My post from last year is rather relevant again, so here it is with some slight updates:
The voters have cast their verdict and an MP is out of office. What should happen to them next? Most people’s answers are somewhere on the spectrum from the polite (let them tidy up their affairs and see their staff properly treated as their contracts end) through to answers best not published before the watershed.
But our political system has a remarkable answer.
For a lucky group, the answer to being voted out of parliament is to say to them “now you’ve been voted out, you can have a seat in parliament for life instead”.
The way ex-MPs get recycled back into parliament courtesy of a seat in the House of Lords is often reported, but the democratic offensiveness of it is rarely commented on.
Voted out? Have a seat for life.
I don’t begrudge the defeated politicians who take up the offer because, after all, if they say “no” then their own party usually cannot transfer the offer to another person. Moreover, some rescued defeated MPs of all parties have turned out to be great members of the Lords.
But it means 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 grassroots Liberal 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.
But look at the lesson of those who took such a view in the 1960s and opposed Lords reform proposals then; the next 50 years showed how wrong that decision was. With all three parties nominally in favour of Lords reform and a package being put before parliament this is our best chance in a century finally to spread democracy to the other half of parliament.
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Two frogs fell into a pail of cream - You won't believe what happened next
Our weekly ward surgery tonight #dundeewestend
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Imaduddin Ahmed
Nigel Jones
Joseph Bourke
28 Comments
So how do we vote out those appointed for a single 15 year term , the 20% who are appointed or the bishops?
The one Chartist demand that wa never delivered upon was annual parliaments – this Government hardly appears to have moved things much in the right direction.
I hate the political patronage and agree it’s offensive but I’m afraid that the argument that these reform proposals will be any better just doesn’t cut it.
The botched reforms of the 1990s opened up the majority of these political seats, so by all means abolish the political appointments. Thing is, we don’t want to elect the same people back again when they are chosen by the party list system.
“…we shouldn’t let a search for perfection be the enemy of getting major change.” Are these proposals anywhere near? With 80% elected, we’ll end up with even more of the washed up politicos than we’ve got now! How can we trust the House of Commons to come up with any other proposal than one for more party politicians? At he very least the final proposal must be put to the people. As a LibDem voter I am astonished at the arrogance of the government.
Is there anything to stop ex-MPs turning up on the party lists under what’s being proposed?
And how do the proposed changes avoid that problem? An MP who is voted out of office can still be placed on his party’s candidate list for the new Lords. Depending on his position in the list, proportional representation will ensure that he is elected. There will be nothing the electorate can do about it. And exactly as now, he can never be voted out again. He has a guaranteed 15 years, which for most ex MPs will take them up to or beyond retirement age, thereafter to receive a tidy pension.
“But it means 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.”
I am content that some few our of most talented MP’s should become Lords, just as the same happens with senior civil servants and other notable worthies.
However, I agree that the sheer number of failed politicians that get recycled into the Lords is stomach churning.
Quite what Prescott has to offer……………………..
It looks like the Government’s proposals for House of Lords reform are in disarry and maybe lost.
What do people think of the following proposal:
1. To accept that Lords reform has been lost, for now, and resolve as a party to consider plans for a constitutional reform process to be included in the next Liberal Democrat Manifesto. This will include the setting up of a constitutional convention that will sit for 18 months, so as to have enough time to thoroughly consider all aspects of the constitution, (further devolution for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, for the first time, England, greater devolved powers for local government, electoral reform of the House of Commons, House of Lords reform and party funding) the powers of each component and the relationships between its various parts.
2. For the recommendations of this convention to be put to the British people in a referendum 6 months after the publication of the convention’s final report to give time for serious consideration of its proposals.
3. For a positive vote in the referendum to lead to the enacting and implementation of the convention’s recommendations by the 2020 General Election.
This plan, I believe, could be the basis of a future coalition agreement with Labour, since they are more in favour of constitutional reform then the Conservatives and, as a result, would mean in any referendum, unlike AV, both sides of that coalition would be campaigning for a Yes vote, making it more likely to succeed.
Like you, I have been campaigning most of my life for constitutional reform. But I believe politics is the art of the possible. It is simply not possible with Conservative MPs the way they are for us to get a House of Lords Reform Bill through anytime soon. Unless we want to spend all our time on this piece of legislation to the detriment of more important pieces of legislation, as many members of the public and media see it, like banking reform, House of Lords reform is simply impossible.
That’s why I am strongly in favour of this alternative approach. What do others think?
I cannot understand why the proposal is for party lists. Why not have the Single Transferable Vote in Multi member constituencies?
If one third are elected every five years for their fifteen year term, then the Commons would always be more recently elected, and so more democratically legitimate. This argument is not put across often enough in the debate.
I also cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats are opposed to a referendum. If the people turn down the idea, so be it until the next time. But it is up to the politicians to make it attractive to the people. Included in that attraction is the idea that any one can stand – not that they have to climb the greasy pole of intra party politics in order to do so.
Aaron / Julian: Currently an MP voted out at an election can of course stand for the Commons again, and that’s ok in my book – as the public get to decide whether to vote them back in or not. The same would apply with a reformed Lords, with (as proposed) elections using open lists (so you could vote for their party but give your preference to a different candidate if you didn’t like the ex-MP). In other words – the public gets to decide whether or not the ex-MP gets back to Parliament.That’s very different from appointment for life where the public gets no say.
@ Julian, et al.
The proposed system is an open list, whereby you can number individual candidates, even across different parties, in order of preference or select a party and accept the order of candidates presented. This is in contrast the closed list system (where you just select parties) currently used for EU Parliament elections, or AMS (combination of closed list and fptp) as used for Scottish Parliament, or the London and Welsh assemblies.
An open list system for the Lords would probably be the most democratic system to be used in the UK (with the exception of STV in Northern Ireland and Scottish councils.)
A system whereby Lords are proportionally elected for 15 year terms is better than non-proportionally appointing them for life.
“The proposed system is an open list, whereby you can number individual candidates, even across different parties, in order of preference or select a party and accept the order of candidates presented.”
It’s certainly not that. I had thought it was going to be an Australian-style list system with an ‘above the line’ option option. But according to this commentary it’s not even that, and voters will have only an extremely limited opportunity to modify the parties’ ranking of their candidates:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/07/06/house-of-lords-johnston/
“Currently an MP voted out at an election can of course stand for the Commons again, and that’s ok in my book – as the public get to decide whether to vote them back in or not. The same would apply with a reformed Lords …”
As I understand it, the elections for Lords and Commons would take place on the same day, so defeated MPs would have to wait 5 years before standing for the Lords.
I thought it was semi-open regional lists. So a party could still put up just such a candidate, who would then be voted in for a certain region (a ‘safe seat’) where the electorate could be expected to vote along party lines.
@Richard Whelan “Labour […] are more in favour of constitutional reform then the Conservatives”. Really?
Not on today’s showing. Also, not on their response to the boundary review. Given that Labour scored 29% at the last election and got 40% of the seats whilst the LDs got nearly the same vote – 23% – and 9% of seats, Labour has the most to lose from reform to the current electoral system. I actually think that the Tories might come round to real PR (not AV) when they lose the next election to a Labour absolute majority, because even after the boundary review Labour has a huge advantage in terms of seats per vote.
@Richard Whalan
Sounds all very worthy, but it depends entirely on there being another hung parliament in 2015.
If not, then all our constitutional thinking, commissions, reports and suchlike will simply sit, gathering dust until the second centennary of the Parliament Act brings them out of the cupboard for a BBC special feature on failed attempts to introduce democracy to the UK.
Certainly, it won’t get done, because by the time any future government of whatever variety with Liberal Democrats in happens the proposals will be so out of date as to be useless. Even leaving it till 2015 might be leaving it too late to propose a constitutional settlement for the UK.
Basically, I think this is something important enough and unique enough for us to be making every effort to get this step in the right direction passed. Of course a properly thought out proposal of fair constitutional reform should be in our manifesto, but pending any future general election win, we must also be willing to take the opportunities that might be present to take these steps in the right direction. Looking at the history of political reform, or rather the lack of it over the past century, they don’t come by often.
Richard Whelan
Whatever the merits of your argument it has one fatal flaw: the assumption that Labour are in favour of Lords reform. While no doubt many MPs and members do favour reform, I think overall they are as split on this issue as they were on AV. The labour lords seem to favour either no reform or minimal change a la David Steel (i.e no elections). I think one of the reasons for Labour falling in with the Tory right on the vote today is that Miliband, as well as the short term political gains by disrupting the coalition and Lib Dems, knows he can’t deliver the party on this issue.
Blair, with a massive majorities and 13 years in power, only managed to reduce the number of hereditary peers. Do you think any future Lib/Lab coalition would do better?
There are a lot of things wrong with the current proposals. First the 15 year terms, 5 or 10 with 1 re-election would be better. Second I need to know more about how candidates are selected and voted on, of course candidates should be selected by their local party members but I should have the option of putting the candidates in name order at the election.
Many constituency elections are quite close run – second is not too far behind first. So why not fill the second chamner with the second placers? It could be the House of Seconds. This would mean that the people who voted for the second placers would still feel they had some representation. It would also be clear that the Commons was the senior House.
@Mark, @Richard
Your explanation of the voting system doesn’t seem to correspond to what the Bill says. First, any candidate getting more than 5% of a party’s votes will get elected. Next, party votes are allocated to the list. i.e. There is no mechanism for stopping a particular candidate that has been placed high up on the list by his/her party from getting in. That, to me, is not enough of a change from the current system of patronage. Also, to those who say “at least it’s a start”, it seems unlikely to me that there will be any appetite for more constitutional change, even if this gets through.
To keep this argument party-neutral, there are MPs of all parties who will deservedly lose their seats at the next election. There is nothing in the reforms to stop their parties getting them into an elected Lords if they wish. To me, that is so far from democratic, it isn’t worth the huge expense and numerous other problems that the change will give rise to.
David Sea
Do I think a Lib/Lab coalition would do better? Yes, if we go about it in the way I suggest. That is, having a convention to come up with a list of recommendations followed by a referendum. By securing a Yes vote in the referendum removes one of the main obstacles to reform because having given it their approval it would be very brave MP who goes against the will of the people.
@ Richard – “Many constituency elections are quite close run – second is not too far behind first. So why not fill the second chamner with the second placers?”
Because the purpose of the lords is not to be democratic but rather to be a repository of expertise for parliaments revising function.
How does a parcel of failed.mp’s advance this goal?
Julian: Remember, voters have the choice not to vote for that party (and its list of candidates) at all. The ex-MP will only get back into Parliament if people decide to cast their votes that way. That’s very different from a party leader looking through the ranks of their defeated MPs after an election and being able to unilaterally say, “OK, you, you and you – go and take up a place in Parliament for life”. You’re right that in an elected Lords, the way one person votes may be trumped by the way other people vote and so someone you don’t want, gets elected, but that rather comes with giving more than just you the vote :)… and it’s people’s votes that determine the outcome.
Second place in a constituency contest does not equate to being a failure.
Having read the comment regarding failed MP’s being put high on party lists can someone clear something up for me; what is the proposed electoral system to the Lords, is it closed lists (like the European Elections) or STV or something else?
It would be nice to know which of the worst aspects of this bill, eg 15 year terms, are basically compromises to sweeten the bill for the Tories. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Scott the system to be used is not the same as for Europe. It is not STV either. It is an “open list” . A party can nominate a number of candidates and rank them – like the Euros – but voters have the chance to vote for an individual candidate instead of the list. If any candidate secures votes (in this case) more than 5% of their party list total then that candidate moves up the list. I presume that if several candidates beat the 5% threshold then they are ranked in order of their vote share. So voters can – if they choose – override the list put forward by the party. Of course, voters may not be bothered and just vote for the list.
Any independent candidate would be disadvantaged. No different from the system now. Not mates with Dave, Edd or Nick ? Don’t live in London or the South East ? You have no chance. Interest groups could get together and form “non-political parties” get into the system and put up a list of independents, some of whom would stand a better chance than now.
Not perfect,but then is any system perfect.
Better than the system we have now ? I think it would be.
“Voted out? Have a seat for life.”
Yes, that’s how it is now, and that’s also how it would be in the future, if the “reform” proposals ever had a chance of getting implemented.
Just how bad is that, really?
We have always paid judges very handsomely, because it is important to make them unbribeable, and that is a practical way to do so.
On the same principle, what is the best thing we can do with retired politicians?
Should we encourage them to go out and earn their way to a well-funded retirement by becoming lobbyists and company directors, who know just how to get their former colleagues to do exactly what big business wants?
Or, is it a lesser evil to pay them a decent salary, provide them a comfortable club in London, and tap into their experience to tidy up the details of new legislation?
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.
Candidates approved by the Independent Commission would have a collective advantage over ‘wildcard’ independents. The voter would benefit from being able to vote for a ‘quality assured’ raft of independents with a short voting choice.
Such a group of individuals would be different from a party in that they would have no common policies or manifesto, no party mass membership, party hierarchy, party discipline, or party patronage, and there would be no equivalent group for them to work with, or be influenced by, in the Lower House.
Once elected, they would have no obligation to anyone except to obey the rules of the House, and in particular no obligation to the Peers Statutory Appointments Commission.
Ensuring the impartial independence of the Peers Statutory Appointments Commission would be important but, I think, not impossible.
Politically such an arrangement might be attractive to those who see the present proposals giving too much power to the Parties at the expense of Independents. It might also help to reassure some who fear an advantage for the Lib Dems or other third parties as the likely recipient of protest votes.
Assuming the 20% independent element is guaranteed for the first, say, 15 years, this proposal might, in due course, be the basis for a wholly elected chamber.