House of Lords Reform

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:13 pm

Anyone have any views?

My heart sinks every time we look like we're going to lose another centuries-old constitutional tradition, just because we have had this current hateful lot in power for a mere 10 years, a scintilla temporis in the context of our long history. We have already lost the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, which has existed since the 8th century - a travesty that Blair saw fit to announce in a 5.45pm press conference on a Thursday evening in the summer of 2003. It now looks like we might well lose the office of Attorney-General, which has existed since the 13th century. The reason for both of these seem to be that everyone agrees that New Labour cannot be trusted, or cannot find amongst its ranks, the kind of men with the necessary discretion, intelligence, sense of duty and respect to do these jobs that involve some balancing of important and differing functions.

Anyway, for several reasons I am very hostile to the idea of a fully-elected Upper House. It is no coincidence that this apparent appetite for elected lords has arisen at the time when the current whiff of corruption regarding the old system is at its worst. It would be an appalling shame to change the structure of our legislature because of the arrogant indiscretions and moral bankruptcy of the present administration.

This is not something that has come from voters - most people who care at all about these matters rather suppose that the Lords do a good job. The Constitution Unit at University College London reckons that since the most of the heriditary peers were removed in 1999 (a move that does seem to make sense) the Lords have defeated the Government 350 times. The House Lords tends to have no political axe to grind and is one of the last great defenders of those things such as civil liberties that don't win many votes for career politicians. New Labour men who rate convenience far higher than principle should indeed be sent packing when they ask for things like the power to detain people for 90 days without trial. An unelected House of Lords is a crucial check against the power of a Government majority in Parliament.

What's needed is a few years of constitutional stability before New Labour throws out the bathwater, the baby, and the whole fecking bath out of the window. What needs to happen right now is improvements to the credibility of the process by which lords are appointed. The great irony of all this is, of course, that the current system is actually working pretty well - after all, the House of Lords Appointments Commission did actually actually turn down the four men whom Blair nominated for life peerages last year, precisely because of the large "loans" they had made to the Labour Party. However, suggestions of corruption are not forgotten quickly and I would like to see the whole process of appointing lords turned over to a fully-independent body that doesn't just check nominees but indeed makes the nominations itself - much in the same way that monetary policy is now totally in the hands of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, free of political interference and motivation.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:44 pm

Erm, is this the Miss Bolton thread?

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:49 pm

Batman wrote:Erm, is this the Miss Bolton thread?

Come on Batman, you're a man of world - you must have a view...

Dujon · Post by **Dujon** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:47 am

I don't normally dabble in another country's politics, Crayons, but I've always thought it odd that England has an upper house consisting of non-elected people. Whilst it has changed a little over the past decade or so it still is a group of non-representative people dictating to the masses what legislation it will permit to be enacted.

Is it an educated and impartial group? Is it somehow or other impervious to the temptations of corruption? Why are the members so blessed by their heritage or recent 'dubbing'?

What is the alternative? Do what we do here and elect the bastards? Install a few (OK, lots) of civil servants? Theoretically it's all about checks and balances but, to be honest, I reckon - here as well as in your country - we should do away with the upper houses and let the government of the day govern. If it does well the government will prosper; if it does not then someone else will take their place.

It'll save the odd bob or two too.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:52 am

Dujon wrote:I don't normally dabble in another country's politics, Crayons, but I've always thought it odd that England has an upper house consisting of non-elected people. Whilst it has changed a little over the past decade or so it still is a group of non-representative people dictating to the masses what legislation it will permit to be enacted.

Is it an educated and impartial group? Is it somehow or other impervious to the temptations of corruption? Why are the members so blessed by their heritage or recent 'dubbing'?

What is the alternative? Do what we do here and elect the bastards? Install a few (OK, lots) of civil servants? Theoretically it's all about checks and balances but, to be honest, I reckon - here as well as in your country - we should do away with the upper houses and let the government of the day govern. If it does well the government will prosper; if it does not then someone else will take their place.

It'll save the odd bob or two too.

It's an oddity we share with Canada, so I am sure Monty will be along before too long to give us the benefit of his wisdom on the matter.

The first point is that for almost a hundred years now the House of Lords has only been able to delay legislation and can't ultimately frustrate the determined will of our elected representatives. But what it does do is scrutinise proposed legislation with more time than the Commons, more expertise, and, crucially, without direct political pressure. It is precisely because it is not accountable to the electorate at the ballot box that its perspective is so useful as a non popularist one. This is not inconsistent with democracy, because as I have said above - the Lords cannot 'dictate' anything to the masses - they can merely ensure that more thought is given to an issue, over an extended period, giving their opinion along the way. This age of rushed and poor quality legislation needs an upper house perhaps more than any other.

Of course it should be the democratically elected body that has the ultimate power, but as Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

One of the problems of our democracy is that when the Government has a majority in Parliament (as is usually the case) we have something that operates a bit like, as Lord Hailsham famously said, an 'elected dictatorship'. The House of Lords is one of the necessary checks and balances that prevents the elected dictatorship in the House of Commons from exercising its power in a sinister way.

It's interesting that you mention cost because any elected alternative to the upper house would surely come at a price - they would want salaries and offices, which the Lords don't have under the current system. In the current system it's considered an honour to do the job for free - perhaps we Brits shouldn't be too quick too sneer at the 'heritage' that makes that so!

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:04 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

It's an oddity we share with Canada, so I am sure Monty will be along before too long to give us the benefit of his wisdom on the matter.

I have just returned from attending a performance, appropriately enough, of Iolanthe and all my wisdom mercifully left with the ouverture. Briefly, I think an upper house with the power to delay is necessary and such bicameral systems have served the UK and Canada well. Although there is pressure to have a triple E Senate in Canada (Equal, Elected and I've forgotten the third E - the Equal referring to provincial representation), it is currently an appointed body with no term although a mandatory retirement date at 70 years old. Although most senators are considered to have had a party poltical affiliation when appointed, these distinctions get blurred over time and there is no requirement to vote along party lines because there is no caucus to get kicked out of. It seems to work.

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:50 am

As long as the "Upper House" is independent and voting isn't controlled by party whips I suppose that it doesn't matter whether the people are elected or appointed. The problem is that most of the current Lords members were appointed by one of the political parties and hence are they truely impartial, but, on the other hand if members were elected would the electorate appoint members with indepenedent minds or would they vote on party lines.

I understand the tradition argument but on practical grounds it probably doesn't make any difference. The term of appointment after election would however be an interesting issue, for life or for a defined period.

A more interesting point is whether any person could stand and as such if elected to "The Lords" would he/she automatically become Lord or Dame for the duration of their term!

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:16 am

One couldn't give a crap.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:18 am

daxter15 wrote:One couldn't give a crap.

Oh dear.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · Post by **Soldier_Of_The_White_Army** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:36 am

daxter15 wrote:One couldn't give a crap.

Yep, that pretty much sums up the youth of today!

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:39 am

Well you can't expect me to really. Most politicians are a bunch of stuck up, old fashioned nice people who pussyfoot around situations and try and appear intelligent.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:46 am

daxter15 wrote:Well you can't expect me to really. Most politicians are a bunch of stuck up, old fashioned tw*ts who pussyfoot around situations and try and appear intelligent.

Whereas you confirm your intelligence every time you hit the keyboard!

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:49 am

My opinion is that in a mature democracy it is an outrage that people can still sit in parliament because their great great grandad held the Kings hand at some point. The second chamber must be entirely elected. Enough of the prime minister of the day cramming the Lords with his/her lackeys. Not to mention trousering a few quid in the process.

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:51 am

Zulus! Thousand of 'em! wrote:
daxter15 wrote:Well you can't expect me to really. Most politicians are a bunch of stuck up, old fashioned tw*ts who pussyfoot around situations and try and appear intelligent.
Whereas you confirm your intelligence every time you hit the keyboard!

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:09 am

InsaneApache wrote:My opinion is that in a mature democracy it is an outrage that people can still sit in parliament because their great great grandad held the Kings hand at some point. The second chamber must be entirely elected. Enough of the prime minister of the day cramming the Lords with his/her lackeys. Not to mention trousering a few quid in the process.

Ok, so how would you feel about the complete scrapping of heriditary peers, and a fully independent appointments commission like I have suggested in the top post?

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:16 pm

Er... has Michael Portillo been reading The Wanderer?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 496861.ece

I've always said he speaks a lot of sense....

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:40 pm

Yeah, I read that this morning. I usually agree with most of what Portillo says (and Parris) but on this occasion he is way off base. (I need to talk less with Yanks online

)

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:03 pm

InsaneApache wrote:Yeah, I read that this morning. I usually agree with most of what Portillo says (and Parris) but on this occasion he is way off base. (I need to talk less with Yanks online )

Well, he's agreed pretty much exactly with what I have said on the matter, so whilst I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in the past, I think it's you who's off base on this particular occasion!

Just in case anyone thinks this is a partisan issue, I would point out that the Conservative Party Policy on this for the last few years has been in favour of the madness of a hybrid of appointed and elected lords....

Apart from the corruption point, why else would you want to put the question to the electorate, most of whom share Daxter's raw enthusiasm for constitutional matters...?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:52 pm

I am proud to be English, and also a lover of our historical and great traditions. What I have to see, even being generationally distanced from most here, is the fact that we need to ask what good the Lords do in today's age, rather than respecting their heritage rights to be there. That has to be priority one in any issue that affects the country in general rather than their aristocratic rights. Most of their divine rights were aquired in the first place by favours done to leige lords and the crown in the name of conquest rather than for being champions of the people. The position of a deciding commitee is a desirable one, but the deciders need to be of the people and for the people rathen than just being there due to heritage.

The French Revolution was caused by such class difference: a classic case of how to wipe out a zoo by letting the animals loose. Whoever rules our country must have the support of the people. They don't get that just because their forefathers had more clout than someone elses. The House of Lords must be more than just a grand-sounding title. It must function first and foremost as a house rather than someone lording it. Just my sixpence worth.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:38 pm

There are only 92 heritary peers out of the 730 Lords, but I agree that that is too many.

Connect with your social network account

House of Lords Reform

House of Lords Reform

Who is online