I don’t believe in a 100% elected House of Lords.
There you go, I’ve said it – there’s no point reading any further, the comment boxes are below and you can start calling me an undemocratic monster…. now.
I won’t be joining Paul Walter who is, as you read, dancing through the streets of Newbury. As I type this at home in Crystal Palace I even find myself in that rarest of positions – less than entirely in agreement with Alex Wilcock.
But then, I’m a monarchist too. There you go, I’ve said that as well. Mainly to throw you off the scent of the fact I’m not in favour of a 100% elected second chamber. Am I making it worse for myself yet? Forgive me Liberal Democrats, for I have sinned.
The House of Lords at present performs its role as a revising chamber with a significant degree of assistance from ‘cross-bench’ independent peers often drawn from specialist areas. I’ve had the honour in my nine-to-five job of working for (several layers of management removed from) some of these expert cross-bench peers in recent times – their breadth of knowledge and experience simply is not reflected in the pool of people who currently have their eyes set on election to parliament. They, like so many of the real experts in the House of Lords, have no party affiliation, no campaigning background that I’m aware of, no knowledge of fighting (let alone winning) elections that I know of – they’re there because they know their stuff, and their stuff isn’t politics. It is these people who truly add value to the legaslative process during the long turgid hours of the commitee stage.
In addition to the cross-benchers, the House of Lords is already packed to bursting with semi-retired professional politicians – it doesn’t need any more. It also doesn’t need a gaggle of elected politicians who have opted to stand for the second chamber because they’ve tried and failed to get in to the first.
Of course as a Liberal Democrat I believe in spreading democracy – democracy should be infectious. But pragmatically, we should recognise that our democratic process is at present chock full of party political clones – when the ‘Next suit’ generation of middle-England middle-class representatives retires, the Primark suit generation is already lined up waiting their turn. And while we play our game, the voters are switching off in droves.
Retaining 20% of appointed peers in the House of Lords, preferably as independents, would help ensure that the House of Lords remains distinctive, authoritative and, above all, useful. A 100% elected House of Lords is democracy for democracy’s own sake.
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
21 Comments
We don’t always agree, Rob. But on this…very good article!
Agreed; and democracy doesn’t have to mean elected anyway; still in favour of Sortition for at least part of the house. 100% elected seems to me like more politicians, not better laws.
Ah well. Nothing’s finalised yet, and the Lords themselves get a chance to revise…
A debate about the House of Lords (sorry “The Reformed Chamber”!) should start with what powers and functions it is desirable for the second chamber to have.
That debate we are spectacularly failing to have.
I still like the diea of ‘Lords of Parliament’ as a name for the new ‘peers’, as proposed many moons ago by the old Liberal Party….
Waht do people think about the 15 year term idea? Bit long, eh? Maybe 7 years like the French president…
A good point was made repeatedly in the debate, about one term of 15 years. Say you get elected – 15 years in front of you, with a guarentee of no election at the end of it for you… how accountable would you feel to the electorate?
The cross-benchers hardly vote however, and the ‘need for experts’ argument is a false one.
A politician’s job is not to be an expert but to make decisions based upon the advice of experts. Those experts can be called to give evidence to committees or even the whole house.
If we manage to avoid a list system then there is the opportunity for independents to get elected and even people from minor parties.
The purpose of the single term is probably to prevent the politicking which MPs engage in, becoming glorified social workers for their constituents.
A better system might be to have the possibility of recalling a peer. If they have 15 year terms, but face confirmation of their role after 5 and 10 years (coinciding with the election of other peers) then they have a motive to behave themselves.
Fair argument, Rob, but in my view at the end of the day, we believe in government and legislatures that are *accountable* – which is the most important element, even at the expense of other things. There is a role for experts, but taking decisions on behalf of society isn’t it.
I agree with 6 and 7.
A fully elected Lords/second chamber with a powerful select committe system would allow all the expert input into decisions you could wish for.
I’d rather have a blithering idiot getting it wrong who I could throw out at the next election than decision made by experts who of course never get it wrong – Roy Meadow anyone?
“how accountable would you feel to the electorate?”
More accountable than an appointee or a hereditary, I’d imagine…
Why should an expert on health be legislating in an “expert” capacity on transport, or the economy? The House of Lords should take hearings at committee stage, as the Commons is now doing – that’s how you get expert input into a particular legislative area.
Re the points made on select committees – the Lords is currently only able to have one issue specific ‘ad-hoc’ select committee, plus its two fixed select committes.
If they’re going to have as many select committees as the Commons, someone needs to start building some more committee rooms!
death to Fenwick!
You’re not supposed to say that until I become President of the World…
“the Lords is currently only able to have one issue specific ‘ad-hoc’ select committee, plus its two fixed select committes.”
See my comments about deciding what functions we want the Lords to have first!
I wonder how much of the Lords current reviewing function is overhyped. Frank Dobson yesterday was pointing out that a large number of amendments in the Lords actually come from the government.
My Lib Dem led District Council functions perfectly efficiently and effectively without a second chamber to review and revise its decisions. Why can’t Parliament? Scrap the Lords I say!
I hope I’m hideously misinterpreting Dan in 8 in thinking it doesn’t matter how much of an idiot was voted in so long as they are voted in because even bright/worthwhile people get it wrong sometimes.
Was listening to the Drugs minister this lunchtime and shocked at while he seemed personable, his understanding of the questions he was asked was quite shallow.
Personally, I’d give all candidates IQ and aptitude tests and pick the top 200, it’d weed out all those who are all bluster and presentation skills and no brains.
Surely the most important issue is legitimacy. If the Lords is elected by the same system as the Commons then it would have equal legitimacy; if it is elected by a proportional system then it arguably has greater legitimacy than the Commons. The only way of ensuring that the Lords continues to have less democratic legitimacy than the Commons, which is surely desirable, is to have a proportion of its membership which is there as a result of an undemocratic process.
Yes and no – there are other ways the Lords will be kept in their place, eg the budget will continue to be read & voted on by the Commons, keeping tax-raising powers firmly on the green benches.
Those are essentially procedural matters rather than constitutional. Having a House of Lords elected by PR changes the constitutional relationship between the two houses in a fundamental way, and surely as Liberals we would argue that a body elected by PR (of pretty well whatever sort) has greater democratic legitimacy than one elected by first past the post simply because it is, almost axiomatically, going to reflect the views of the electorate better.
Surely as the primassy of the Commons is mearly a consequence of them having been the only chamber with a smidgion of legitimacy. If we have a House of Lords elected by STV and a Commons full of MPs wedded to being super councillors/citizens advice beuarus why not let most of the governing be done from a reformed lords and leave MPs to there little geographical playgrounds.
Rob, the simple solution to the problem is to use our constitution creatively. As this state is a constitutional monarchy, rather than a fully fledged democracy, the UK’s head of state appoints Privy Councillors. If the House of Lords is replaced by a democratic institution, Privy Councillors could be given the right to address the reformed chamber, and take part in its work, but without a vote. This would provide a useful addition to their existing right to seek a personal audiance with the Sovereign.
As most of you probably know the Liberal Democrats’ Better Governance Working Group is currently looking at the Liberal Democrats policies on Re-engaging citizens, Effective scrutiny, Decentralisation and Defining boundaries between the State and citizens. Please visit http://consult.libdems.org.uk/governance/ and share your comments, thoughts and views.