[Rasczak]

Surprised nobody has started a thread on the announcements over the last few days!

BBC News - House of Lords should be 80% elected - MPs and peers' report

A Parliamentary Committee has recommended that a reformed (and renamed?) House of Lords should be introduced. Key recommendations:

1. The second house should be 80% elected for periods of 15 years. The additional 20% would be appointed (but by whom?) "as a means of preserving expertise and placing its mandate on a different footing from that of the Commons".

2. The original proposal of having a 300-member upper chamber was deemed "too small" and therefore the proposal is a chamber of 450 peers.

3. The peers should receive a salary of about £50,000 a year rather than the existing attendance allowance system.

4. The committee was divided on the extent of the powers for the newly democratic second chamber, i.e. to what extent would it impinge upon the supremacy of the Commons.

5. There should be a referendum before any change is made.

So where do we go from here?

Personally I am not convinced by the need for an elected second chamber - but by the same token I also believe that the current system whereby the Government packs the Lords full of 'friendly' peers is equally wrong. I would much rather the Lords became a 'best of British' affair comprised of the top individuals from industry, education, defence, civil service, politics, media, sport etc etc all selected by an independent (from the Government) panal. I'm not sure what electing another career politician - someone who is probably just using the new Lords as a stepping stone between University and the Commons - is going to give to the UK.

I certainly think there should be a referendum though - not just a yes or no ballot by a multi-choice option for what powers we think a revised second chamber should have.

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Personally I am not convinced by the need for an elected second chamber - but by the same token I also believe that the current system whereby the Government packs the Lords full of 'friendly' peers is equally wrong. I would much rather the Lords became a 'best of British' affair comprised of the top individuals from industry, education, defence, civil service, politics, media, sport etc etc all selected by an independent (from the Government) panel..

+1,

Reform is needed, I would go for an independently appointed Senate with a maximum term of say 15 or 20 years.

If we were to have an elected upper house, then IMO it should have full powers to block bills from the Commons

[JamesHP]

Originally Posted by dc8900

+1,

Reform is needed, I would go for an independently appointed Senate with a maximum term of say 15 or 20 years.

If we were to have an elected upper house, then IMO it should have full powers to block bills from the Commons

I agree with this; there's little point embarking on a programme of second chamber reform if you're not going to expand the powers available to them. The two major constraints on the HoL at present in both legislation and parliamentary convention (Parliament Act and Salisbury Convention) are based upon the notion that an appointed chamber should not be able to subvert a democratically elected chamber.

I would agree with a 10-15 year term, but staggering elections to a third every general election, elected through the Single Transferable Vote method. We don't want an upper chamber to be a mirror image of the HoC, otherwise the quality of scrutiny would be massively diminished. I would also like to keep a neutral element of the upper chamber in the form of the crossbenchers in place to prevent it being over-politicised (since again, scrutiny across party lines rather than on experience and expertise is never as effective).

[Rasczak]

Vince Cable has used the Sunday politics shows to instruct Tory MPs to 'get on' with Lords reform:
BBC News - Vince Cable: Get on with Lords reform

A debate is planned for tomorrow and a vote is due on Tuesday - upto 100 Conservative MPs are rumoured to be ready to rebel. But, according to Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, the Lib Dems are blackmailing them - no Lords reform, no changes to MPs' constituency boundaries.

How do people see this playing out? The Tories need those boundary changes to stand any chance of an absolute majority at the next election. But will some senior players, the likes of David Davis for example, respond to blackmail? Especially if the AV referendum was a price already paid for the reform of the boundaries?

A number of articles suggest the Lib Dems do not want boundary changes - they need the Tories to be a minority party in order to retain a king maker role - so perhaps they would be quite content for dispute over the Lords reform to frustrate it all. Anyone got any thoughts?

[domtheone]

Do we really need 450 in the second house

Are not the number of MP numbers meant to be slashed?

450 x 50K is 22.5 Million. Small change in the grand scheme etc etc but every little helps.

[MikeTV]

Of course we don't need 450 members of the house. If the USA can make do with 100, why the hell do we need 450?

[domtheone]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

why the hell do we need 450?

Jobs for the boys (or girls)

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Of course we don't need 450 members of the house. If the USA can make do with 100, why the hell do we need 450?

Not quite the same, the purpose of the U.S. Senate is to represent the states to counterbalance the power of the House of Representatives which as the name suggests represents the people. The purpose of the Lords currently is to represent experience/knowledge.

Furthermore on the whole 'Germany, USA are larger populations but have smaller populations' argument, one has to remember that both of those countries are federations with quite sizeable state legislatures.

Anyway, in regards to the Lib Dems, I also reckon they know they will get decimated at the next GE and thus, IMO it makes sense for them to try and push for such reforms while they have the chance.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by dc8900

Not quite the same, the purpose of the U.S. Senate is to represent the states to counterbalance the power of the House of Representatives which as the name suggests represents the people. The purpose of the Lords currently is to represent experience/knowledge.

You know I think you have hit the nail on the head there. As you say our non elected Peers represent the expert experience/knowledge in our legislature. If we are changing that to a mostly elected chamber - and by definition losing most of that expert opinion in favour of a more representative, non-expert element - what role will the second chamber be playing then?

[MikeTV]

I just think I'm a bit more cynical than you guys. I see it as a hangover from feudalism - giving wealthy landowners a modicum of power in the face of universal suffrage. But I'd be surprised if you could find a lord that has actually bothered to read a bill of parliament. We have lawyers for that sort of thing. I've never seen more than about 12 people in the house at one time unless it's a state occasion. And then, all they seem to be doing is stating the bleeding obvious, if they say anything at all.

However, I too think we need an institution to counter balance the power of the commons. Just not a medieval one, and one that's accountable.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I just think I'm a bit more cynical than you guys. I see it as a hangover from feudalism - giving wealthy landowners a modicum of power in the face of universal suffrage. But I'd be surprised if you could find a lord that has actually bothered to read a bill of parliament. We have lawyers for that sort of thing. I've never seen more than about 12 people in the house at one time unless it's a state occasion. And then, all they seem to be doing is stating the bleeding obvious, if they say anything at all.

However, I too think we need an institution to counter balance the power of the commons. Just not a medieval one, and one that's accountable.

they mostly seem half asleep from having imbibed several stiff scotches

[MikeTV]

Apparently, when it rains the whole place smells of pee, because they wear tweed which has been soaked in urine during manufacture. (that's actually true!)

[krish]

Originally Posted by dc8900

The purpose of the Lords currently is to represent experience/knowledge.

which makes you wonder about the likes of Warsi
- a 36 year old solicitor when her peerage was conferred, who'd already stood and failed to win a Commons seat

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by krish

which makes you wonder about the likes of Warsi
- a 36 year old solicitor when her peerage was conferred, who'd already stood and failed to win a Commons seat

Of course, the Lords system is open to abuse when each government packs the upper house with life peers who are there for political reasons rather than for experience/knowledge etc. Hence why I support reform.

[krish]

^^^ yep, but they've usually had years of experience/expertise at something (even if it was just being an MP)

the only Labour equivalent I can think of is Waheed Alli who was made a peer aged 34 in 1998 (ticks the same number of 'minority' boxes as Warsi ... gay male instead of female) - however, despite his young age he was already a hugely successful media entrepreneur by then (co-founded Planet 24 with partner Charlie Parsons and merger partner Bob Geldof, which was later bought by Carlton, of which he became MD ... still owns the Survivor format with Parsons)

anyway that's enough of my Warsi bitching for today, might move on to Mensch next

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You know I think you have hit the nail on the head there. As you say our non elected Peers represent the expert experience/knowledge in our legislature. If we are changing that to a mostly elected chamber - and by definition losing most of that expert opinion in favour of a more representative, non-expert element - what role will the second chamber be playing then?

That's the key question and also problem in creating these new elected Lords (still think we should renamed it to Senate). I mean, as reform not only changes how people enter it but also it's fundamental role. Looking at the rough proposals on BBC News just now, seeing that the Lords will be elected from Regional areas, it seems like that the new Lords will essence IMO become more of a body to represent wider regional interests as opposed to the more localised viewpoint of MPs in the Commons.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You know I think you have hit the nail on the head there. As you say our non elected Peers represent the expert experience/knowledge in our legislature. If we are changing that to a mostly elected chamber - and by definition losing most of that expert opinion in favour of a more representative, non-expert element - what role will the second chamber be playing then?

Exactly my view, the lords are there to be without political pressure (at least from the ballot box) to ensure laws are fit for purpose, using their experience and impunity. Of course they need to be experienced/proven individuals in at least one area otherwise you have to question their reason for being in the lords.

A publicly voted for lords seems to serve very little if any purpose in my view.

[IronGiant]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Apparently, when it rains the whole place smells of pee, because they wear tweed which has been soaked in urine during manufacture. (that's actually true!)

Thank you Mike, you have expanded my knowledge of the world today

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

However, I too think we need an institution to counter balance the power of the commons. Just not a medieval one, and one that's accountable.

How accountable is the proposed 'list system' actually going to be? As far as I can see from the proposals, the plan is for 9 mega-sized constituencies where personnel on party lists will be elected as per their share of the vote.

That sounds awful to me. The beauty of our current system is we can give MPs the boot - in 1997 for example many people watched with relish as Senior heavyweights, e.g. Portillo, lost their seats. It was democracy in action. Now what would it do for the credibility of that process if such individuals were then automatically then given a seat in the new Lords? And even more so if that Lords then has significant powers to challenge the Commons.

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

How accountable is the proposed 'list system' actually going to be? As far as I can see from the proposals, the plan is for 9 mega-sized constituencies where personnel on party lists will be elected as per their share of the vote.

Expect back room behind closed doors deals on that front when it comes on what order people are on the party lists

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

Thank you Mike, you have expanded my knowledge of the world today

Are you taking the pee?

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

How accountable is the proposed 'list system' actually going to be? As far as I can see from the proposals, the plan is for 9 mega-sized constituencies where personnel on party lists will be elected as per their share of the vote.

That sounds awful to me. The beauty of our current system is we can give MPs the boot - in 1997 for example many people watched with relish as Senior heavyweights, e.g. Portillo, lost their seats. It was democracy in action. Now what would it do for the credibility of that process if such individuals were then automatically then given a seat in the new Lords? And even more so if that Lords then has significant powers to challenge the Commons.

I haven't studied the proposed system - and so can't really comment. But that's never stopped me the past.

My understanding was that it would be a 15-year term? And so we can boot them out eventually. To me, that sounds better than lifers.

I think we've already got regional representation in the commons, and so I'd would be willing to consider a solution that isn't regionally based.

I would hope that anybody could stand for election to the Lords? If so, then it doesn't matter too much about party lists - they can select their candidates any way they want - as long as independents can stand against them.

I'd favour any system that avoids party distinctions (although that's difficult). But there's no value-add if the lords simply vote along party lines. May as well dispense with it altogether then, in my view.

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

My understanding was that it would be a 15-year term? And so we can boot them out eventually. To me, that sounds better than lifers.

Yep, the current plan is for it to be a single non-renewable 15 year term i.e. long enough in office so they don't go following the news-cycle as in the case with elected politicians but they are not there forever, how well that will work in practise is another question.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by dc8900

Yep, the current plan is for it to be a single non-renewable 15 year term i.e. long enough in office so they don't go following the news-cycle as in the case with elected politicians but they are not there forever, how well that will work in practise is another question.

I don't think it will work at all. Firstly the proposed list system will just further entrench the party system and with that will come 'uncrossable' boundaries imposed by Party HQs. Furthermore if it becomes the norm for politicians to seek election to the Lords post a career in the Commons, all it does is provide them with a long term £50,000PA retirement fund on top of a handsome pension.

[dc8900]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I don't think it will work at all. Firstly the proposed list system will just further entrench the party system and with that will come 'uncrossable' boundaries imposed by Party HQs. Furthermore if it becomes the norm for politicians to seek election to the Lords post a career in the Commons, all it does is provide them with a long term £50,000PA retirement fund on top of a handsome pension.

That's my main concern, well there are party structures to a degree within the Lords, it's very weak in comparison to the Commons which has allowed Lords to have the independence and freedom to say and debate what they think rather parrot than the party line. I do fear that with an elected Lords, the similar level of party control as is seen in the Commons will be replicated in the Lords.

[Rasczak]

Well, Clegg got a drubbing in the Commons yesterday; Nick Clegg heckled by Tories as he tries to stop Lords reform rebellion - Telegraph

Debate continues today with a vote this evening.

[IronGiant]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Are you taking the pee?

Very good

and to answer seriously, no I wasn't

[Wild Weasel]

I think a system along the lines of that used in Canada would be better if there is to be reform. Their parliamentary system is modelled on ours, but instead of a house of lords, their upper house or senate has 105 appointed members. There is mandatory retirement at the age of 75.

Senate of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rasczak]

The Government has postponed tonights proposed vote on Lords reform:
BBC News - Lords reform: Government abandons crucial vote amid likely defeat

"David Cameron had told his deputy Nick Clegg that the so-called "programme" (timetabling) motion should be withdrawn to gather support for it amongst Conservatives over the next two months."

I am guessing the Tory Whips are hoping a couple of months of threats, career thumb-screws and whip bullying will result in a Government victory.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I am guessing the Tory Whips are hoping a couple of months of threats, career thumb-screws and whip bullying will result in a Government victory.

Given that some of the most vocal opponents are Whips, I suspect they aren't.