Comments on: Lords reform

By: Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:10:35 +0000

John,
Here’s an idea for reform of the Lords, and reform of the Honours system - let’s face it, reform in one dictates reform in the other.
1. Sadly, there’s no going back to a primarily hereditary system.
2. In it’s place, there is no substitute for democracy - 100% elected is the only basis for legitimacy in the post-magical world.
3. The problem with 100% elected is that it invites in the very political parties and systems which currently are represented in the House of Commons. At best duplication; at worst corruption.
4. What should attract the contempt of right-thinking people is the fact that the “Honours system” appears to allow the purchase of political power. By so doing, it simutaneously devalues both the honour, and the political power.
5. A society should have some way in which it can convey a public honour. This need not necessarily give political power.
6. Solution. First, people who have offered distinguished service to the country, be it collecting for lifeboats, or managing the Treasury should be given public honours, which by themselves confer no political power. However, having been so honoured could be a requirement of those wishing to stand for election in the Upper House. Thus you get to keep the independent expertise and and apolitical social commitment regularly associated with the old House of Lords, whilst keeping party systems at bay. And you also have an honourable honours system.

What about it?

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:55:40 +0000

The major requirement for the Lords is that it is independent of the political parties; a fully elected chamber where the members are elected on party lists will not improve matters, that will just put even more power in the hand of the parties. The Lords as part of a democratic system need not be elected to be democratic, it depends what the intention for the second chamber is.

In my view we should only reform the lords as part of a general resettlement of our constitution, we would then know what we wanted the second chamber to do. It seems that in the present circumstances when we do not know what our relationship to the EU is going to be, whether the Scots or even the Welsh, are going to sue for independence, whether the regional assemblies and the RDA`s will be enhanced or disbanded, now is perhaps not the best time to embark on further reforms of the House of Lords.

Another important question is what powers the second chamber will have, if it is fully elected then it has as much democratic mandate as the Commons, so perhaps we should remove the parliament act.

By: billy

billy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:08:10 +0000

Kit Says:
Britain has managed without an elected Lords for quite a bit longer than the US has existed;)

Very true Kit and, may I add, fallen well behind in the world order. The unelected Lords represents the worst possible cronyism. Why are the upper classes so fearful of the democratic vote? Nothing to do with there loss of power and privilege, I suppose.

By: apl

apl — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:15:53 +0000

Ed Clarke: “The House of Lords however it turns out should have the power to say No to the executive.”

It did, however the spinless Tory leader of the Lords (Strathclyde) made a whopping and foolish consession to the ill thought out and darn right destructive Blair’reforms’, by allowing Blair to expel the hereditaries. And I recall he betrayed his own Party leader who at the time, if I remember correctly was Hague. Shameful!

By: Ed Clarke

Ed Clarke — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:42:18 +0000

The whole thing reflects the Labour attitude which is that the view of the majority should always carry. In their eyes an elected government should have limitless powers. The House of Lords however it turns out should have the power to say No to the executive.

By: apl

apl — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:07:00 +0000

Bring back the hereditaries. At least with them we won’t have peerages for cash.

You really have got to give it to Tony Blair, he has got himself into a corruption scandal of extra ordinary proportions. And his response is “look you can’t trust politicians not to be crooked with party financing, therefore the best alternative is to allow politicians to dip their hands directly into tax revenue.” I mean you have to hand it to the man for extraordinary brass neck.

By: SB

SB — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:09:35 +0000

My understanding of The House of Lords is that it is the protective arm around the Commons, guiding the laws the commons creates to ensure the wealth of the nation (both economic and social) is at the centre of decision-making. In the past when wealthy land owners and the church held large stakes in the country’s fortune, it was understandable that these groups had a large say in the laws created. Nowadays this is not so much an issue and so reducing the number of peerages is understandable. What is not, in my opinion, is electing the Lords. The Lords should be as apolitical as possible, made up of experts in law, science and business that have had distinguished careers in their fields. Such entry criteria would not only be difficult to cheat, but also such people will be able understand the vast array of issues the house deals with. A system of elected peers will introduce even more under-qualified and narrow-minded hacks into our political system and we have enough in the Commons already.

By: Tom Ainsworth

Tom Ainsworth — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:44:01 +0000

I should add that it’s not like the elected politicians are that popular, is it?

By: Kit

Kit — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:43:47 +0000

Re: billy

Britain has managed without an elected Lords for quite a bit longer than the US has existed;)

By: Tom Ainsworth

Tom Ainsworth — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:38:20 +0000

The general public may not care about this, but I am deeply disappointed that the Tories have not come out for what seems to me to be the best option but was not even discussed yesterday - bring back the hereditaries and get rid of everyone else. This would solve the problem of cronyism/people buying their way into the legislature; the Lords could amend legislation without excessive influence from the political parties; and their status as the second, revising chamber would be preserved by their lack of a democratic mandate. The supposed party of pragmatism seems willing to throw away a system that has worked for hundreds of years of our history without a fight. The argument that people will not accept this sort of inherited privilege nowadays does not stand up: as you say, most people just don’t care; and the Queen seems pretty popular.

By: billy

billy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:03:31 +0000

The fact that we still have a house with unelected members is symptomatic of the underlying unfairness endemic in British society.
If anything happens from this vote it will be but a small step toward having an upper house that reflects British society today.
The Americans seem to manage successfully with two elected houses.