The House of Lords Reform Bill was published yesterday (Wednesday). You can see a copy here. It differs in important respects from the Government’s draft Bill and the recommendations of the Joint Committee, not least in terms of the proposed electoral system (the semi-open regional list system).
The Bill received a critical response when the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, made a statement on it in the House. The Bill is coming in for sustained criticism, as is the Government’s costings, embodied in a document which factors in savings from the reduction in the number of MPs. I may post more in due course: I have just been drawing up a list of problems with the Bill and the Government’s justification for it. It is rather a long list.
However, the principal attention is focused on the House of Commons. The Bill is expected to be the subject of a two-day Second Reading debate on 10 and 11 July, with the important votes coming at the close of the debate on the 11th.
Imagine that between these brackets { } there is all sorts of colourful language not usually seen on this blog. A party list system is the lowest of the when it comes to elections. It panders to those with the brownest noses who’ve managed to get to the top of the list. At least they attempt to give priority to popular candidates, so that’s one improvement over a normal list system.
And that’s just to get started. I haven’t even looked at the rest, but I have low expectations.
I hope the briefs are prepared. We wouldn’t want the house to be caught with its trousers down especially with Mrs Speaker in the chair.
During the time of Oliver Cromwell everything that was, is put aside and newer ways of thinking are embraced. Women gain a fleeting equality that would elude them only a few years in the future.
For a short while members of the Commons are choosing directly who actually sits in the appointed Other House. They can never agree on a name so it is referred to as the ‘Other Place’.
The ‘Humble Petition and Advice’ amended, is the actual means that restores the Other House. Parliament is adjourned on May 26, 1657 and Cromwell hears the petition in the chamber of Kings, the ‘Painted Chamber’, and gives consent to the ‘bill’.
What would ultimately become starts as “The Humble Address and Remonstrance…” and is presented on Feb 23, 1656 by Sir Christofer Pack, the Lord Mayor of London. In delivering the remonstrance he says of it, “It was somewhat come to his Hand”. No copy of this remonstrance has survived and is missing from the Parliamentary record?
The Lord Mayor of London is well networked. He has the ear of the establishment and they are not happy. What is also apparent is that everybody including Cromwell is aware of what is to be presented because Sir Christofer Pack is a close ally of Cromwell. The outcome on June 26, 1657 is a foregone conclusion; the House of Peers would be restored.
As an aside and for those studying Middle Eastern issues he hears in committee the proposals of one Manasseh Ben-Israel, proposals that would ultimately allow the Jews back into England after their long exile.
Ref: Feb 23, 1656: The humble Address and Remonstrance of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, now assembled in the Parliament of this Commonwealth.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=24574
May 25, 1657: Humble Petition and Advice
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=56599
Jun 26, 1657: Additional Humble Petition and Advice
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=56616
May 26, 1657: Consent to Bills in the Painted Chamber
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=24670
Christopher Packe (Politician) Lord Mayor of London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Packe_%28politician%29
Interesting that there appears to be no provision in the Bill for renaming the House of Lords. Is this something they will try to put in later?
Lord Norton in his editorial links only to the bill; the explanatory notes issued by the Cabinet Office as Bill 52 – EN and detailed in the bill header are to be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0052/en/13052en.htm
The introduction defines its scope.
Can’t call it the house of Plebs, can we
No provision is made for renaming the house because writs of summons are still in use so the existing name stays? The bill has been expelled in a hurry from the bottom of Parliament.
Some early thoughts: peers are allowed to vote for an MP and an MP is allowed to vote for a peer at the same time: yet neither can hold office in both houses. Is this is a human rights issue?
If the Commons succeeds in forcing members to take what is described as pay it will legitimise the grand larceny and contempt of the constitution that allows its own members to receive a salary. The matter should be clarified by the courts but they won’t touch it with a barge pole because it would prospectively bring the bench into contempt of Parliament. Before the Law Lords were conned into leaving Parliament by the Trade Unions, serving judges could have considered the matter free of any prospective contempt?
Whilst the bill mentions members paying tax it avoids mention of national insurance. The house would find itself with members paying NI and others not paying NI because they have reached retirement age. The issue of who is the employer amounts to a pretence proscribed by the constitution. The courts for the same reasons above cannot deliver a judgement on this. And if the Noble Lady gives assent to this pretence she should consider the position of Charles III as head of state, that is, if he has one.
How are we The People ever going to be
both mind-functionally and factual-information-sharing-wise,
enabled to choose (Elect) the most
workplace ampersand Lifeplace sustainworthy, knowledgeable, skilled, and honest-to-the-People’s needs-&-affordable Hows, Scrutinisers, Advocates and Representatives
for our Upper House Democratic Real-Life Governance Tasks ?
Dear Lord Norton,
I trust you would do the needful so that the paragraph about the elected members of the house of lords be removed as this measure is a gateway for the reduction of the Lords model system and its numbers in the House of Lords whose members have been drastically decreased since the reforms act of 1999.
So as said this saying “United we stand and divided we fall”. I shall appreciate that all the lords should stand united and fight for this right of not having elected members of their body. This paragraph could be replaced for instance by these terms that I am suggesting you dear Lord.
“Being enacted that the members of parliament are chosen from the 699 constituencies”
“Being enacted that the number of hereditary peers have lost their right to sit and vote in the house of lords since the reforms acts of 1999”
“Being enacted that with this current bill draft only 30 members could be appointed”
“Be it enacted that members of the Lords are not politicians and they cannot be compared as being equally regarded as members of parliament”.
“Be it enacted that they have been traditionnally been appointed and their specificity is that they should stick to this monarchical tradition”
“Be it enacted that the past hereditary peers and some appointed life peers must for democratical reasons join the house of Lords, in respect to the 699 members of parliament of the House of the commons.”
I shall appreciate that the lords could make petitions to show their disapproval about this tricky paragraphase which could only be at their detriment.
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the QUEEN.
Nazma FOURRE
A party list system is the lowest of the when it comes to elections.
Did Dave H’s bracketed list go adrift? Lowest of the?
Perhaps the Libdems will get something out of this parliament after all,including their party’s demise, despite lord Norton’s agreement that they probably would not get a Lords reform act out of it.