21 Comments »

1. The House of Lords reform is completely puzzling to me. Firstly, why does anyone consider that an appointed chamber is a good idea? I’m genuinely baffled how anyone can even suggest it with a straight face – let alone propose a bill saying it.

   Secondly, why isn’t selection by a jury-like system discussed higher up in the debate? This would randomly select members of the lords in a way similar to the existing jury system. It would be totally representative (by job, by class, by gender, by race, by anything), and yet clearly disinctive from the elected commons.

   Anyone got any good links to pages about the state of Lords reform? It’s hard to keep up, it’s so mad.

   Comment by Francis Irving — 10 Mar 2004 on 2:25 am | Link

2. Nope; no reform = no pages!!!

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Mar 2004 on 11:56 am | Link

3. Why an appointed chamber? Well, firstly, we’ve got an elected chamber and we don’t need another one. With an elected chamber, there’s no guarantee that it will contain people with expertise in a particular aspect of policy, whereas an appointed chamber will. For instance, if there’s a debate on health in the House of Lords, it might be addressed by Lord Alderdice (consultant Psychiatrist), Lord Chan (Paediatrician and specialist in ethnic health), Lord Colwyn (Dentist), Baroness Cumberlege (Nurse), Baroness Emerton (Chief Nurse & St. John’s Ambulance), Baroness Gardner of Parkes (another Dentist), Lord McColl of Dulwich (Surgeon), Lord Rea (GP), Lord Turnberg (Physician), Lord Walton of Detchant (Neurologist), and Lord Winston (Fertility specialist).<P>
   The House of Lords is there to be a revising chamber. It needs the right expertise to do this revising. There is no way of guaranteeing it will have it unless it is appointed. It also has to be the secondary chamber to the elected chamber.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 10 Mar 2004 on 12:05 pm | Link

4. David– be a bit careful. These are not just "people with expertise in a particular aspect of policy". They are "people with expertise in a particular aspect of policy who happen to have been favoured by a particular government". This need not make for effective scrutiny.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 10 Mar 2004 on 12:13 pm | Link

5. No, Chris, they are not. Lord Chan was appointed by the HL Appointments Commission. Lord Rea is an excepted hereditary Peer. Some of the others came in on party ‘Working Peers’ lists (Lord Winston is a notable example, appointed by Labour during the Major government). I also think you’re forgetting that the Prime Minister has given up his right to nominate non-partisan peers.<P>
   I understood your point to be one in principle about an appointed chamber. It’s perfectly possible to have an appointed chamber where the appointees have not been "favoured by a particular government".

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 10 Mar 2004 on 12:48 pm | Link

6. If it’s "perfectly possible to have an appointed chamber where the appointees have not been "favoured by a particular government", why don’t we have one?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Mar 2004 on 12:54 pm | Link

7. Why don’t we have one? Because people are running up and down putting up silly and misleading objections to it and insisting that we need to have a second elected chamber, that’s why. If there was a consensus in favour of a reasonable appointed chamber then we would probably have one by now.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 10 Mar 2004 on 1:49 pm | Link

8. Isn’t that the point, there is no consensus that there should be a fully appointed Upper House, so why is the Government so keen to proceed to this?

   As if we didn’t know.

   Comment by Red Robbo — 10 Mar 2004 on 2:53 pm | Link

9. Granted, there are many wise and wonderful people in the Lords. On nursing, I’d take Baroness Cumberledge’s advice. Neurology? Lord Walton’s clearly the go-to guy. But what confuses me about this argument is that Lord Walton can still vote on – say – the age of consent for homosexual sex. He could be the most Neanderthal politician alive (I should say, I don’t know him or his opinions) – why should his expertise in neurology give him licence to rule the non-neurological aspects of my life?

   Comment by Marek Ostrowski — 11 Mar 2004 on 11:06 am | Link

10. Lord Walton is not the most neanderthal about gay sex, that’s the aptly named <A HREF=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980722/text/80722-19.htm#80722-19_spnew0>Lord Quirk</A> who has an obsession about it.<P>The point is, however, that the Lords is subservient to the Commons, and they can only ask the Commons to think again. The Lords rejected equalising the age of consent but it happened anyway.<P>It is not clear that a revised second chamber could be overruled like this. And is it safe to assume that a revised second chamber would be a great deal more progressive?

    Comment by David Boothroyd — 11 Mar 2004 on 2:11 pm | Link

11. Well, it’s possible that some advocates of Lords reform want a representative chamber, rather than a specifically progressive one.

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 11 Mar 2004 on 2:44 pm | Link

12. We’ve got a representative chamber. We don’t need another one.

    Comment by David Boothroyd — 11 Mar 2004 on 4:24 pm | Link

13. I’m assuming that you’re referring to the House of Commons (the European Parliament is probably more representative). I don’t agree that it is "representative", other than in the technical sense of being a chamber of representatives. The Commons has more men than women; proportionally vastly fewer non-white members and proportionally more Scots than the population at large; proportionally more Labour supporters and fewer Tories; and so forth. Now, you might argue that those who feel that we should have a representative chamber should focus their attentions on the Commons, not the Lords; but it’s not obvious that that would be politically the best strategy for them.

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 11 Mar 2004 on 4:45 pm | Link

14. All I’d like to know is how many consultants are involved in this and how much of taxpayers money are they being paid? All this means nothing to the average ‘Jo’, yet ‘Jo’s’ money is being spent.

    Comment by Max Richards — 11 Mar 2004 on 5:15 pm | Link

15. Lords Reform: A wholly elected second Chamber
    It should be clear that neither the present transitional arrangements, nor any of the current proposals for a reformed second chamber can be guaranteed free from the taint of patronage, and as such are no great improvement on the hereditary basis of the legislature. Only a wholly elected chamber can be compatible with democracy, but if it is to remain constitutionally subordinate to the Commons and function primarily as a revising chamber, it must be elected on an entirely different basis.
    The following is a radical proposal for such a fully elected second chamber, which, instead of being based on geographical constituencies, its constituencies would be self-defined Interest Communities, for want of a better term.
    Examples of such communities could include professional groups, medical, religious, legal, educational, civil service, trade union, public service users, and others. Interest communities represented in the second chamber would be self-defined national bodies with constitutions conforming to certain statutory requirements of permanence, transparency and probity, with elections at prescribed intervals to choose their representatives in the new chamber. These elections would be overseen by a special statutory body. Any parliamentary elector would be entitled to voting membership of one, or perhaps at most two, interest communities that he or she was eligible to join by the rules of those communities. To prevent electoral fraud or other irregularities, fully computerised electoral registers based on current parliamentary registers could be used.
    The representation of each interest community in the second chamber would depend solely on the size of its electoral membership, with an appropriate minimum, so that it might not be in its interest to be unduly exclusive.
    Among the advantages of such a second chamber would be

    1) That it would be wholly elective and independent of government patronage.
    2) That it would give democratic expression to vocational, professional, religious and other concerns not peculiar to electors\x92 home constituencies.
    3) That legislation before it would have the benefit of a wide range of expert scrutiny.
    4) That the influence of sectional interests on deliberations would be open, as would debates taking place within each interest community to determine its position on a given issue. Such debates might stimulate broader public debate.
    5) There would be no need for fixed-term or lifelong membership. Members could be subject to re-election on the same basis as members of parliament at statutory intervals appropriate to the second chamber, with allowance for by-elections when necessary. Since elections of members would not need to be simultaneous there could be overall continuity, with no need for general elections.
    6) The fact that representatives would not normally enter via party-political careers would help to guarantee a broader and more independent perspective appropriate to a revising chamber.

    There would be a strong case for excluding political parties as admissible interest communities. They are, in effect, the basic interest communities in the primary legislature, the Commons. This should not of course exclude open party-political support or activity within a particular interest community.
    While the branches of the legal profession could naturally form eligible interest communities, the judiciary, ex-officio, should not be eligible. What might effectively become a supreme court should not be part of a reformed legislature.
    The powers and responsibilities of such a second chamber might be much the same as those of the present one, but legitimised by democracy. Additionally it could act in an advisory capacity to assist the Commons at the latter\x92s request. A more active collaboration with the Commons than possible with the current system, possibly by means of joint committees, might also be desirable.
    Ralph Herdan, 4 Hillside View, New Mills, High Peak, Derbyshire SK22 3DF
    This proposal was submitted in due time to the original public consultation, and duly acknowledged.

    Comment by Ralph Herdan — 9 Oct 2004 on 6:45 pm | Link

16. Patronage? like being selected by a Political Party, give me the old system any day, warts and all.

    Comment by Colonel Mad — 10 Oct 2004 on 6:24 pm | Link

17. With the obsession about preserving the primacy of the commons, and the threat an elected second chamber makes to this; why has no-one considered reforming the commons?

    If the commons were to adopt proportional representation this would give them a clearly superior democratic mandate that would better withstand the challenge of a second elected chamber.

    The first past the post system could be passed on to the second chamber. Constituency politics would suit the House of Lords (with each constituency electing its Lord) while the lower house could truly represent the will of the electorate as a whole. As the lower house forms the executive: keeping constituency politics in the upper house would mean that every constituency would still have it’s representative in parliament, without the distraction of a cabinet portfolio, for instance.

    I would favour the elimination of constituencies for the House of Commons and the adoption of a party list system.

    Comment by Martyn York — 17 May 2005 on 12:57 am | Link

18. Is there any evidence at all that an elected chamber – Commons or Lords – is any better for the country than one selected by heredity or even a lottery?

    Do we believe that the actions of our MPs are motivated by genuine altruism and that they are performing to the best of their ability? After all, it takes a certain kind of person to run for election. Judging by the actions and performance of these individuals recently it would probably be better to find another means of selection.

    Random choice would be pretty OK, or possibly trial by ordeal.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 18 May 2005 on 3:08 pm | Link

19. To argue that we do not require a second elected chamber because we already have one misses the point entirely.

    1. The Commons has been reduced to a base camp soley for the purpose of selecting the government. So many troughs are up for grabs with cars, more pay, status, a heft up the greasy pole etc that the snouts of the majority party sell out to the dictats of the government and totally fail to do their jobs. It is no coincidence that those with cars and grace/favour houses etc are most sensitive to the charge. Look at the way some of their rich spouses greedily gobble the freebies and jump on the band waggon using their partner’s positions. The scummy ones and their spouses find the political perks irresistible; they need an independent and powerful second pair of eyes on them. The government payroll is too large.

    2. It’s absurd to expect a party member to challenge his party leaders over and over again while remaining in the party. The result is virtually no legistlative oversight at all. The party system is too strong.

    3. The majority party only obtained 22% of the adult electorate’s vote or 36% of the actual vote. The Commons cannot legitimately argue that it has the people’s support for its manifesto. The electoral system is totally unrepresentative.

    4. To claim that the Lords should bare its backside for a’manifesto’ pledge in these circumstances is risible. The Lords has every
    right to say that they are part of the legistlature and to block the government as and when they agree to do so. They are a legitimete body – and more so given that the present government has itself fixed their membership in the present form. They have legitimised it by removing the hereditary base to a degree which they are content. The Lords has more legitimacy in the current system than of old.

    5. More checks and balances on these people are required, not less. Look at Blunkett and his expenses claims for example or more seriously, at Blair’s ability to go to war on his own whim. What about the shameless security mandarins ready and willing to declare 45 minute warnings – from sources considered of value for 45 minutes – in order to please the boss – and, coincidentally, secure themselves better jobs at the cost of untold lives. The civil service has been wrecked by Thatcher and Blair, and lost its integrity and independence.

    6. The Press do a lousy job of scratching deeper than the surface. Editors’attention spans can probably be measured in milliseconds per dick length. The ‘star’ presenters are generally lazy, shallow, egotistical, brown-nosing crawlers parasitic upon the ‘big beasts’ they seek to interview and rarely with knowledge of the subject above and beyond articles in the previous day’s FT: look at my tie, listen to me drone on, aren’t I clever? Egos and media concentration is failing to challenge the government or hold it to account as a stop-gap to the failed legistlature.

    7.Public leaders who are not political but have credibility because of their status and integrity are being attacked and villified at every turn to weaken oppostion to the government. This is a grotesque abuse of power. Top Mandarins, Ambassadors, Judges, QC’s, Professors, Surgeons, Doctors, Senior police officers – anyone who dares challenge them from a position of strength is savaged. In some case the very independence of their professions is under attack. Even jurors – that’s us – are not to be trusted to decide on the evidence if a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt or not. Too much power in one unchecked area destabilises society.

    Boothroyd – think again.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 19 May 2005 on 10:20 am | Link

20. Well again, the elected representatives (of a minority of the voting public, one might add) do not show any great moral rectitude or, indeed, intellectual rigour.

    At least the Lords – unelected and now largely appointed – has shown some spirit and backbone in the last few months. Although one wonders whether this independence of thought will continue in the light of recent ‘appointments’.

    Even so, this would tend to support a membership of the second chamber selected by other means than election and, perhaps, appointment.

    Democracy inevitably requires strong oppositions. It’s clear that those making appointments to the Lords now are not interested in proper debate or examination of all sides of an argument. This continues to be the naked exercise of power without responsibility.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 20 May 2005 on 9:43 am | Link

21. It’s the age old turkey/Christmas problem. Unless a hung Parl occurs there will be no movement. So keen is Blair to resist opposition he’s just extended the MP’s holidays to keep then quiet. Notice how the MP’s resisted that slop of gravy. Next thing they know will be 3 line whips and time pressure to push all these bills through.

    The whole system is in desperate need of an overhaul. It will be interesting to see how low the turnout goes and how low their % of the electorate gets before they blush at claiming legitimacy. It’s a dangerous game with so many loonies around these days. Blair sees no problem forcing through controversial stuff with only 22% of the electorate’s approval.

    Democracy? This really is the Mother of all Parliaments!

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 20 May 2005 on 12:32 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.