There is nothing new under the sun, it is said. Yet, at regular intervals we get told that the current ideas for reform of the House of Lords are all too sudden, ill-digested and in need of copious further debate.
Trying to sort out my bookshelves at home, I came upon an interesting set of ideas published in 1963, The Liberal Challenge, by the Party’s then Leader, Jo Grimond.
I was intrigued to find that almost all the salient features of the present Government’s proposals, and indeed of Jack Straw’s White Paper for the last Labour Government, were succinctly set out in Mr Grimond’s analysis.
His core argument was that the new, reformed second chamber should be deliberately designed to be as different as possible from the House of Commons. He argued for large multi-member constituencies and a form of election that would prevent members from duplicating the work of MPs. He even argued for longer terms of office: “the Commons probably needs refreshment from the electorate every five years or so, but to have some extra continuity by a second chamber with a longer lifespan would be desirable.”
Jo Grimond subsequently joined the Lords himself but, as far as I know, he never wavered in his commitment to a more representative second House of Parliament.
I ruminate sadly that it has taken nearly fifty years for these radical views of a relative outsider to become the current Cabinet orthodoxy.
Your lordship,
From these writings, could the following be argued:
1. Another house of parliament could imply another layer of government (even though it would be different from the HoC, it could not be a deciding factor by itself. I would speculate that this would require changes to Common law). This could mean additional delays in passing/adjusting laws and policy. In addition, even if separate from the house of commons, these issues would still be scrutinised by the house of Lords. So even though more work is done, likely not more would be achieved? (i admit an assumption from my side).
2. If a sitting term is increased there is also a chance that managing an issue might take longer. There is a benefit that as elections are expensive’ that money is saved. However, if the wrong person is elected, then the damage of that choice will last longer and in the end cost more. so would it be essential to place an additional condition that a politician could be held for replacement, if conditions/promises are not met?
Listen to the hearty support that having a random selection of Lords gets here …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bm0pr/Mark_Thomas_The_Manifesto_Series_4_Episode_1/
The establishment of the supreme court under the Blair/Brown govt was one of its principal achievements, compared with that pokey little room at the end of the Lords corridor and the false assumption that all peers, accordingly, had some kind of lawful right over all other aspects of life, as well as mere legislative scrutiny.
Chucking out hanger on hereditary peers seemed like an achievement at the time but there quite a few Peer status seekers who are hoping that the old hereditary ways will be restored, so that they may acquire more and more landed estate, and climb the muck heap to Viscount and Earl in one easy lesson.
What is certain is that there will soon be
1000 peers again if not the 1200 that there were before most of the “Hereds” were outed.
In spite of the pressing invitation/nomination by Howe/Howell for me to join their ranks on the conservative side as a political peer, I shall not be doing that, nor joining the Labour side either, although I may rejoin the Labour party before long, and resign from this blog completely.
It is not really in keeping with the unicameral principles of the Labour left, even if people like Prescott ignore them for the sake of a good argument in the HofL.
If I did, I would be one of the next 400,from 826 to 1200, and where then?
===========================
A change might become necessary, rather than just a sufficient,reason for legislation with the Scottish independence vote in coming weeks(?), and it might not be contrary to the noble Lord Norton’s view of the world or mine, if it did, different as they are.
I have not seen a learned paper on the necessary, or even the obvious, changes to
UK Law, due to an “independent” Scotland, but I am sure there are some.
I am not Privy to the thoughts of the Welsh Assembly labour party opinions but I suspect they are fairly divided on any further devolution to “legislature” from “assembly”, which the Plaid Cymru most certainly are not.
I mention that since Regional government, which has been in abeyance/ stone dead since the Northern England NO referendum on regional assembly might still come about by default, and in rather a different way from the one envisaged, and involving the HofL as a unifying chamber.
Plus ca change pour le Senat
Great Britain is stagnant. It has no intention of making any effort at all to move out of the chaos it has created.
Could that be because those who are in positions of power thrive on the dissorderly mass and inactivity they promote? Could they be a self perpetuating agency?
“His core argument was that the new, reformed second chamber should be deliberately designed to be as different as possible from the House of Commons.”
Because the nature of establishment power is to be self-seeking, secretive and unaccountable an indirectly elected house would legitimately operate to inform openly whenever possible its interactions with the establishment. In return the establishment would have a public relations vehicle within the political process.
The establishment however would have to accept that it would be held accountable for the application of its civil liberties. In return the house would defend and afford dignity if there was a perception the establishment had abused its freedom.
Take for example the undignified way in which the Committee of Public Accounts dealt with a perceived omission by the Permanent Secretary for Tax in November 2011. The Permanent Secretary for Tax has previously attended a lunch with Goldman Sachs’s advisers. He is uncertain whether he published the minutes of the meeting.
Sir Gus O’Donnell: “The fundamental flaw with that argument is that, if you discovered that Dave was secretly having these lunches and had not told anybody, it is a fairly weird conspiracy when it is all published, and we took the initiative to publish all of these things. I publish all of my hospitality to a very low level—a much lower level, I might say, than a certain other group.”
Q720 Mr Bacon: “You mean MPs?”
Sir Gus O’Donnell: “Yes. It is 650, isn’t it?”
Q721 Mr Bacon: “Perhaps we should publish everything.”
Here is clear evidence that MPs are opaquely interacting with the establishment and serving its needs for secrecy because the Commons has no formal way of representing the establishment, it instead represents the people. Clearly, a conflict of interest exists here.
If an indirectly elected house is to persuade establishment power and money to serve the greater good, contrary to its nature, it should be a house that can legitimately hold that establishment to account and not a house that pursues it to the ends of the earth to satisfy supply side ambition.
Ref: HM Revenue & Customs 2010–11 Accounts: tax disputes
HC 1531: Committee of Public Accounts: Evidence: Ev 61 (p85)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1531/1531.pdf
Why is it we no longer breed thnking men of the calibre once the only way to leadership? What has happened to the English? Why have we become so downbeat in our aspirations for ourself?
has happened to the English?
They were never any good. You’ll see next week!
(Grimond)He argued for large multi-member constituencies
Each region ie Wales,Scotland,N Ireland,NW,NE and so on could form a multi member constituency, ATV+ !!
You number your preferences 1-100 or however many, and the lowest score to the limit of seats for that region say 20, takes his seat.
One region of UK (ie NI)is, for one day a year, not be part of the UK at all, and for one other day is not part of the islands of Ireland, for a day, according to the gifted Mitchell agreement.
Not only would a radical reform, of both Houses into impartial full-fitness of each member as an individual peoples’-advocate and of all members as group-able governance-workers, be “new under the sun”,
but more so would be a third, really “new”, kind of “Peoples’ House”.
——————
That there can be “something new under the Sun” would surely be both supported and strongly pro-tested, if only by some of the Lords Spiritual of the longstanding Second Chamber, House of Lords:
“New every morning is the Love
Our waking and uprising prove;
Through sleep and darkness safely brought
Restored to life and power and thought.
New mercies, each returning day,
Hover around us whilst we pray;
New perils past, new sins forgiven,
New thoughts of God, new hopes of Heaven.”
(… plus five further verses including
“New treasures still, of countless price(,)
God will provide for sacrifice.”*
And
“The trivial round, the common task (,)
Will furnish all we ought to ask(;):
Room to deny ourselves(,);
[and] a road
To bring us daily nearer God.”*
(* It is submitted that right punctuation, and rightness of both sense and meaning, are vital to this Text, especially with a term such as “sacrifice” wherein to avoid un-necessary damage and killing, the words given by Oliver Wendell Holmes seem to help:
“Each day in order to live we must ‘break the body’ and ‘shed the blood’ of The Earth;
When we do this skilfully it is a Sacrament;
But when clumsily it is a Blasphemy”. )