for which apologies.
Lord Blagger – had it occurred to you that some reports remain secret because there are several court cases ongoing and all relevant material may be sub judice? Furthermore, there is now a ‘presumption of transparency’ which simply means that ALL material is available on both inter and intranet UNLESS there are good legal and other reasons (such as possible defamation) to withold parts of it.
We are according to you ‘for the chop’ – do you mean that there should be no revising chamber at all? ~And do you remember the Lords preventing 42 days pre-charge detention and forcing the House to sit for nearly 40 hours consecutively in order to insist the Control Orders were subject to a sunset clause?
JSDM – yes the Lords are largely unorganised which translates as having more independent and less party polical views. AS for public information look at the website and its links!
Bedd Gelert – the problem is that with a politically packed House votes may neither reflect the views of backbenchers or the public. As LEN says if the Lords are seen to be supine the more easily they can and will be manipulated by party politics.
Both LEN and djb13 suggest more crossbenchers. There is a problem here, we are often perceived as too numerous, too dilettante in that we do not have to defend policies but vote only when we wish to etc. This means that appointments are few and far between and undertaken with great circumspection.
Carl H – are you not being a little unfair?
The Lords have effectively blocked some ill though through reforms but are helpless against such an influx of new political peers – as FINNSIHCOWL point out. Nor do I think that you the public can do nothing, you have a voice and I think t here will be more and more opportunity for public debate on this constitutional issue. I look forward to hearing you!
Croft -there is a sensible Private Members Bill on Lords Reform – colloquially referred to as the STeel bill (nurtured by Lord Steel) but the Government will not allow it to go through.
Senex – interesting idea but I tend to feel that an opinion expressed by an expert of many decades standing is more persuasive than an opinion prepared by experts for politicians to deliver?
Finally, Gareth Howell, I could not agree more -w e need a substantially smaller second chamber and a group has been set up to consider retirement.
My Lady, are you thinking I`m being unfair in that I feel the House has dragged it`s heels on reform ?
Since reform has been on the agenda since 1911, 99 years and possibly before that in the “other place” how is that unfair. What term do you suggest for implenting reforms you all know have to come, limited membership, retirements etc.
I do not say the House has not worked at all, it obviously has against great opposion from the Commons. The Commons that has annulled it virtually through the same as what we see at present, the raising, honouring of it`s members to the Lords House causing all types of problems. Deliberate sabotage nothing less, a way to remove incumberants.
For 99 years, at least, things that were obviously wrong have been allowed to continue and I`m being unfair ??
I`m not against the House of Lords, I do not want an elected Lords or a senate and I wish for fine minds to remain. I am if you like giving some a verbal kick up the backside for everyones benefit and by God some need it. I know the Government stands between the House and reforms such as Lord Steels but you have some power, more than I.
As for hearing me, some here I dare say would like me to shutup but I won`t.
My Lady you can only help those who help themselves. Life could be made awfully difficult for the Commons should the Lords decide that reform is needed and now, the trouble being the saboteurs within, I feel you know who they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords
Lord Blagger – had it occurred to you that some reports remain secret because there are several court cases ongoing and all relevant material may be sub judice? Furthermore, there is now a ‘presumption of transparency’ which simply means that ALL material is available on both inter and intranet UNLESS there are good legal and other reasons (such as possible defamation) to withold parts of it.
=====================
So lets go into this in a bit of detail.
The report was not into the behaviour of the two lords that have been arrested. sub judice doesn’t apply.
The question of the clerk of parliaments arises. It’s his job to pay out the money. Should he have investigated his own handling of tax payers money? Should he not have recused himself?
Since the 13 lords who were being investigated, the CPS then say because the clerk has cleared then, the police had to drop the case. Why didn’t sub judice apply to his investigation during a police inquiry, but now you are saying it does apply the other way round.
Lets take what you say at face value. On conviction of the two, or acquital, will you table a motion to get the report released the public.
My understanding is that the grounds for withholding the report was parliamentary privilidge. What privilidge do peers need in order to fiddle expenses and keep it secret.
I have to say I am with Carl H (24 July) – all the way – why is there not more media if not public fuss about the rapid erosion of the power of the second chamber to hold the Government to account?
I estimate that the Opposition will not manage to defeat the Government on any significant amendment in the coming months (or years?), and this makes a mockery of the major purpose of the House of Lords.