The British constitution is primarily the result of accident or, at best, short-term political compromise. From the existence of a Prime Minister to the electoral system, chances are some aristocrat you’ve never heard of blundered across it by accident a couple of centuries ago. The current bill to reform the House of Lords continues this unfortunate tradition.
I am almost alone in the Lib Dems in opposing an elected second chamber. As it stands, the bill is not about to make me change my mind.
The bill proposes an electoral system which uses list PR. This system puts powers over candidates, and hence who is elected, squarely in the hands of party leaders. Moreover, the bill has list PR electing professional politicians for fifteen-year terms. Those elected in 1997 would only just come up for re-election in 2012. Except they wouldn’t, because according to this bill they cannot be re-elected.
What this bill will create therefore are politicians who don’t represent a constituency, chosen by central party machines, in office for fifteen years with no reason to worry about getting re-elected. True, list PR is the most proportional system. Is total proportionality really a price worth paying for politicians like these?
Not that we will know what they will be called. The bill keeps the second chamber as ‘the House of Lords’. I can’t help feeling we can do better. Even ‘Senate’ is somewhat derivative. There ought at the very least to be a public consultation on the matter, rather than leaving it to a few hours of debate in a Select Committee.
Then there is the clause reducing the number of bishops from 24 to 12. Why 12? If the bill had been better thought through, the proposed number of bishops would presumably reflect their usefulness and importance in passing legislation. (And therefore be zero, you might well be thinking.) But instead, the number of bishops has simply been halved- a quite clear indication the decision was made arbitrarily. Good as it is to reduce the number of bishops, it is frankly irresponsible for Government policy to be made in this fashion.
Nick Clegg believes this bill will lead to something better. Given how hard it has been to reform the Lords historically, we cannot be sure of that. And even if we could, it remains the case that the bill could be made a lot better, very easily, now.
There are still nearly three years of this Parliament. More has been done in much less time. Let’s take the bill back to the drawing board and make it better. Then maybe- just maybe- we might actually pass it.
* Robin McGhee is the prospective parliamentary candidate for Kensington.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Electrification of the Midland Mainline is paused yet again
Ninewells Community Garden Big Biodiversity Bash #dundeewestend
UN panel raises concerns about impact of Labour's welfare bill
Reform turn up in time for the end of the meeting
John Waller
Peter Martin
Andy Daer
David McDowall
Mohammed Amin
42 Comments
You’re not the only one, but for myself, for different reasons.
The question is, is it better than the current system and a route to longer-term, better reform? I do agree that being elected once only for 15 years is very strange. In fact, I can’t understand the rationale at all. But other aspects of it aren’t so bad: “list PR” covers a wide range of systems, some of which allow you to vote for individual candidates as well as a party, some which don’t. But to some extent it’s irrelevant if the member of the HoL only gets the chance to be elected once – presumably your party’s hold over you is rather diminished if on day one you know you are on a 15-year non-renewable contract?
My view is that it’s better than what we have at present and it’s also very likely that starting the reform will help continue the reform. Of course it would be neater to do it properly from scratch, but this is a classic question of the art of the possible.
“I do agree that being elected once only for 15 years is very strange. In fact, I can’t understand the rationale at all.”
Surely the rationale is simply that for a retiring MP moving to the upper chamber, a 15-year term is pretty well as good as a life peerage.
I suppose the writer would have kept Pol Pot in power of the voting system proposed as a democratic alternative wasn’t quite to their liking.
The people who run this country keep telling us it’s a democracy. It’s nothing of the sort. An appointed house of parliament is completely and utterly unnacceptable and needs to be changed now.
I agree Chris, so let’s just be rid of them. In 1215 it may have been necessary for all the barons to be present in person in one place to put pressure on the government of their day, but I hardly think it’s necessary today to pay two lots of people to come to London to read the same old guff twice. Give scrutiny and revision to first tier local authorities who I would be sure can cobble together groups of experts in particular fields if that is seen as necessary (no other state with elected legislatures requires it).
As many LibDems will probably think I believe the 15 year term is too long, five or ten years terms limit with re-election might be more acceptable. I also feel the party list system, which is already discredited for the EU, is wrong I want regional but PERSONAL voted for candidates. However I have to say that the Tories have hung us out to dry twice on electoral reform, AV and now Lords reform so the third thread, reduction in the HOC, which will help the Tories should now fall as well; all 3 or none.
@Jock Coats
I actually like that idea – but what do you mean by “county assemblies” (from your blog), if you mean something new then why not just use county councils?
I think we should vote FOR the bill, almost no matter how bad it is. If bad in practice, more reform will be motivated. If not, not.
If the Lords’ function is primarily to inspect and revise buills proposed by the Commons, then why not re-name then Revisors. The House of Revisors seems fine to me. And why not mae the Commons the electorate for the Revisers? People wanting to be Lords would have to stand for election at every General Election, and the MPs winning that election would then vote for who they wanted as Revisers.
This could ensure more democracy that at present, while safeguarding the Commons as the primary national forum for and of the people.
Sorry for the confusion Chris_sh, I mean “tier one local authorities” – which of course are not all county councils – with some being unitary or metropolitans. So yes, in Oxfordshire it would be the county council but in Berkshire it might have to be either each of the unitaries or a joint committee of those unitaries.
I can’t claim much credit though – it’s mostly straight out of David Hume’s 1754 “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth” which of course goes further but this would be a start toward true federalisation of the UK amongst other things.
@Richard Dean
“And why not mae the Commons the electorate for the Revisers?”
I may have misunderstood your meaning – if so sorry – but wouldn’t that just mean the largest party would be able to dictate who was in the second chamber?
Thanks Jock, think I may have to put that on my reading list.
The method of voting would need to be such that smaller parties would be able to get some Revisors, if things split like that. Such a system might be abusable, but a wise government would value competency in revising. Support need not confer much advantage, since the Commons would be supreme anyway, and might even be a disadvantage if it meant that bills were bad and the electorate saw that too.
Is anyone surprised at the way the vote went?
GPs, teachers et al strike to protect their pensions and members of the House of Commons now vote to protect their pensions – which in parliamentarian parlance is known as the House of Lords.
If you really must have a central revising chamber, then Hume suggests a possibility for that too, using counties again. The tier one local authorities (counties in his terminology) get to elect people to send to Westmonster. Chris_sh – it’s not terribly long by the way, inside an evening I would think.
@Chris
Because the one thing the House of Lords is, is a murderous tyrannical regime. The House of Lords is mostly harmless. I admire the reformist zeal, but its borne out of idealogical principle. There’s really no reason to rush reform, and proposals should be put before the public in a referendum to ensure democratic consent.
I don’t like the bill, but my main concern is that it reflects very badly on the Party in that it is prepared to push through a major constitutional change, that really should be widely discussed and voted on by the electorate [at the time of the GE?] – not pushed through on a shabby political deal.
If it were an issue that was known to command widespread support amongst the voters – but successive governments had refused to implement – it would be different and much to the Party’s credit. However this is not the case and can only worsen the Party’s tumbling reputation!
An elected Lords must be suitably different to the Commons to have a purpose but it should not be difficult to achieve that.
For a start, change nothing that does not need to be changed. Retain the ranks of Lord and Baroness for elected Peers. There is nothing to be gained by changing that.
Secondly, use a voting system that ensures individuals are as independent as possible of party control. STV would provide a good example. And I say this as someone committed to the use of FPTP for the House of Commons.
Thirdly, a democratic chamber must have the possibility of re-election. Instead of Lords have 1 15 year term elected in 3rd every 5 years make it two 10 year terms, elected in halves every 5 years.
Fourthly, if there’s going to be an appointed element establish clear rules and guidelines on which basis it should be appointed and possibly re-appointed to re-establish confidence and ensure this is not used as a further avenue for party political bias. Remove the facility for separate automatically appointed ministerial members. Keep it clear and simple.
The government should not be defensive about the precise form of the plans. Let the plans be adjusted and amended as long as it retains the core democratising principle. Build support and consensus during the parliamentary process.
Also, cancel the summer recess, let parliament sit through the summer, give them enough time to discuss it until they are sick in the teeth with it. Give Labour and the rebels what they supposedly want. Let them discuss it until they are utterly sick of it. But get it done.
The OP doesn’t even fully understand what he’s arguing against. The bill proposes and open list system which allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party.
And, if the OP doesn’t even know the most basic details of what he’s opposing then why should we pay any attention to the rest of what he says?
This article does not make sense to me.
I actually agree with a lot of the criticism. We should have STV voting system, and 5 year terms of office. But the crucial point is that the bill actually looks good compared to maintaining the status quo. And at present that is the only choice we have.
Those against this bill complain both about single 15 year terms and about the potential clash between two chambers claiming superior democratic mandate. They can’t have it both ways.
One 15 year term is one of the best ways of preventing the election of placepeople who will just toe the lines of their party. It prevents people making a career out of sitting in the second chamber, and frees them from voting on whip’s instruction just to secure a place on the list at the next election. It is also a check on the Lords claiming a superior democratic mandate to the Commons, as at any one time the Commons will have been entirely elected more recently than at least two thirds of the Lords.
Stephen W:
Actually “lord” is an obnoxious title. Not only are they not my lords or ladies they’re most of them not up to being called my peers let alone Brendas.
I would, more or less, settle for a reform that simply makes them Mr and Mrs other than the idea of anyone put in a position of power over me had better have a damned good mandate (and none have, not even MPs).
Why people even want to retain a second chamber I simply cannot fathom. Just don’t try and tell me you are radical if so. I am quite sure David Lloyd-George would have wanted rid of them if he thought for the slightest moment that he could persuade the King in those elections in 1910 and so on. Anything less does liberalism a disservice in my opinion.
Oh, and to Richard Church, you will note, please, that I have complained about neither of the issues you mention. I simply want rid of as many elected politicians as possible and so suggest we do away entirely with a second chamber. Nobody has yet provided justification for keeping one to my satisfaction.
George is right, you do not understand the system at all or the purpose of elections for individuals.
Secondly, the claim that it puts power in the hands of leaders or ‘central party machines’ is ridiculous: we are a democratic party, power lies, with the electorate first and the democratic selection of candidates second. This is a poor argument from a Liberal Democrat given our internal procedures.
The rest of the argument [senate is not derivative, bishops halved because size of house of c.halved] simply doesn’t seem to make sense.
A very sensible viewpoint from someone who obviously has thought about the matter. It has highlighted to me how flawed the bill is on certain points, it needs a lot more thought and debate. Isn’t it about time for a start we got rid of the name “Lord”. Do we still want to be lorded over in this day and age.
“The OP doesn’t even fully understand what he’s arguing against. The bill proposes and open list system which allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party.
And, if the OP doesn’t even know the most basic details of what he’s opposing …”
Actually it’s a “semi-open list” system:
“A vote may be given either for a registered party, or for a candidate named on the party list of candidates submitted by a registered party (a party candidate), or for an independent candidate ”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0052/en/13052en.htm
Even though London will elect 14 members, the only choice I would have as a London elector would be to vote for:
(1) a single party,
(2) a single candidate from a single party or
(3) a single independent candidate.
What kind of open list is that?
I don’t understand why there are so few of us abolitionists in this debate.
give us a system that minimises party control over lords selection (see Chris above), and you might find a few more.
the bill is a dogs breakfast.
Whether you personally approve of the word Lord is pretty irrelevant. The point is that change is more likely to be successful where, ironically, it is as familiar as possible. Retaining the old name for both the House and the members will ease the passage of far more structurally important features of reform. HoL reform is going to be hard enough. We need smart tactics and a sense of pragmatism as far as possible.
Frankly I think abolition is probably an easier sell to most of the politically apathetic in the country.
“abolition is probably an easier sell to most of the politically apathetic in the country”
Agree, particularly if it along the lines of David Hume’s ideas, as then it can be wrapped up in the localism agenda, which is also part of the Coalition agreement…
I think many are getting carried away by the sound-byte proposals, but are failing to engage their critical faculties and understand the details and what they actually mean. Once you do this you begin to realize just how poorly thought out the proposed changes are, particularly when measured against Paddy Ashdown’s vision of “a strong democratically based second chamber to buttress our democracy”. There can be no excuse for the exceedingly poor quality of the proposals, given how long they have been in development . Yes the bill will be “transformative” but almost certainly not in the way Charles Kennedy and many others believe.
It is because the details of this bill are so “ill-considered” and will require future governments to repeatedly revisit House of Lords Reform that this bill should be opposed.
As Chris says, this is an awful form of democracy, with no more than cosmetic tweaks to the MEP list sysyem which we have consistently criticised. But no matter, it produces a House which should have the Lib Dems holding the permanent balance of power, so that’s job done, isn’t it?
Except that nobody likes it, and so, some rather nasty characters on the Right of the Tory Party are unjustly garnering all the good publicity at the moment!
I love this vigorous debate on the merits and demerits of a democratic second chamber. And the healthy desire to create an appropriately democratic, ‘check and balance’ on our elected first chamber. Democracy is a wonderful tool of self government, and makes you heartily thankful of our centuries of hard fought for, autonomy.
“Europe’s fiscal pact on budget discipline is only a first of many steps to come towards greater integration of the euro zone and more SACRIFICES OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, in the European Union, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.”
Haven’t those calling for referendums and for this bill to be opposed because it isn’t good enough learned anything from the AV debacle?
A referendum will be bought by the fringe Tories currently running their own little party within the Conservative Party. And voting down a mediocre reform throws out the very notion of reform itself, rather than promoting a better one.
The current system is completely broken. We have this one fleeting opportunity to change it and we should. If the new system turns out to be broken, we will just have to fix it up. It certainly won’t be more broken than the current one and any step in the right direction is worth taking.
Much us I agree that there is no place in a democracy for an appointed chamber, I am not at all enamoured of the proposals as they stand. I would imagine that a far more sensible proposal might come from discussions between the Lib Dems, Nationalists and Labour Parties rather than from Nick C chatting to Dave C. The Lords is often our saviour, not because of any intrinsic wisdom but purely because they will not rubber stamp the ill-thought out rubbish the executive often comes up with. The most important democratic reform would be to remove the payroll vote in the Commons. We need to seperate Executive and legislature.
“Haven’t those calling for referendums and for this bill to be opposed because it isn’t good enough learned anything from the AV debacle?”
Yes! The LibDems have proved themselves, like New Labour in their time, to be very good at promoting stuff that is irrelevant to the country at large and to the primary objective of the coalition namely: “The deficit reduction programme”. The AV debacle and the fracas over Lords Reform is wholly self inflicted and down to the LibDems misjudging the moment and the mood of the people.
“A referendum will be bought …”
Only if no other viable alternative approach to giving the British public the “right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs” [LibDem Constitution] is put on the table; ball in the LibDems court here.
“a mediocre reform ”
So no reason to get excited about whether it stands or falls. In fact there is much to be gained from a wider engagement with the British public on parliamentary reform (remember todate much of the debate has been within the Westminster bubble by parties with vested interests).
“The current system is completely broken.”
Bills are still being scrutinzed, laws are being passed – signs that the current system is still working. Yes there is a democratic accountability issue concerning the appointment of participants in the current system, but that is different to the system being “completely broken”.
.
“We have this one fleeting opportunity to change it”
Don’t be stupid! there will be plenty of opportunities in the future to reform the Lords, although whether the LibDems will be able to claim credit is another matter.
“If the new system turns out to be broken, we will just have to fix it up.”
With the odds on the LibDems being in opposition being quite high, their influence over the fixes will be very limited. Additionally, this attitude shows a blatant disregard for taxpayers money in a time when the focus of government (until at least 2030) is on reducing the deficit and hence maximizing the effectiveness of every pound of tax revenue spent.
“any step in the right direction is worth taking.”
You (and others who subscribe to this viewpoint) certainly haven’t learnt the lessons of history, otherwise you would know that when walking in a minefield every step needs to be taken with care.
@T-J
“We have this one fleeting opportunity to change it and we should. If the new system turns out to be broken, we will just have to fix it up.”
I’ve seen this sort of reasoning on the various posts on the subject, but if it has been so hard to get here (100 years etc), then why would it be any easier to make further changes. Unless of course it was so bad that there really was no other option but dropping everything else to sort it, but if that is the case it should be sorted out beforehand.
Roland, your view of a world where opportunities for reform just turn up regularly for a willing and eager community of political parties to leap on and where referendums are somehow not subject to the status-quo bias and the depredations of a hostile, big-and-small-c conservative press seems optimistic. Unrealistic, even.
Anyway, you wanted to focus on deficit reduction. OK, the deficit is being reduced, or at least held steady, by this government. But of course our present system has allowed the burden of this to fall disproportionately on certain age groups, certain demographics and certain regions. Amazingly enough, those regions and demographics are just those ones most acutely under-represented by our political system.
I am as aware of the risks of confusing correlation and causation as anybody, but you must admit, its certainly something to think about.
Cameron will have ‘one last go’ at trying to get this bill through.
What a boost for Tory rebels; if they hold their nerve then this bill will disappear and all will be forgotten/forgiven.
Maybe, just maybe, the bill will be ‘watered down’ so that it’s even less fit for purpose.
Still, if Clegg thought tuesday was a victory, expect him to declare a public holiday if any changes are nade.
“the bill will be ‘watered down’ so that it’s even less fit for purpose”
That would seem to be the safe and simple approach and is likely to be the approach adopted just to get it through. However, having raised the issue and started a more public debate, which is ridiculing many of the implementation details, namely showing the bill up to be a ‘democratic veneer’ over the existing system perhaps it is time to be bold and seize the moment!
Thanks to the failure of the program motion, there is an opportunity prepare amendments that will be more acceptable to the British public, a few examples:
1. No party lists – the current proposals create an unaccountable and hence undemocratic candidate selection process.
2. Current Members of the Commons are barred from standing in the first election immediately following their exit from the Commons – No automatic selection and a period outside of Parliament would be character building.
3. Candidate lists should be approved by Local Councillors in each constituency – this is mainly to take advantage of the standards in public life and democratic accountability Councilors have plus serving a very important job of determining whether a candidate has the potential to do the job ie. to not bring the house into disrepute, and to weed out non-serious candidates.
4. Each constituency gets 3 candidates (15 year tenure divided by elections every 5 years) so that elections are held in each constituency every 5 years – this helping to keep people engaged (try telling a 17 year old that sorry you’re too young to vote, you’ll have to wait until you’re 30+ to vote).
Yes I still anticipate the Lords Reform bill to fail, but now the vested self-interests of all the political parties is out in the open. It also massively moves the debate along as these amendments effectively form the starting point for any future reforms.
So what will Nick and David do: water it down just to get something through or be bold and whatever happens the status quo will not be quite so comfortable?
@judy beatrix
“give us a system that minimises party control over lords selection (see Chris above), and you might find a few more.”
Clearly you have believed the anti-propaganda without being bothered to examine the detail in the slightest. An Open List is proposed. You vote for candidates.
Paul
I repeat what I wrote above:
Actually it’s a “semi-open list” system:
“A vote may be given either for a registered party, or for a candidate named on the party list of candidates submitted by a registered party (a party candidate), or for an independent candidate ”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0052/en/13052en.htm