Quite the silliest idea yet for reforming the Lords was reported in the Times last week. It suggested that the peers with the lowest attendance records should be listed and voted out by other peers. The parallel with Big Brother is obvious, and at first I thought it was an April Fool, save that it is not April. It is true that the House is overcrowded, physically and organisationally, and that the numbers need to be reduced. At the same time 56 new peers were introduced in the last few weeks and there is talk of more to come. So how can one take seriously the pledge of all parties to move to an elected House, and their disapproval of nomination?
It also needs emphasizing that attendance in the chamber is not the complete picture of what a peer does or is expected to do. There are many committees, membership of which is demanding and time-consuming; there is correspondence to deal with (without a secretary of course); there are meetings and briefings and outreach work and studying new bills and so on. A record of attendance in the chamber tells one very little. And as far as voting each other out what could be further removed from the real consideration of the nature of the work of the House, and those who are best fitted to further it?
I think there should be a retirement age for peers (what should it be? noting that setting a retirement age in any job now appears to be disapproved of!) But the wisdom and experience of retired peers could be usefully harnessed by allowing them to participate in, or even organise, seminars and meetings on topics of interest, open to all peers, rather like the existing all party parliamentary specialist groups.
Baroness Deech,
Your suggestion regarding how to retain the wisdom and experience of arbitrarily retired peers has something of the 1968 White Paper about it (but, I would suggest, is a somewhat better proposition with limited rights out of the Chamber rather than a divsion within). Retirement ages are often arbitrary and there must be many examples of peers providing valuable contributions in their 70s and 80s (to some extent due to the nature of the House).
You say, “as far as voting each other out what could be further removed from the real consideration of the nature of the work of the House, and those who are best fitted to further it?”. Given that size is a constraint, how is some form of internal election so much removed from the nature of the House? If the House is a House of experts, combining experts in their field with some polictical appointees, surely it is still such a House whether the numbers are cut by solely looking at age (which can be unfair) or cut by looking at other factors (which can fairly or unfairly be judged by others who can vote for or, less palatably, against them)? Who better to know who are the more valuable members than the members themselves who will be very much aware that there is much more to being a member of the Lords than attendance in the chamber?
The articles in the Times do present a curious picture but are you against all such forms of internal election? (Including one which returns the House to a fixed size (rather than having a 10% reduction on an every increasing number as reported in the Times) and which reflects electoral support while retaing many of the benefits of the current system, such as that, if I may, published here: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2009/issue4/hand4.html#_Toc240953826 )
Simply, it is not the number of experts, sages, and life-experienced articulates that needs to be Cut; the very opposite, we need their numbers, and constitutional-organisation, to be increased and progressed.
The longterm strategic need is for much larger and modernised Governance Places, where pre-legislative democracy can flourish 24/7/52, and “feed” the Legislative Houses with every piece of evidence, knowledge, and know-how that they need, at the instant they need it.
Then and only then would it be both wise and practical to reduce the number of seated-peers in the House of Lords; which could also be made the reform-opportunity for strengthening that House rather than “brainwashing” it down to a mere shadow clone of the (very seriously backward and incompetent) House of Commons.
——–
(See previous submission for a “British Non-Legislative House of Knowledge and Life-Experience” under;
“Dominating Question time” JSDM 0749am on 09July10.
“Debating Lords reform” jsdm 0801am on 01July10.
“Improving legislation” JSDM 1246pm on 290610.
“Wot, no legislation” jsdm 0959am on 21June10. )
=============
(JSDM0125St07Aug10)
I would like to suggest a term of appointment with a reappointment dependent on your activity and your knowledge gained during your previous term, but that seems difficult to decide (even more so than for the existing commission).
For academics it’s easier to prove you are up to date than for, say, ex-diplomats, and while the problems of the house are many, until a form of compulsory retirement is organised, it will seem like an old boys club. Something needs to be done, but that something needs to be good enough to prevent the degradation of the chamber.
One idea might be to ape the legal profession and divide the peers into those who can debate in the Chamber and those who can’t.
Some peers would be the equivalent of solicitors, and who prepare briefs and arguments and then hand over to the “barristers” to present their collective argument in the Chamber.
The best researchers will have more time to research, and the best speakers will get more time to present their arguments.
It is not just a question of numbers, successive Governments have manipulated the membership so it also becomes a question of parties. This should never have been allowed, it has and we have now reached impasse. The commons of course know this because this was entirely the plan.
The hypocritical way Governments raise members to the House whilst also stating it`s too big, too expensive, unworkable is laughable. The House itself has no real power left and there lays it`s demise. Without being able to alter it`s own fabric, it`s rules etc., it is floundering upon the rocks and the shark is waiting not feet away.
I would like to see a way through but cannot, the system of Parliament I feel will change quite soon and not for the better.
With more members of The Lords than of The Commons perhaps swapping names might be pertinent.
I feel the writing is on the wall, designed, developed and written by the “Other place”. Perhaps this was the design flaw in the system, the abilty of the Lower House to steadily erode power and manipulate membership to the Upper House. The Lords has become just a bastardised version of how it was conceived. It no longer represents what it was originally intended and although that is good in some ways it has become the toy of party politics.
I should like to see the Appointments Committee given more power, the power to hire, fire and retire. It would have to be totally independent and set a ruling on numbers. I should like to see the Government not be able to automatically raise it`s members.
What we have at present can no longer be seen to be seperation of powers and herein lies the problem. The House of Lords cannot set it`s own rules or control it`s membership therefore it is not seperate to the other place.
An elected House only favours politicians and party politics, becoming merely an extension of the Commons. Fair judgement by such a House would not be forthcoming.
If the House as it is at present is unable to have control of it`s own destiny it is doomed. At present the strings are pulled from elsewhere. The Government are unlikely to grant the House the amount of independence it needs to do it`s work effectively which is why I say we have reached impasse.
Has any Government the right to tear down the system and create a new, untried system ? Certainly not without the people having a say. Are the people educated enough in political systems to know what they may vote on ? I do not think so.
You the Lords no longer have the power to dictate your own future. I will not be given the choice of something fair that should be. Democracy is floated as the power by the other place but leading a lynch mob doesn`t make it just or fair.
The House of Lords must control it`s own business, membership etc. If Government does not grant the House this then clearly it is manipulative in it`s wishes and should be stopped. The only reason Government should carry on the way it is, is that it does not want clear, concise, impartial, expert scrutiny of it`s proposed bills. This I call corrupt.
Baroness Deech, I don’t think the media reports were very accurate but there are some interesting ideas around which try to avoid the problem of using age or other arbritrary criteria to reduce numbers in the House. In ordinary business life or a university or the NHS one would offer a voluntary redundancy scheme with the offer of a financial inducement to go grounded in a formula related to length and level of service. Such commonsense approaches are not acceptable in political life…no one’s got the bottle to suggest it as far as I can see (the quality of bottle is exceeding strained in politics).
You have to remember the Hereditaries were removed by asking the Hereditaries themselves to vote for the 90 who were to remain, with the consequence that those who stayed on the whole were the ones with a demonstrable interest in doing the job. Many needless to say did not want to stand for election, recognising that their record wouldn’t endear them to the electorate of colleagues. Might it not be one way of encouraging retirements and getting a committed house to use a similar mechanism within political groups and crossbenchers to reduce numbers? Not my idea but when one looks closely at the alternatives they aren’t very attractive either. And it would be ‘peer review’ of the kind you and I are very used to in academic life. Of course one wouldn’t vote on appearances in the Chamber, nor voting record; especially in the cross-benchers people are rightly valued for a range of very different contributions, but hey, I’ve got a little list of ‘invisibles’ who I don’t think I’d be voting for…
You are right, Baroness Murphy, about redundancy payments being irrelevant, given that peers are either not doing it for the money, or that the expenses are so small as not to be an inducement. I like your idea of voting people in, rather than out. But I feel a little uncomfortable about the resulting need to impress one’s peers, or not upset them with one’s views, when perhaps the better test would be whether those views and votes are of value to the nation as a whole. There are some people in the peers whose views (e.g. on the EU) are regularly jeered at, but I think they need to be expressed. And there are no doubt more examples. But the principle of choosing by secret ballot from amongst people who are definitely well qualified in one way or another is a very interesting one. There isn’t that much difference, but somehow the idea of voting in rather than voting out has a certain appeal.
Why are you expecting any redundancy payments?
On one hand, you’re not in it for the money.
On the other hand, you are in it for the money.
It’s a job, so we expect a pay off. Or its not a job when you want to make another point.
Schrodinger’s cat again. Are the expenses fraud unless you open the box?
Are you paid or not paid?
I’m all in favour of some statistics on the Lords. People would be quite shocked at attendence versus utterance.
Why pay someone if 20% of their output for 140 days attendance is asking about the post room?
Lord Blagger
Huurah to baronnessmurphy! Put this forward as a stand-alone bill, please. A 50% reduction in life peers would be a real boost to the house.
I personally am all reformed out. I dislike any and all proposed reforms, and think we should reinstate the Hereditary Peers. Reforms are really just an attempt to force the Lords to be Democratic to fulfil some nonsense modern ideal that Democracy is better, which also happens o make Politicians happy as it gives them ore power. As Peoples Servants of course!
As to the Lords, why not allow a Lord to Retire at age 66, but make sure its not compulsory. Also, allow hem to return from retirement by written request, either full time or part time, pr perhaps on a Limited Basis of a single issue they are expert in.
A Retired Lord would not be expected to turn up at the House, but may be interested in a topic, or else be called upon because of specific qualifications, and thus brought out of retirement to deal with that issue.
Allow them to continue to use the Lords Library, as well.
Otherwise, lets not Reform the Lords. I know that it seems inevitable and its all the buzz round about but its all dreadfully useless and will lead to nothing but further decay.
Zarove,
You’re not expressing what you want to achieve, just some means of achieving an unspecfied goal.
It’s the same with PR. In reality people aren’t interested in PR. They are interested in getting their interests expressed by politicians, whatever the means that this is achieved.
So what do you really want?
The comment made by the Times is not entirely without merit because Magna Carta under Articles 52-61 prescribes 25 barons as the means of deciding the affairs of the nobility. Also, the principle of elections within the fourth estate of governance, the clergy, is enshrined under article 1 which states:
“…did grant the freedom of elections…This freedom we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever.”
No doubt this reinforced a future Plantagenet view that both houses of Parliament should attempt to emulate God’s emissaries on earth by being elected.
The house’s right to a say in the supply side is generally established within Magna Carta because of capricious taxation and levies by the Crown. Because the house can only comment on the supply side Parliament cannot offer the public constitutional protection on taxation, its excesses or abuses.
The spirit of the constitution is therefore broken and the people are trapped without constitutional representation on taxation. In the US income taxes were not introduced until 1913 so its constitutional architects had no need to consider or offer protections.
It’s worth reading through the ‘MagnaCarterPlus’ link in its entirety to reflect upon how it was then and how it is now.
Ref: Judgement of Peers; Articles 52 through 61
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
However in favour of Big Brother, at least the public gets to decide.
When it comes to the Lords, we are denied that.
We’re also denied the knowledge of what the Lords have been up to when it comes to expenses and our money.
Still no news from any Lord as to Pownall’s report and when we get to see it.
Perhaps it’s because he is responsible for dishing out the cash that he signed a paper making it a state secret. I’ve been pushed to come up with any other reason for the cover up.
Lord Blagger, I’ve been very clear on what I want.
I want a Monarch who Rules, not merely Reigns. I want a Stronger House of Lords who can, as the US Senate does, reject Legislation. I want a House of Lords which allows back its Hereditary peers and doesn’t bog itself down with Political Appointments.
I want a Society that remembers that it is based on Christanity, and for the Media, School, and Government to stop operatign on the American ideal of Zeperation of Church and State, especially since those who claim Secularism is the only way we can be Free manage to forget their own beelifs are a religion conveneintly, and then try to force everyone into complaince withthe Valkues and beleifs of Secularism as they have defined it. I want universal freedom of Religion, which must by definition include Freedom of Concience. I don;t want Freeodm fo Religion to mean one can believe in it at home or in Church but not in Public were one has to be effectively a Humanist. I would allow Muslims to live as Muslims and Jews to live as Jews and Humanists to live as Humanists and Wiccans to live as Wiccans. And no more firing people for daring to Mention God as in the case of Duke
We should allow of course Limits, but those limits should be based on Reason, not Humanist values and Ethics which we simply call reason. I can understand say, not allowing a woman to cover her Face in Public as we need a method of Identification in case something goes awry, or to prevent Fraud, but I don’t see any reason at all to say to a woman she can’t say “God Bless You” to another, or why Atheists have to have such a fit over it in the first place.
If you’re to remove a right, it should be for a real reason, not just to conform to the notion of a Secular Democracy.
On that note, we should also drop the nanny State, as its not really the States Business to make sure everyone thinks and acts the proper way. We should also drop the SORS and the Sexual Education many parents complain about, and stop encouraging Teen sex.
I want the Government to allow people the rights, unequivocal rights, over their own property to set their own Rules.
Basically, I want Britain to be Britain again, not try to be “New Britain” which lead to the Phrase “Broken Britain”.
A Tolerant Christian Monarchy, which allows unfettered From of Religion which was hard won, and allows people to be free and secure in their own Property and Possessions.
One that also Keeps her Traditions in tact rather than change them in Favour of being Modern.
1. You can’t have freedom of religion when the state has to operate to one religion’s standards. The state should get out of religion and vice versa. There is a lot to be said for the American system.
ie. You are free to practice whatever religion you want. I’m free to do likewise or to even not have any religion at all. ie. The libertarian state gives you your freedom and me mine.
If you want the religious version of it, do unto others what will be done unto you. It doesn’t mean imposing your world view on me, it means I can’t impose my world view on you and vice versa. A subtle difference missing from most people’s views.
I want a Monarch who Rules, not merely Reigns. I want a Stronger House of Lords who can, as the US Senate does, reject Legislation. I want a House of Lords which allows back its Hereditary peers and doesn’t bog itself down with Political Appointments.
That’s all a what not a why. It’s a how you want to achieve some aim and not what you want to have achieved. From the rest of your post, I think you want what I want, an incorruptable control over MPs and what they do.
The Lords can’t do this. They are even more corrupt than MPs. Witness the secret report in to the frauds by Lords. Secret because the truth would bring them into the contempt of the public.
That’s why I propose the idea of getting rid of the Lords and replacing it with referenda by proxy. You can’t corrupt the whole electorate where as you can certainly corrupt enough Lords to get legislation changed. It also gives you an equal say.
On that note, we should also drop the nanny State, as its not really the States Business to make sure everyone thinks and acts the proper way. We should also drop the SORS and the Sexual Education many parents complain about, and stop encouraging Teen sex.
The problem is that lots of people want this. Libertarianism means they can abdicate to any organisation. However, they will find that other people don’t want to pay for it. They have to organise themselves.
ie. Referenda by proxy. Let the state ask the electorate, do you want to pay the taxes necessary to support you wants. The electorate will say no. The state shrinks to the level that the electorate wants.
None of this needs lords or a monarchy. Let the public make a decision for once.
As I write this I’m sitting in Switzerland. It has a similar system (more expensive as its individual votes for all), and its very prosperous. Something is being done right. It’s impossible to find anything like Liverpool in Switzerland. Nothing like the sink estates in London. 60 years after Ww2 its impossible to blame that. It’s down to that the electorate controls the politicians and not the other way round.
ie. The Lords have completely failed. They haven’t kept any check on the commons and lead to a situation where the UK has a debt of 5-6 trillion.
It suggested that the peers with the lowest attendance records should be listed and voted out by other peers.
================
Why is your attendance record at the Lords a state secret?
lets cover thee points.
1. You can’t have freedom of religion when the state has to operate to one religion’s standards. The state should get out of religion and vice versa. There is a lot to be said for the American system.
You do realise that in America they sue over absolutely ridiculosu things in order to maintain a Seperation of Church and Statem that in the end enforces a Secular beleif system onto the whole populace rather they are willign or not, right? I mean, do Nativity Scenes on Courrthouses at Christmas really have to be seen as a massive Violation of peopeks rights?
I also reject the fundamential, yet comon, reasonign that you can have a State that is Religiously neutral. Invariabley the Secular State will have to codify a phiosophical outlook on the nature of existance, which will inevitabley lead to that Philosophy becoming a Religion in its own right. Religion is not the same hting as Theism, its not alll about beleif in God, or supernatural powers. Religion is about the Fundamental Queasrions about our existance, and if anythign has been made readily apparenlty by Modern Secularistss its that they too have doctrines and dogmas they use to uneratsnd the world, and moral and ethical beleifs stemmign form them. Why should they dominate our CUlture, and in what way are we free if thy do?
I reject the notion that Freedom of Religion requires a Secular State as well, because in our “Modern Secular Democracy” that is Britain we dont have Freeodm of religion even to so much as mention God on Public Porperty withotu being fearful of beifgn fired. There are cases of this you know. I’m sorry but thats not Freedom of Religion thats Rampent Secularism.
I think havign a Religion established is a better safeguard, provided that this established Religion recognises evetryone lses rights, which the Church of England does.
ie. You are free to practice whatever religion you want. I’m free to do likewise or to even not have any religion at all. ie. The libertarian state gives you your freedom and me mine.
There is no such thing as a person without a Religion. Even Anti-Religiosu Zealots like Christpher Hitchens and Richard Dawkisn in the end are just pushign on you a religion in and f themselves, complete with symbols to rally behind, like the Scarlet A. Religion is nothign more than a collection of beleifs that form a Franework which tells us about hte nature of our existance, a sort of intellectual modle we use to interpret our world. You really cant have a Government that doesn’t have a Religion, just as you can’t have an individual that has no Religion.
I’d also like to remidn you that having a State Churhc hasn’t really hindered most nations from allowing peopel to practice any Religion they like. You act as if havign an established Churhc means everyone is compelled ot be a part of that Churhc, tu ast I checked nto all Scots are PResbyterians, and not all English are Anglican.
If you want the religious version of it, do unto others what will be done unto you. It doesn’t mean imposing your world view on me, it means I can’t impose my world view on you and vice versa. A subtle difference missing from most people’s views.
On this I agree. However, the Secular TStae tends to impose its “Nonreligion” on me all the itme int he name of Reaosn, Social cohesion, or whatever other excuse it sdigs up to basiclaly force me into the Hmanist posiiton in my Dialy life.
So I dont see the ‘Secular State” as particuallry Liberty endusing, nor even as Religion Free.
I want a Monarch who Rules, not merely Reigns. I want a Stronger House of Lords who can, as the US Senate does, reject Legislation. I want a House of Lords which allows back its Hereditary peers and doesn’t bog itself down with Political Appointments.
That’s all a what not a why. It’s a how you want to achieve some aim and not what you want to have achieved. From the rest of your post, I think you want what I want, an incorruptable control over MPs and what they do.
The Lords can’t do this. They are even more corrupt than MPs. Witness the secret report in to the frauds by Lords. Secret because the truth would bring them into the contempt of the public.
That’s why I propose the idea of getting rid of the Lords and replacing it with referenda by proxy. You can’t corrupt the whole electorate where as you can certainly corrupt enough Lords to get legislation changed. It also gives you an equal say.
You can corrupt the whole electorate htough. The populaiton is not always right, and wisdom is seldom foudn int he Majority. It is easy to stir mobs into a Frnezy usign impasisoned speeches, and easy to draw out the worst in ndividuals by notign that “Everyone else is doign it”.
I do not beleive in Deocracy, for the COmmon man, in all hensty, doesnt sit abotu studyign the topics that effects him, and tends to vote base dupon imediate graitfication and ill inormed half truths as much as on any amount of Reaosn, in fact moreso. Society itself has seen times or Moral good and ill, and in the times hwen Immorality pevail, we shoudle xpect an evil and corrupted Populace to vote in an evil and immoral way, not in a just and moral one.
The difference beign that an evil King is still better than an Evil Populace, for the populac emay have numbers ot bakc their claims, but sledom tdo they have any sence of scope or think thoghh long term Ramifications. A king, whise task sets before him, has usually been much bette rinformed thanthe ocmmon man even in todays informaiton age,and usually much better traien din makign prudent Desisions. This is why even the most indolent of Kings tend to reign in a manner that rpoeserves the Kingdom, eause it is for their own bemeift logn term, not shot term Passions, that a King tends to think in terms of.
Not alwyas I grant you, bt much more frequenlty than the general Populace.
Democracy is simply not a good form fo Government.
On that note, we should also drop the nanny State, as its not really the States Business to make sure everyone thinks and acts the proper way. We should also drop the SORS and the Sexual Education many parents complain about, and stop encouraging Teen sex.
The problem is that lots of people want this. Libertarianism means they can abdicate to any organisation. However, they will find that other people don’t want to pay for it. They have to organise themselves.
Basiclaly yes.
ie. Referenda by proxy. Let the state ask the electorate, do you want to pay the taxes necessary to support you wants. The electorate will say no. The state shrinks to the level that the electorate wants.
There is a Fmaous QUote attributed to loads of people, but while I dont know who said it first, it gos somethign liek this. Denmocrayc will only work until the Peopel figutre out they can vote themselves FUnds fromt he Treasury.
I dont think endless Referenda is a good idea.
I do not trust the General Will, for it is not really there, its a mass of conflictign passions, that wodl descentd to Mob rule.
None of this needs lords or a monarchy. Let the public make a decision for once.
Presumign the Public is wise, and actulaly has a consistant will rahter than beign a colelciton of competing groups who woudl endlessly be at each others throats.
As I write this I’m sitting in Switzerland. It has a similar system (more expensive as its individual votes for all), and its very prosperous. Something is being done right. It’s impossible to find anything like Liverpool in Switzerland. Nothing like the sink estates in London. 60 years after Ww2 its impossible to blame that. It’s down to that the electorate controls the politicians and not the other way round.
But keep in midn I’d have a greatly reduced role for Politicians. If I coudl work my will the Queen and Lords, the Hereditary oens, the Bishops, and a few appointees who, unlike today, are apppinted for actual accomplishments, not because htey payed a lot of money to support htis or that Political Party, woudl descide. Britain didn’t have those problems before htis push toward Deocracy either, and hwile Britain has never been Perfect, nor is Switzerland perfect now.
ie. The Lords have completely failed. They haven’t kept any check on the commons and lead to a situation where the UK has a debt of 5-6 trillion.
How can the Lords keep a chekc on the COmmons hwen the COmmosn is the Superior House, and the Lords can’t deny the Legislation passe dby the Commons? Lets not forget that the Rulign Party in the Commons has the say in whos eint he Lords at the time, and appoints its own membrs to stuff the Hosue ot make sure things go in their Favour. THis is why I think Political Appointments must stop, and we must restore the Hereditary Peers, to be rid of this Political nonsence. I dotn think electign a Senate OR abolishignt he Hosue is a good solution. I rathe rhtink givign the Houe of Lords real legislative Power, to block the Commons, knockign he COmmosn down to size a bit, and goign back to Tradition is much better.
I think he House of Commons has to much Power. I distrust Politicians.
But I think Highy o the Monarhcy, both Queen ELizabeht and CHarles, and think that they woudl be ebtter if they had more ability to speak out.
Keep in mind I am writing this from Tennessee, in America. I do not think I’ll be won over by the American System. WHile Ive never been to Switzerland, Im sure I can find Fault there too.