Over on Left Foot Forward, The Voice’s Mark Pack has a piece highlighting the common, but outrageously undemocratic, practice of appointing defeated MPs to the House of Lords – just one of the many reasons that the second chamber needs thorough reform. And with those with a vested interest already lining up to oppose any changes, Mark makes the point that it is crucial that a grassroots group of reformers unite behind the finalised proposals, rather than making the mistake of opposing some reform because it is not total reform.
Here’s an excerpt:
I can go to a polling station, vote an MP out of office and then find a few months later that they now can vote on the laws I have to live by and the public services I have to use for the rest of their life.That’s not democracy – and that’s one of the reasons why reformers of all stripes should unite behind the government’s proposals for reforming the Lords.
On a subject like this there are of course many details to argue over, and even some important principles (bishops or not?) but after a century of failed attempts to bring in elections for the upper house, we shouldn’t let a search for perfection be the enemy of getting major change.
Amongst the opponents, including yes some Liberal Democrat peers (and hence the grassrootsLiberal Democrats for Lords Reform group), there is a canny understanding of the power of divide and conquer, trying to persuade some reformers to back off because what is proposed isn’t quite 100 per cent of their own preferred package.
You can read Mark’s whole piece here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
3 Comments
What is ‘principle’ and what is ‘detail’ ? To my mind 100% elected is a principle and I’m opposed to it because it will be just a replica of House of Commons. In my neck of the woods the Tories campaigned in force to get control of Town Councils, not content with Westminster,County & Borough, & promptly hogged all the officer posts for themselves. The total number of Peers is a principle? There are currently 830!! Too many. Political patronage is a principle – should be stopped. Detail or not detail? For me I think 500 max is enough. I would keep some hereditary Peers – currently about 90 which on 500 is a bit less than 20%. Given the complete lack of any kind of integrity, competence etc shown by far too many of our rich & powerful some hereditary Peers come across as far more in tune with what this country ought to stand for than many of our MPs, business men etc. Nominated – yes, but about the same number as hereditary. And they must be nominated & elected for their achievements (other than making money!) by a broad church of people. Maybe how the Royal Society elects its Fellows might be a model. For the rest let elections like the Commons be the norm & let Party politics do its worst.
While a Lib Dem, I’m actually quite a fan of an appointed second chamber, but totally opposed to seeing defeated MPs (from any party) voting on legislation only a short time after the electorate have voted them out (a practice which only undermines the argument of people, like myself, who would want to see change come slowly). When MPs voted to exempt themselves from FOI, not a single peer put themselves forward to sponsor it in the Lords – the kind of stand that might become less common if it becomes an elected chamber more at the mercy of the whips. At the same time, the increasing number of party political appointments (as criticised by the UCL Constitution Unit report “House Full”) detracts from the “expert” qualities of the second chamber.
Mixed views.
You don’t vote an MP out of office, you elect a different representative. If the government then decides to give your old MP a peerage that’s a different issue since your former MP becoming a Lord doesn’t deprive you of having a new MP and doesn’t diminish their role.
However I dislike defeated MP’s being given peerages until they’ve succeeded in new roles because a peerage should be earned rather than taken for granted.