Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

House of Lords reform?

12:59 / 18.12.01

I've been mulling over Labour's proposals of the Lords for a while now. Will making the second house elected add anything? It seems that they have been doing a good job recently, kicking Blunkett's stuff about and the like, so the question has to be asked: what's to be acheived by reform, other than to make it easier for the Government to put legislation through?

Ok, democracy is affected, but won't having elected peers merely lead to the Lords having to tow party lines (especially as a government selected select committee will nominate the candidates), and resort to the whip rule like the commons. One of the saving graces of the Lords, for me, is the fact that over one third of peers are cross benchers, freeing them to vote on conscience over party lines. Does democracy of some sort exist in the commons at the moment, when the governing party can steamroller legislation through as they please and have enough control of media and their party to put pressure on dissenters (see Paul Marsden episode). Shouldn't they get their own house in order first (pun intended).

Does anyone have any views or better ideas to revolutionise the Lords? Can it be done practically? Is there much point in using valuable resources to implement something that will add little to democracy?

13:15 / 18.12.01

Well, it all boils down to what the second chamber is for, doesn't it? At the moment it's only really effective at delaying bills rather than stopping them or forcing change into them before they become Acts; I doubt the Blunkett bill would have been changed solely on the basis of the Lords verdict on it.

My preference would be for a second chamber which had more powers to check legislation from the House of Commons - something which I feel is necessary, especially when the first-past-the-post system can give one party such a large majority in the Commons that there's no effective opposition there.

If that's what the answer is, the second chamber must not be filled with government placemen (which is pretty much what this ludicrous 'govt-selected-select-committee-selects-candidates' business will do). But also it must not be filled arbitrarily. And ideally it would operate, as you say, without the strict party divisions on the lower house.

The only answer is for members to be elected to the Lords by the public on a regular basis - for the sake of argument, once every ten years (or two parliaments) - that's the only way such a chamber can ever have any sort of legitimacy.

The question then is, who would stand for it? I hate the idea of 'people's peers' (ugh) - perhaps people from major public and business sectors, with a quota on each sector to stop the place getting over-run with corporate spokesmen...? Maybe on a regional rather than local basis - perhaps a county basis might work.

I can't see there being a huge electoral mandate for the representatives, but then there's hardly one of those for the Commomns at the moment.

13:19 / 18.12.01

I mean, it's pretty obvious what the government wants from the House of Lords, isn't it? I just wish there was a proper public forum to express constitutional concerns.

13:45 / 18.12.01

quote:
At the moment it's only really effective at delaying bills rather than stopping them or forcing change into them before they become Acts; I doubt the Blunkett bill would have been changed solely on the basis of the Lords verdict on it.

I agree, the blunkett bill won't change directly after the Lords kicked it out, but it is embarrassing and has bought media atention to the bill. In this respect, the Lords have fulfilled their remit as guardians of civil liberties.

quote: The question then is, who would stand for it? I hate the idea of 'people's peers' (ugh) - perhaps people from major public and business sectors, with a quota on each sector to stop the place getting over-run with corporate spokesmen...? Maybe on a regional rather than local basis - perhaps a county basis might work.

A regional basis seems a good idea, if a little costly. Perhaps akin to an upper local council chamber, with a handful going on to represent their borough at Westminster.

Is the cost benefit worth it (eg committees, white/green paper, quangos, ombudsmen/new regulatory bodies, blah, blah)?

It still doesn't get away from the parties getting their grubby fingers in though. As soon as you have elections, party candidates will be put forward who have the resources to out-campaign independants, which is defeating the purpose.

quote: I mean, it's pretty obvious what the government wants from the House of Lords, isn't it? I just wish there was a proper public forum to express constitutional concerns.

You're right: the government's aims in reforming it all is suspicious. Its a wrestling over of power rather than a lofty intention.

14:03 / 18.12.01

Well, we're going to have quangos whatever happens, I fear.

I don't think expense should be a factor (Millennium Dome, throwing money at railtrack, blah, blah) - and I'm not sure how relevant the cost benefit idea is when it comes to governmental institutions and representation (in theory at least).

The regional model you're putting forward sounds about right, if a little unwieldy (but then what isn't?) - though I *don't* think second chamber representatives should be drawn from active local council members (as they're already politically aligned with one party or another). I'd rather they came from industrial/service/public sectors, as I said.

What you say about party candidates usurping independents is right and obviously representatives would be heavily lobbied when they got to the Lords - but I still think it would be preferable to the govt's proposals.