Nick Clegg said this week that the Government will shortly unveil its plans for reforming the House of Lords.
Answering questions in the Commons on Tuesday, Clegg said:
The cross-party Committee, which I chair, has been considering proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The Government will publish a draft Bill shortly, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
It’s very likely that the second chamber will be renamed, to reflect the constitutional changes.
Upper Houses around the world have a wide variety of names.
What should this country’s proposed “wholly or mainly elected second chamber” be called?
Vote now: the poll’s in the sidebar to the right of this post.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Another Sunday band concert at Magdalen Green #dundeewestend
Beware the white lady
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
39 Comments
Senate/Senator comes from the Latin for “old man”. Maybe we could have something different?
Surely the Latin derivation of a word which now has a far more wholesome and noble meaning [than eg the House of Lords] is less relevant? Otherwise we might go too far down the line and we’d better change words like ‘testify’ and ‘test’ given their origin…
Regardless of the etymology, Senator is an understood term. Members of the upper house need a title that suggests gravitas and respect and which doesn’t leave them open to ridicule. Calling them “Elders” or “Legislative Councillors” doesn’t do that. The term Senate has a long history of use in democratic systems and does the job perfectly well.
What is more important is the form the new chamber takes:
It should have a codified set of powers and responsibilities and powers in relation to the Commons, the Executive, local and devolved government.
It should have a totally new set of standing orders and adopt the most modern practices possible.
It should be largely or wholly elected. Elections should be by STV and any non-elected members need to find their way in through an open and transparent method. No more party or Downing Street appointments for party apparatchiks , no seats for life and no entrenched representation for religious institutions. I personally would prefer a 100% elected chamber but with a separate route for electing crossbenchers.
Finally, elections should take place on an independent timetable, on a longer (7-9 year term) timetable and legally required to be held at a different time from other elections.
I’m in favour of the term Council of Peers. It would still allow a lot of the existing trappings and terminology to be used whilst still indicating the fundamentally different nature of the new upper chamber.
The Senate.
My personal favourite mechanism would be for the new upper chamber to be elected by open list PR on a regional basis, by thirds, with each member serving a term of 8 years. This would ensure their independence from party whips and leave them free to vote according to their conscience. The election by thirds would also give us the option to voice our opinions on them without having to wait 8 years to do so.
As it happens, I do have my own rather exact view of how both the lords and the commons should be reformed. If anyone’s interested in reading it (which I doubt) it can be found here:
http://thepotterblogger.blogspot.com/2011/02/vision-for-new-britain-part-2.html
“What should an elected second chamber be called?”
House of Lords.
Senate
It should also include members from outside Great Britain, eg. Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Falklands, various Caribbean and pacific islands that are still dependencies of the UK.
I think I am right in saying in some of those places the House of Lords acts as sort of second chamber to their local legislature.
House of Murdoch.
Just to remind the Lib Dems of that which they will not speak of today.
An interesting question, and not an easy one for some. After the Humble Petition and Advice created (or re-created rather) a two chamber system for 1658, the Second Protectorate Parliament sat for only a few more weeks after a recess, and the ‘upper’ chamber, spent much of that time arguing over what they should be called. Were they in fact a new House of Lords or not, they asked, and if not, what was their role? Nothing got done as a result.
Personally I admit to being wary of a 100% elected upper chamber, which is one of the main reasons I have never joined the LDs despite voting for them in every election to date, as it seems too key an issue. I like the idea of esteemed academics, business people, military figures and other experts not playing party games having a chance to scruitinze legislation, as anachronistic as the whole idea of the HoL appears with even partly filled with appointees.
I would prefer it remain called the House of Lords, but George Potter’s idea of ‘Council of Peers’ still sounds good to my (in this area) conservative tendencies. I do think the idea of longer terms fitting as well.
How many would sit in this proposed ‘mostly or wholly elected upper chamber’ anyway? Our Commons is larger than most lower chambers, and most upper chambers are significantly less than the lower, so the HoL has many more than most.
The Lords generally refer to the Commons as ‘The other place’ don’t they? How about turning that around formally and call any new chamber ‘The Other Place’?
@Kieran
I believe the mooted figure is 300 members for the new upper house e.g. half the number of the commons. I also have to agree with you that I quite like the idea of scientists and other experts from the real world sitting in it as well. That’s actually why I support open list PR as it would still enable independent experts to be elected (for example, I imagine that if people saw Robert Winston or Stephen Fry listed on a ballot paper they’d probably vote for them even if they weren’t affiliated with any particular party) whilst giving people the option to choose which of a party’s candidates they support instead of being forced into the nepotism that the closed list system provides.
As for the Council of Peers, I only favour that one simply because I have a soft spot for all the grandeur and aristocratic trappings of the Lords. I think it would be a shame to lose them just because most of the current occupants are useless.
I don’t like the term Senate.
I don’t want the new second chamber to behave either like the Roman Senate or the US Senate – which are the two main examples which come to mind most easily when the term is mentioned.
As for the Roman senate, take any century you like in its long history – they were occasionally impressive in their clout and collective expertise, especially during the Republic, but in those periods when they did have real power, they mostly acted in their own narrow interest. Do we want to compare our upper chamber with a body which might take the law into its own hand and lynch a politician who wanted to stand up for the people? (Just have a look what happened to Tiberius Gracchus!).
The US senate is a little more civilised in comparison, but these days, it’s also not the most edifying model for what we should have in Westminster…. I’d like constructive scrutiny, not a chamber which sees it as its main duty to obstruct the government and to extract favours for their votes.
@ Kierun – “I like the idea of esteemed academics, business people, military figures and other experts not playing party games having a chance to scruitinze legislation, as anachronistic as the whole idea of the HoL appears with even partly filled with appointees.”
Very much agreed.
House of Lords, or if you fancy going for a properly English name, Whitan.
Senate would be an awful name. A ridiculous relic of Ancient Rome’s republican oligarchy that was awfully foisted on the modern world by the Americans adopting it. It’s an absolutely pointless name that neither has connection to this country, its culture nor history or any practical basis as a name. I can’t see any reason to adopt it as a name other than it’s what the Americans do. An awful reason for doing anything at the best of times.
It’d need much less rebranding if we just keep it as the “House of Lords”
Bundesrat.
Definitely Bundesrat!
“What should this country’s proposed “wholly or mainly elected second chamber” be called?”
Superfluous.
The Senate, or the Curia. A useful reminder if nothing else that our European political associations are ancient, and no modern invention.
@Greg
– the Curia these days is a central part of the Vatican administration (and it has had that name for such a long time that I would think that this meaning now dominates). I am not sure whether the UK would want to adopt that name.
Generally, ancient associations are often a nice idea. But given the nature of the Roman Senate – in fact the Roman state in both its Republican and Imperial forms – I am not sure whether associations with ancient Rome are, in this case, a good idea. In fact, some of the flaws in the US system are due to the fact that they borrowed quite a lot from the set-up of the Roman Republic. We wouldn’t have to do that, of course, but I think that even the Roman names alone don’t do our democracy justice.
If you want something ancient and constitutionally more appropriate we could go Greek and call it the ‘Boule’ – but that’s not exactly a word that’s very familiar to people, and personally, I wouldn’t want to see that used, either.
Lloyd – We need to distinguish between the Crown Dependencies – Man and the Channel Islands, which are constitutionally linked to the Crown but not the UK (although practicality sometimes dictates otherwise) and the UK’s Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland and so forth.
It would probably require some form of constitutional reform to more fully integrate these territories into the UK just as France’s overseas territories have been – which would be popular and worthwhile to varying degrees in those territories – but certainly seats in BOTH houses to represent citizens of those former colonies should be introduced.
The proportional house? The house of representatives?
“Senate” is used in:
Argentina
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Burundi
Cambodia
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of Congo
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Fiji
France
Gabon
Grenada
Haiti
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Nigeria
Palau
Pakistan
Paraguay
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Lucia
Senegal
Spain
Swaziland
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
So it’s a pretty standard term, and gets my vote. Just as long as that house isn’t given more power. It may become legitimate through elections but allowing it to block legislation is a terrible idea. The current role of the Lords, and the power of the Commons, must be maintained.
Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly sound good too.
The Witan of course.
@ George
I suppose 300 is enough, and if we could get less party hacks and still have them be elected, that would be a good thing.
@Adam C
There is something in what you say. All I can say, and I know it isn’t rational, but something about ‘Senate’ just doesn’t resonate with me. Legislative Council/Assembly sounds suitably authoritative, if bland.
How about ‘The Most High Council for Legislative Scrutiny’? I’m not good with names in fairness.
“Another bunch of hacks on the make”?
~alec
I’m split between keeping House of Lords and moving over to Senate, which is a term I think people would feel has a real meaning and character about it, unlike a term like “Legislative Council”, which has a ring of what some people would probably call political correctness about it (although personally I’ve always thought the term is misguided, it does identify a real genre of bland corporate/bureaucrat-speak).
More importantly, I’m hoping we see a house elected by STV, with a third of the house elected every general election, a term in office to last, therefore, three parliaments (barring early dissolution). I would particularly like the upper house not to attempt to maintain any kind of constituency link, breaking away from the idea that the most important form of community which a politician can be called upon to represent is a geographically-based one. There are many other constituencies of interests among the electorate which need representing, and the parochial business of clamouring for a greater slice of the cake for a particular administrative area is more than adequately served by the lower house.
I rather like going back to the Anglo-Saxon Witangemot meaning meeting of wise men who would be called Earldormen. I think that would be rather neat.
Roger, if it then is allowed to declare war on the Welshes, I definitely would go for that.
Hosni Mubarak’s mother-in-law was a Welsh. The Protocols of the Elders of Capel Seion strike again!
~alec
How it is named depends upon how it is to be constituted. Titles should correspond with roles.
I’d be quite happy to keep a ‘House of Lords’ if the people in it were representative of the best that the country has to offer in their fields, but the lack of accountability in appointed positions mean there’s no accurate way of judging this (and was clearly disproved in the cases of many hereditary aristocrats and in the practise of selling titles operated by many leaders down the years).
But I also don’t see how public elections would decide who is the best either. Public elections identify popular democratic commonalities (hence ‘House of Commons’), not the elite qualities of a meritocracy (hence the ‘House of Lords’).
So public elections to both houses creates a dangerous situation where legitimacy is equalized, precedence is brought into question and political debate becomes unbalanced – this in turn places greater emphasis on the individual role of Prime Minister and makes its evolution into a Presidency more urgent, thereby devaluing parliament and reducing the scrutiny and accountability on the overall leaders.
So there is a deeper question here: do we want a parliamentary system, or a presidential system?
For a ‘House of Lords’ to survive it would require an end to political appointment and the institution of private elections (such as already exists to elect Trade Union barons and industrial leaders of quoted companies – many of whom are consequently appointed to the House of Lords in any event). This would also incentivise wider membership of these organisations and deincentivise their investment in political parties to make our political system not just more transparent, but also less open to corruption.
I’d like to ask, why is the political leadership on all sides so intent on undermining Parliament to introduce a Presidency? Is it a power grab by other means?
We all remember how Blair and Thatcher both used their personal authority to skirt round Parliament and take awful decisions – I don’t think that should be encouraged.
Senate is a term widely understood in English-speaking countries, such as those “old Commonwealth” countries with bicameral legislatures (New Zealand is unicameral I believe), and also in the United States both federally and at state level. (I believe 49 out of 50 states have bicameral legislatures). It was even used for the Upper House of the Northern Ireland parliament at Stormont (1921 to c. 1972) and in the Irish Republic.
The term Senator would be useful, particular in the early decades, to distinguish the members of the then current Upper House from people entitled to style themselves “Lord”, such as redundant hereditary and “life” peers, and others who were never members of the House of Lords, such as holders of Scottish or Irish peerages and holders of courtesy titles.
I would favour election by STV on a regional basis, probably on the current European constituencies to avoid too much of a London and South-East England bias. Election by thirds, as is done in the US, ensures stability without too much ossification.
Other legislatures have other ways of appointing an upper house. I believe the Norwegian Upper House is elected post-election from among MPs. In Northern Ireland, the former House of Commons elected people to fill vacancies in the Senate by PR.
The Senate. With one third elected every five years by proportional STV, so that the House of Commons, whether elected disproportionately by either AV (hopefully!) or FPTP, always has more recent democratic authority.
Firstly – I am NOT in favour of a wholly elected House of Lords (by whatever name). If its ethos and constitution is to be different at all, it ought to be 75% elected and 25% by right of inheritance of title or succession.
If we make it wholly elected we will lose many, many good men and women who deserve to be there and who have done a massive amount of work to curb the excesses of the far right or left of Members in the Commons, and this would be a tragedy.
I’m in favour of it either remaining the “House of Lords” – or the “House of Nobles” which is less gender specific (except in people’s minds). The other option which I think would be very acceptable is “The Noble House”.
What REALLY needs to be changed is the name of the House of Commons! That DOES need to be changed to something like “The House of Respresentatives” if only to remind the MPs therein that they are there to REPRESENT Us, the ordinary or common man and woman in the street who elect them to office in the first place.
If it was named “The House of Representatives” it would be a daily reminder to those who have forgotten what their tasks and duties are! The vast majority of MPs do excellent work, but we all know that there are those who have brought politics into disrepute.
I agree with what has been said earlier about returning to the even more English, Witan or Witenagemot
I’d rather it was “House of Peers” than council of, as the terms have slightly different meanings
I vote for the:
House of Geeks
(where ad hominem slurs and jeering are prohibited, and nit picking and graphs actively encouraged).
The Demos. And every citizen should be entitled to speak and vote or nominate a proxy.
When there is an option ‘Commons II: This Time Its Personal’ how do you expect people not to vote for it?
Hmm, seems mobile users are disenfranchised here. I see no poll, but my suggestion is “the House of Laws”!