Betty Bothroyd is furious. So furious that this morning, on Today, she could hardly speak coherently at one point. Spitting feathers, she was.
She is livid about the “reckless” plans to make the House of Lords mainly elected. She spoke of her outrage at the idea that “millions of people” will be able to vote for House of Lords members, giving them some sort of democratic authenticity. This will create “chaos” she said.
Betty Boothroyd last faced a competitive election in 1992.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
43 Comments
Heard her. She really doesn’t like the idea of this democracy thing does she?
Representatives elected for fifteen years at a stretch? Representatives elected without using the voting system that virtually the whole country decided in a referendum was appropriate for electing parliamentary representatives? What kind of democracy is that? Betty has every right to be furious. The only truly democratic approach would be to put this entirely undemocratic bill to a referendum of the British people.
Mack,its the kind of democracy when you vote. Very unlike the democracy for the Lords we have now which is where you don’t vote. That “non-voting” democracy is recognised to be pretty bad democracy as the actual voting part is pretty important. Maybe try googling “democracy” to understand the complicated process a little more.
In what sense did Betty “bounce” on to the BBC? Strange choice of word.
@Chris and @Andreas
If the HoL had any sort of primacy over the commons, you would be right, but it doesn’t. It’s not anti-democratic to consider the institution of a second elected chamber to be pointless.
Those of us that believe in a democratic HOL need to be careful to play the ball and not the player. It will be popular Lords like Boothroyd and Steel who will be trotted out. Let’s agree to a referendum and get Millibland onside and the programme vote won. Then the leadership of all three parties can campaign for a yes vote and marginalise those against.
So let’s not talk about her bouncing in or out the debate, but about her substantive points and how they can easily be answered….
I heard her as I was driving to work; she raised some points, particularly about the relative power of an elected Lords (Senate?) as compared to the present emasculated body, which do need to be answered. The one item I found puzzling is that she feels that an elected upper chamber would somehow challenge the supremacy of the Commons; if its role is clearly delineated, surely any crossing of the boundary would be called a power grab and presumptuous?
Andreas Christodoulou
“Maybe try googling “democracy” to understand the complicated process a little more.”
You seem more concerned to patronise me than respond to my arguments. I actually believe in a fully elected House of Lords, not 80% elected as the Lib Dems want. I want a House of Lords elected by the voting system that the majority of people in these Islands voted for at last year’s referendum. It only fuels my suspicion that the Lib Dems have rejected the democratic decision of the electorate in order to get P.R. regardless of what people voted for. I want to see “Lords” or “Senators” elected every four or five years, not 15 years as the Lib Dems want. And I don’t want to see a huge constitutional reform rushed through on a guillotine against opposition on all sides just because the Tories agreed to a shabby deal in which fundamental changes to the House of Lords are traded for boundary changes that will get them back into power. That is why I say that this is a dogs breakfast of a bill and is totally undemocratic. If you believe it will gain the supportof the public you should agree to put it to the referendum that Labour and the Tories want. Otherwise it will be an abuse of democracy.
Her main point seemed to be that the use of a regional list system would give too much power to political parties. The answer to that would be STV , giving real choice to the voters, but would she then be happpy? No. Conservatives like Betty Boothroyd and Jack Straw will use any excuse to resist a democratic second chamber.
@ MacK – “And I don’t want to see a huge constitutional reform rushed through on a guillotine against opposition on all sides just because the Tories agreed to a shabby deal in which fundamental changes to the House of Lords are traded for boundary changes that will get them back into power.”
There is no formal agreement linking lords reform to boundary changes.
There is, to my knowledge, no informal agreement linking them being negotioated either.
“Her main point seemed to be that the use of a regional list system would give too much power to political parties. The answer to that would be STV , giving real choice to the voters, but would she then be happpy? No. Conservatives like Betty Boothroyd and Jack Straw will use any excuse to resist a democratic second chamber.”
On the list system being used, I must admit I hadn’t realised quite how bad the current proposals are:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/07/06/house-of-lords-johnston/
I think this really is a continuation of party appointment by another name.
Christian De Feo9th Jul ’12 – 11:01am…………..I heard her as I was driving to work; she raised some points, particularly about the relative power of an elected Lords (Senate?) as compared to the present emasculated body, which do need to be answered. …………….
I agree.
…………………….The one item I found puzzling is that she feels that an elected upper chamber would somehow challenge the supremacy of the Commons; if its role is clearly delineated, surely any crossing of the boundary would be called a power grab and presumptuous?……………
I want to know HOW it’s role will be defined. All I have heard is, ‘It will be”.
I used to be in favour but now I’m unsure; too many ‘loose ends’ for my mind.
jedibeeftrix9th Jul ’12 – 11:54am…………………..There is no formal agreement linking lords reform to boundary changes.
There is, to my knowledge, no informal agreement linking them being negotioated either…………..
Perhaps not; but that didn’t stop “LibDem sources close to Nick Clegg “, as the BBC put it, threatening to scupper boundary changes if Tory MPs didn’t support Lords’ reform.
The antidote to party power inherent in the semi open list voting system is to allow voters an alternative short vote – ‘Independent’ for a raft of ‘official’ independent candidates sponsored by an independent peers appointments commission in addition to the 90 independents planned.
This addresses concerns about party v independent, and perhaps even those who argue Lib Dems will have permanent blocking power.
@jedibeeftrix
“There is no formal agreement linking lords reform to boundary changes.
There is, to my knowledge, no informal agreement linking them being negotioated either.”
So why then have prominent Liberal Democrats threatened to withdraw co-operation on boundary changes if the Tories oppose Lords reform? Strong evidence of there being a deal I would say. Or perhaps you’d prefer “tacit understanding”?
Mack – most Lib Dems want a 100% elected HoL, and I personally agree that I would prefer 5 year terms rather than 15 years.
However compared to what we have now this is a step forward and those of us who want better should support this in the meantime as a way of getting there.
As part of the Fix Parliamanr website I e mailed my MP, Zac Goldsmith, on Lords Reform. His reply gives an excellent insight into the (not very good ) arguments opponents will/are putting forward. Here they are:
http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/i-wrote-to-zac-hes-written-back-etc-etc.html
The paucity of their arguments emphasises the need to play the ball, not the man.
@ Chris – re the revised lords reforms:
I had not appreciated the following:
“A closed list system is used for elections to the European Parliament. The voter decides which party to support and has no influence on which of its candidates will be elected”
I will never support PR via party-list, terrible idea.
@ Jason – “So why then have prominent Liberal Democrats threatened to withdraw co-operation on boundary changes if the Tories oppose Lords reform? Strong evidence of there being a deal I would say. Or perhaps you’d prefer “tacit understanding”?”
You may be correct, in which case one would have to chuckle at the massive irony of a party engaging in voter-opaque blackmail whilst complaining about the lack of legitimacy in our other government functions.
jedibeeftrix9th Jul ’12 – 1:33pm…………….@ Jason – “So why then have prominent Liberal Democrats threatened to withdraw co-operation on boundary changes if the Tories oppose Lords reform? Strong evidence of there being a deal I would say. Or perhaps you’d prefer “tacit understanding”?”
You may be correct, in which case one would have to chuckle at the massive irony of a party engaging in voter-opaque blackmail whilst complaining about the lack of legitimacy in our other government functions.
Jedi…That wasn’t my quote, however, my post…jason5th Jul ’12 – 3:53pm…George Osborne states that a judge led enquiry is not needed because…Quote “What would it say about Parliament if we fail to investigate ourselves?”
What a short memory ….’Liam Fox’, ‘Jeremy Hunt’….
Clearly ,George O saw nothing untoward in his statement..
Sorry, I posted on another subject…
@ MacK
“I want a House of Lords elected by the voting system that the majority of people in these Islands voted for at last year’s referendum. It only fuels my suspicion that the Lib Dems have rejected the democratic decision of the electorate in order to get P.R. regardless of what people voted for.”
The referendum last year is irrelevant to House of Lords reform:
i) The referendum was about the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. A variety of different electoral systems are used throughout the UK, some chosen by referendum and others not., so there shouldn’t be any issue with having different chambers elected using different methods and the public is more than capable of understanding them.
For instance:
* STV is used for local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland and for Assembly elections in N.I.;
* AMS is used for Welsh Assembly, London Assembly and Scottish Parliament. Closed Lists are used for EU elections – except in the N.I. region where they use… STV.
* FPTP is used for House of Commons elections and local elections in England and Wales.
* SV is used for electing Executive Mayors.
ii) The referendum choice was between the non-proportional FPTP and the non-proportional AV. It wasn’t a choice of FPTP vs Everything. In fact, those devious No2AVers made out that saying yes to AV would prevent PR and that true reformers should say no… So any claim that the public has rejected PR or that the Lib Dems are imposing PR is nonsense, especially given previous referendum results where the public chose STV over FPTP i.e. in the case of Scottish local authorities.
apologies Jason, the quote should have been attibuted to Mack.
“The one item I found puzzling is that she feels that an elected upper chamber would somehow challenge the supremacy of the Commons; if its role is clearly delineated, surely any crossing of the boundary would be called a power grab and presumptuous?”
It could be called all sorts of things. But would that stop it happening?
What does the US Tea Party crew do, when faced with the choice between gridlocking the system or letting a President get his way? Why, they declare that because their demands are so crucial to the future of civilisation, they will use any option at their disposal to block evil and sinful legislation from coming to pass, won’t they? Well, in Britain, the language will probably be more moderate. But, stand by for the party that controls the new Lords telling the party that controls the new Commons that they simply cannot stand idly by and allow the Government to do something which they know would be disastrous for the British economy.
Why does anyone want to create a system which relies on the Commons “calling any crossing of the boundary a power grab and presumptuous”, and hoping that invective will get them their own way?
If the new Lords defy the Commons, are we planning to call in the military, or something?
This plan fails its GCSE in Constitutional Engineering!
“In what sense did Betty “bounce” on to the BBC? Strange choice of word.”
She is a bouncy personality and it’s alliterative
JB: “There is no formal agreement linking lords reform to boundary changes.”
I thought the boundary changes were supposed to be in return for the AV referendum, which was of course delivered. That’s why some Tories are so up in arms about the LD’s threats to withdraw support. I hope Lib Dems bear this in mind the next time they attack the opposition for adopting “opportunistic” positions.
The current proposals are considered poor even by many Lib Dems (see comments above), and come without the referendum that Labour proposed, so I’d like to see Labour voting against this.
If an elected HoL had any kind of primacy over the Commons, the result would be chaos. If the HoL continues to have NO primacy, then there is no need for it to be elected. Better to abolish it altogether than introduce a second “elected” chamber of party-appointed political yes-men. I’m afraid that Lib Dems appear to have learned nothing from the AV debacle. People would rather have no change than bad change.
I’m not surprised the writer of this piece chose to remain anonymous. At least we can safely assume it wasn’t Lynne Featherstone.
Paul:
“She is a bouncy personality and it’s alliterative.”
Given the content of the piece, perhaps “blusters” would have been a better choice of word. It maintains the alliteration, and has the added advantage that it could not possibly be construed as a dig at Betty’s weight.
“Given the content of the piece, perhaps “blusters” would have been a better choice of word”
Perfect! Now changed. Many thanks, Stuart. Apologies for the unintended confusion.
@Paul
Excellent, thanks for that. It does make more sense now.
The opponents of the reform, whether they be conservatives in the Tory Party or the Labour Party haven’t explained why an elected uppe r house would interfere with the legitimacy of the Commons when it does not happen in all the various grown up democracies in Europe ? There may be fair criticisms of the detail but this reform is the last bit of unfinished business in constitional reform, which started with the 1832 Reform Act and has seen votes for women and assemblies for Wales and Scotland. All the same reactionary responses were trotted out by the Tory right on each occasion there has been constitional reform. What disgusts me (and why I could never put my x against Labour is the cynical attitude of the Labour Party ( Peter Hain, you are a disgrace) to this. Oh yes, we suppor Lords reform but we will do our utmost to sink it.
@ Roger – “The opponents of the reform, whether they be conservatives in the Tory Party or the Labour Party haven’t explained why an elected uppe r house would interfere with the legitimacy of the Commons when it does not happen in all the various grown up democracies in Europe ?”
To be fair, they probably don’t feel they have to given that in their eyes the Lords function perfectly adequately as a revising chamber. Their retort would be; demonstrate that these reforms will improve the Lords ability to carry out this function…..
@Geoffrey Payne
“However compared to what we have now this is a step forward and those of us who want better should support this in the meantime as a way of getting there.”
I hardly call it a step forward to have members of the BNP sitting in the House of Lords for 15 years voted in on a protest vote under proportional representation!
Roger,
“The opponents of the reform, whether they be conservatives in the Tory Party or the Labour Party haven’t explained why an elected uppe r house would interfere with the legitimacy of the Commons when it does not happen in all the various grown up democracies…”
Do you consider the US a grown-up democracy? I realise you added “in Europe”, but that was a little bit of a twister, wasn’t it?
Point us at a European state where there is a subordinate “upper” house which has never made undue trouble for the dominant “lower” house, can you please?
Her opinion doesn’t matter as it’s the chief whip that will decide which way she will vote and she will fall in to line as per the coalition norm; now that’s democracy!
James, er…she’s a cross-bencher.
Good job she’s a cross bencher as I would pity the whip that tried to make Betty fall into line. We’ve not had a speaker as good since her time…
I still disagree with her on this though…
@David Allen
“But, stand by for the party that controls the new Lords telling the party that controls the new Commons that they simply cannot stand idly by and allow the Government to do something which they know would be disastrous for the British economy.”
So which party is going to control the new Lords, David? I think your arithmetic is a bit adrift there.
What BB shows is that whatever they call themselves, the House of Lords is always controlled by one party, the same party, the Establishment party.
jedibeeftrix >I will never support PR via party-list, terrible idea.
Living in Wales, all bar diehard Labour supporters who want to rule in perpetuity think a partial PR through a list system is at least a little bit more democratic than 100% FPTP.
MacK >I hardly call it a step forward to have members of the BNP sitting in the House of Lords for 15 years voted in on a protest vote under proportional representation!
(Unless it’s just the 15 year term you object to) So you support a democracy, but only where people you like (or don’t strongly disagree with) can ever get elected?
And where a significant minority of voters (however misguided, in your view if not theirs) can never be represented at all?
@ Cassie – “Living in Wales, all bar diehard Labour supporters who want to rule in perpetuity think a partial PR through a list system is at least a little bit more democratic than 100% FPTP.”
I live in Wales too, but it is not about the particular electoral result i live within it is a matter of principle.
Two further points:
1. I am happy that FPTP is the most appropriate system for the Commons regardless
2. We are not in fact talking about the Commons, and a dual system that entrenches party politics in the Lords as well as the Commons utterly defeats the purpose of an expert revising chamber in the first place.
Just get on with it! 100 years of waiting is ridiculous. Labour’s antics on this are unforgivable ! They’re just resentful that after 100 years they aren’t the only non-Tory party in the country . Sorry but up to 30pc of the population vote for other parties and until they get used to it and embrace pluralism they’ll never really achieve the progressive politics they claim they want. Though actually, given their reactionary nature I’m not sure many of them have ever really been that progressive .
@Cassie
“And where a significant minority of voters (however misguided, in your view if not theirs) can never be represented at all?”
Yes, if they are going to have a disproportional effect on political outcomes. (c.f. the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition) And I certainly do object to the 15 year term which I view as an outrage.
Something no one seems to have mentioned: the Parliament Act will remain in place – so no matter what the Lords get up to, ultimately, the Commons will always prevail.
My understanding is that the relationship between the commons and lords is mostly convention anyway. A written constitution would be good but we can’t have everything in one go.
calls for referenda will only hand the decision to the agenda of the media as they will hype and distort the arguments to support the side they want to win. If we ever have another referenda, on anything, then it should be on a simple principle ‘do you want a fairer voting system than FPTP’ or ‘do you want the House of Lords to be democratic?’ The decision gives a clear policy direction to Parliament from the people, which then leaves the actual details to be sorted by committees of MPs and debates in the House. We could have a list of options to be voted for in priority order, but that then needs a law passing to ensure that the facts only are distributed to the voters by the media and not the distortions and lies we have experienced. Before the press got their grubby hands on it the majority of the people wanted electoral reform.
Mack: two points. First, the majority of the people did not decide they liked first past the post. They voted against a specific weak alternative and Nick Clegg’s earlier criticism of that alternative was quoted against the change. Besides, if you have two elected chambers, isn’t it intuitively sensible to elect them by different methods to increase the likelihood that they’ll be different? Otherwise, why bother?
Secondly, I’m curious about why you think the Liberal Democrats have a disproportionate influence right now. In the last five elections between a fifth and over a quarter of the voters have voted Liberal Democrat, but this resulted in minimal Liberal Democrat influence on government in 1997-2010. At present we’re having significant influence, but more than represents a share of about a quarter of the voters? I doubt it.
I do agree on 15 years, though. I think the term should be longer than the House of Commons’ one to encourage the long view, something most bicameral systems are devised to get from their second chamber, but eight or ten years would seem more reasonable.
“First, the majority of the people did not decide they liked first past the post. They voted against a specific weak alternative and Nick Clegg’s earlier criticism of that alternative was quoted against the change. ”
I must be in a minority within the winning majority then, that actually likes FPTP in the Commons.
“Besides, if you have two elected chambers, isn’t it intuitively sensible to elect them by different methods to increase the likelihood that they’ll be different? Otherwise, why bother?”
Sure, avoid congruent bicamaralism by all means, but not party-list PR. Ever!