The House of Lords

[barbitu8]

partially democratized. Is that a good idea. The proposal is to reduce from over 700 peers to 600, and including 120 elected members and 120 non-political appointees chosen by an independent commission (is there such a thing?). "Most of the rest" would be nominated by political parties based on their strength in the House of Commons.

I don't know what is meant by "most of the rest." Is there some of "the rest" that is going to be peers by some unknown method.

Politicians opposing this state that this feeble effort at demoncratizing the House of Lords is not going to advance the cause of democratic legitimacy very far.

Opinions?

[Polycarp]

The OP asks for views on a proposed reform to the British House of Lords on which the OP's report of proposed changes is foggy. May we have a more detailed and coherent description of the change from one who is not among the "us" in "The British constitution confuseth us"?

There have been past attempts to make the membership of the Lords conform more closely to representative democracy. In theory, Irish peers elect some from among their number, although since the formation of the Irish Republic, this has fallen into abeyance. Scottish peers who are not peers of Great Britain or the United Kingdom do likewise. In addition, the Queen names life peers on nomination of the Prime Minister in office. Proposals to make this sort of membership applicable to the whole House have been made and, to the last I knew, defeated.

There is some virtue in leaving a seat to the heir of line of a family which has contributed leadership to Britain in the past. A case in point from living memory is the Marquess of Salisbury, who helped shape British governments in the 1950's (including arguably having selected two prime ministers) after having been an early and steadfast supporter of Churchill during his years in political exile. He was grandson of the Lord Salisbury who was prime minister in the 1890s and heir of line of the Lord Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil who were leading ministers to the first Queen Elizabeth back around 1580-1600.

[barbitu8]

I live in Charleston, SC. I merely reiterated what is in the newspaper today, which appears clear to me. The House of Lord has been a matter of noble descent or heirs of one who was a leader, and a proposal has been made to make it more democratic, but not completely, as I described it. Opponents say that this is too feeble. Perhaps those living across the pond can chime in on their opinions. Polycarp says that Scotland now does, but Scotland doesn't have any representatives in the House of Lords anymore, or so I thought. Attempts were made in the past, but these were only attempts. This is a new attempt.

[Wallenstein]

This is a summary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4294358,00.html) of some of the proposed changes from The Guardian today.

Hope it's of some use.


-- Quirm

[geepee]

They should just mirror the house of commons as in 100% elected officials rather than the 20% and other 20% chunks not being of parties chosen by the main parties in the house. Stripping it of power really but the lords has been a thorn in the Commons side for a while and Tony doesn't like it when his bills and acts are veto'd

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally posted by barbitu8
Polycarp says that Scotland now does, but Scotland doesn't have any representatives in the House of Lords anymore, or so I thought.
I think this refers to the members of the pre 1707 Scottish House of Lords (or whatever it was called) and their heirs.
Apart from them, there are still Scottish peers there in the same capacity as English ones. BTW Scotland still has a full complement of MPs in the House of Commons. This may come up for review soon, but it is important as the Scottish parliament has no say in foreign, defence and social security affairs, and little say in tax affairs. This is a matter for a different debate though.

Regarding the OP, the Lords haven't had a veto on bills for nearly a century; they can only delay. The veto that's being talked about is on secondary legislation; ministerial orders, statutary instruments etc (correct me if I'm wrong). I feel that the whole argument is cloudy; we're not sure what the Lords are for, we don't know how to organise them or what powers they should have, but we don't really want to get rid of them.

originally posted by Polycarp
There is some virtue in leaving a seat to the heir of line of a family which has contributed leadership to Britain in the past. A case in point from living memory is the Marquess of Salisbury, who helped shape British governments in the 1950's (including arguably having selected two prime ministers) after having been an early and steadfast supporter of Churchill during his years in political exile. He was grandson of the Lord Salisbury who was prime minister in the 1890s and heir of line of the Lord Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil who were leading ministers to the first Queen Elizabeth back around 1580-1600.
What is this alleged virtue? Was the Marquis of Salisbury undoubtedly the best person for the job? What on earth does the identity of an ancestor in the 16th century have to do with one's abilities now? Or one's grandad for that matter?

[tracer]

You know, Lords are an awful thing to make a House out of. They have practically no structural strength, and they emit a foul odor after a while if you forget to feed them.

Better to make a House of Bricks, or a House of Concrete, or even just a plain old House of Timbers.

[Hemlock]

Originally posted by Polycarp
There is some virtue in leaving a seat to the heir of line of a family which has contributed leadership to Britain in the past.

You're joking, right? Leadership is a hereditary trait? A country is better off picking leaders according to their great-great-etc-grandfathers rather than an open election?? Just because the US Presidency has turned into a hereditary office doesn't mean the UK has to do the same.

[DPWhite]

Does the House of Lords have any legislative powers to speak of? I had heard that the most they could do was delay something from becoming law.

I do seem to recall that at least a committee of "law lords" made rulings in the Pinochet case.

As far as what Americans think of monarchs and aristorcracy, I can only speak for myself, it seems to me to be completely daft. I know the United Kingdom makes beaucoup bucks of the pagentry from tourism, but just because someone's ancestors was a successful warlord 1000 years ago doesn't mean their descendants are entitled to perpetual power, however trivial. Seems to me to be legalized mafiosi with trappings of power. But its your country, and if it works for you folks and you keep the tyranny to a minimum (which seems to the the case) I'll not get too excited.

[Northern Piper]

Originally posted by Polycarp In theory, Irish peers elect some from among their number, although since the formation of the Irish Republic, this has fallen into abeyance. Scottish peers who are not peers of Great Britain or the United Kingdom do likewise.

It used to be the case under the two Union Acts (Scotland in 1706; Ireland in 1800?) that the Scots and Irish peers elected "representative peers" from amongst their own numbers to sit in the House of Lords. However, I believe that under the Peerage Act of 1963, all of the peers from Scotland and Ireland were automatically members of the House of Lords, and elections were no longer held.

I believe that there can still be peers in Northern Ireland, either holding an old Irish title, or as a peer of the United Kingdom (i.e. a title created since the union of Ireland with England and Scotland).

[woolly]

Originally posted by Polycarp
There is some virtue in leaving a seat to the heir of line of a family which has contributed leadership to Britain in the past.
Originally posted by Hemlock
You're joking, right? Leadership is a hereditary trait? A country is better off picking leaders according to their great-great-etc-grandfathers rather than an open election?
I have some empathy with Polycarp's view. If your family has been involved in governance for over 400 years, you might well be more likely to consider issues in the long term best interests, rather than which spin looks best in tomorrow's tabloids.

"Great-great grandad was a Senator" may well be a better credential for high office than "Daddy has lots of money".

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally posted by woolly I have some empathy with Polycarp's view. If your family has been involved in governance for over 400 years, you might well be more likely to consider issues in the long term best interests, rather than which spin looks best in tomorrow's tabloids.

"Great-great grandad was a Senator" may well be a better credential for high office than "Daddy has lots of money". [/B]
Whose "long term best interests"? "You might well..."; on the other hand you might well not. The point is that the best person for the job could well be prevented from getting it just becuase someone else had an ancestor in the 17th century who helped the king cover up some gambling embarassment. Britain has many politicians who have come from working or middle class backgrounds; they are where they are because of knowledge, skill and experience, not becuase of a rich daddy or a powerful great great grandad.

DP WhiteThe Law Lords are actually Britain's Supreme Court. It's a confusing situation which many people in the UK don't understand either. The House of Lords is technically both a legislative body and a judicial body. However, the only people who can sit on cases before the House of Lords are judges who have been appointed as "Law Lords". These judges technically have the same voting rights as other lords in legislative debates, but I'm not sure whether they use them. When sitting as a court, the Law Lords are a normal appeal court, hearing cases from lower courts in the UK (except Scottish criminal cases; they stay in Edinburgh).

Interestingly, the Law Lords also sit as the Privy Council (another term that has more than one meaning). They hear appeals from certain legal systems throughout the Commonwealth. They hear death sentence appeals from the Caribbean, for example.

As far as I know, none of the judicial roles or powers will be affected by changes to the House of Lords.

[owlstretchingtime]

Originally posted by DPWhite
Does the House of Lords have any legislative powers to speak of? I had heard that the most they could do was delay something from becoming law.

I do seem to recall that at least a committee of "law lords" made rulings in the Pinochet case.


The Law Lords are a different body from the House of Lords, although they are a part of the House of Lords and can sit and vote in it(although they are lords too but by enoblement rather than accident of birth). A similar position exists with the Lords Spiritual, who are senior Anglican bishops.

The Law Lords are the senior judges of the country and as such are the highest court in the land (Not just of the UK either, many Commonwealth countries stll use them as their highest court).

The House of Lords passes more laws than the Commons. THe laws that it passes are generally non-controversial procedural legislation. They can veto any Bill (except the Finance Bill aka The Budget) and send it back to the Commons. However they can only do this a limited number of times before the Commons bypasses them.

[Stanislaus]

House of Lords reform is a tricky one. On the one hand, the reformers argue that hereditary membership is, firstly, a genetic lottery - pop out the right womb and you have the power to delay the passage of Bills through parliament, and to make the government change its legislation - and secondly, that it introduces a hell of a lot of bias. As was said by someone or other "The hereditary peers independently review the evidence. Then they independently consider the evidence. Then they independently decide what would benefit the country. Then they independently vote Conservative." Coming from one class, they have one perspective. Hereditary peers were at the forefront, for example of the Lords campaign to block revision of the age of consent for homosexual sex to 16 (same as heterosexual). And, in fairness, behind a campaign to block government legislation which would have stripped the disabled of their benefits. So sometimes they do well, sometimes badly.

On the other hand, supporters ask, "What's the alternative?" Second chambers should be above petty politics, independent of governmental control and long-sighted. However, current reforms seem unlikely to create such a beast. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1642000/1642107.stm), current plans would mean 60% of the Lords were government appointees. The majority of elected members would be in line with the government, probably, which gives 70% of the House to the government of the day. Which means, effectively, that the House of Lords is a rubber-stamp body. Not what it's there for. (A thousand years of history! Glorious tradition flushed away by power-hungry opportunists!).

I think we should select from the whole country by competitive examination, and have citizens sit for, say, 1 year sabbatical. But that won't happen.

[Wallenstein]

There was recently a move to introduce a number of so-called "People's Peers" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4176278,00.html) into the House of Lords - the idea being that they were to be more representative of the "common man".

As it turned out they were predictably upper middle-class, middle-of-the-road ex-diplomats or directors etc - the oft-heard complaint was that there were "no hairdressers" in the Lords.

Although I disagree with the notion of a hereditary peerage, one problem I see with allowing "the common man" into the legislative chamber is that very often "the common man" is not the sharpest knife in the intellectual drawer.

By which I mean that the qualities required for being e.g. a good hairdresser are not necessarily those which make for competant political legislators. And without wishing to demean hairdressers in any way, I am not sure that I wouldn't rather have someone who has e.g. a law degree, or 20 years' diplomatic experience in change of examining parliamentary legislation.

Government "for the people and by the people" is all very well providing "the people" actually know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, those who do know what they are talking about tend to come from a certain (i.e. middle / upper-class) social background and have a certain (i.e. Oxbridge) education.

To my mind, the House of Commons is where we have "the people's representatives", but the Upper House should be filled with those who have proved themselves to be intellectually capable of dealing with complex legal and social matters. The trick is making sure this is not open to abuse, as it often the case now.

-- Quirm

[barbitu8]

The House of Lords passes more laws than the Commons. THe laws that it passes are generally non-controversial procedural legislation. They can veto any Bill (except the Finance Bill aka The Budget) and send it back to the Commons. However they can only do this a limited number of times before the Commons bypasses them.

Is there a written provision limiting the number of times the Lords can veto any one bill and, if so, what is it?

"Of the people and by the people" has worked very well here in the US (or so we like to think). However, not any Tom, Dick or Harry is on the ballots. Politics decide the candidates. The House of Lords has no political connection, which is good, but it always votes conservative, which is bad.

In the House of Commons, do the citizens vote for candidates picked by the various parties, and what are the various parties now?

[owlstretchingtime]

Yes there is a law; The Parliament Act 1911. This ended the veto on "money bills" and limited the amount of times that a Bill could be sent back. This has been reduced since so that now the Lords can only veto a bill once. They have to accept it on the second reading (well technically they could veto it again but this would cause a constitutional crisis and appropriate measures would be taken to get around it).

[Northern Piper]

Originally posted by owlstretchingtime
The Law Lords are a different body from the House of Lords, although they are a part of the House of Lords and can sit and vote in it(although they are lords too but by enoblement rather than accident of birth). A similar position exists with the Lords Spiritual, who are senior Anglican bishops.

I wouldn't say there're a different body - they're a sub-committee of the House of Lords, exercising the judicial capacity of the House on behalf of the whole House.

The Lords Spiritual are full members of the House in its legislative capacity.

The House of Lords passes more laws than the Commons. THe laws that it passes are generally non-controversial procedural legislation. They can veto any Bill (except the Finance Bill aka The Budget) and send it back to the Commons. However they can only do this a limited number of times before the Commons bypasses them. I think you mean that they do the "grunt work" on non-controversial bills. The House of Commons still has to pass a bill from the Lords for it to become law.

Originally posted by G. Odoreida
DP WhiteThe Law Lords are actually Britain's Supreme Court. It's a confusing situation which many people in the UK don't understand either. The House of Lords is technically both a legislative body and a judicial body. However, the only people who can sit on cases before the House of Lords are judges who have been appointed as "Law Lords". These judges technically have the same voting rights as other lords in legislative debates, but I'm not sure whether they use them. When sitting as a court, the Law Lords are a normal appeal court, hearing cases from lower courts in the UK (except Scottish criminal cases; they stay in Edinburgh).

Interestingly, the Law Lords also sit as the Privy Council (another term that has more than one meaning). They hear appeals from certain legal systems throughout the Commonwealth. They hear death sentence appeals from the Caribbean, for example.

Although appointment as a life peer is the normal way to become a law lord, the criteria for sitting on the sub-committee includes having "held high judicial office." Prior to the reforms limiting the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, it was theoretically possible for a judge to inherit the title and qualify that way. (For example, a younger son of a peer could have gone into law, done well, got on the bench, and then inherited the title when his older brother died without issue). Don't know if that's ever happened; didn't Asquith's son sit with the law lords?

I believe that the Law Lords do not participate in the activities of the House sitting as a legislative body. They only carry out their judicial functions.

With respect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is a separate body from the House of Lords. The Law Lords are also sworn of the Privy Council when they are appointed so that they can sit on the Judicial Committee. That means that the membership is much the same, but that is not always the case. At one time it was customary to appoint some of the prominent judges from the Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council. Justice Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada was sworn of the Privy Council and I've seen some judgments which he wrote on behalf of the Judicial Committee. I seem to recall seeing names of judges from Australia and India in Privy Council cases as well.

The custom has fallen out of disuse for Commonwealth countries which have abolished appeals to the Privy Council; dunno if judges from the Caribeean countries still get appointed.

[owlstretchingtime]

The Privy Council is still the last court of appeal for several West Indian countries, especially regarding the death penalty.

So you have the odd situation of London based judges signing the death warrants for felons on the other side of the Atlantic. Something they have been forbidden to do at home since 1969. And yes, they do authorise the death penalty and yes, people are hanged.

[Chez Guevara]

Originally posted by owlstretchingtime

Yes there is a law; The Parliament Act 1911. This ended the veto on "money bills" and limited the amount of times that a Bill could be sent back. This has been reduced since so that now the Lords can only veto a bill once. They have to accept it on the second reading (well technically they could veto it again but this would cause a constitutional crisis and appropriate measures would be taken to get around it).

I had always thought that time was the essence here and not the number of occasions a 'veto' can be employed.

The Parliament Act of 1911, augmented in 1949, provides for a maximum delay in passing a Finance Bill of one month and a delay of no longer than one year in passing a non Finance Bill.

[Steve Wright]

With regard to the hereditary peers; there are, indeed, noble families who bring their children up to a tradition of duty to their country. The best, or at least most obvious, example is the Royal Family. They may, variously, be emotional cripples, loud-mouthed idiots, or barking mad loons who talk to trees, but they do seriously believe in doing what they can for Britain as a whole.

The trouble is, you can't rely on a family tradition, any more than you can rely on its genetic heritage. If King Henry IX, sometime in the future, decides to say "stuff the family tradition of service! I'm going to sell Buckingham Palace, spend the money on whores, and then declare war on Neptune!", there ain't a whole lot, constitutionally speaking, that can be done about it. So, it makes sense to have legislators who are accountable to the public, not just to their own consciences or traditions.

But I'm not at all happy with the current plans for the Lords. Quirm has a point, but political appointees are more likely to be picked for their ability to support the Government of the day than they are to be chosen on actual merit. And, frankly, I think you could pick better legislators by throwing darts into the phone book than you would by choosing from "Tony's Cronies".

I like amrussell's idea. I agree, it's a shame this will never happen.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally posted by Northern Piper

Although appointment as a life peer is the normal way to become a law lord, the criteria for sitting on the sub-committee includes having "held high judicial office"
I feel I should point out that judges are specifically selected (by the Lord Chancellor, I think) to become law lords, in the same way that they are selected to join the US Supreme Court (without the political controversy, though). Law Lords aren't just those from the normal intake of party nominated life peers who happen to have the right experience. As you point out, Northern Piper, it's one of these areas of the British constitution where theoretical powers are different de facto powers.

[Chez Guevara]

Originally posted by Steve Wright

If King Henry IX, sometime in the future, decides to say "stuff the family tradition of service! I'm going to sell Buckingham Palace, spend the money on whores, and then declare war on Neptune!", there ain't a whole lot, constitutionally speaking, that can be done about it.

Queen Elizabeth II owns Buckingham Palace in her role as sovereign, not as an individual. She is constitutionally required to pass on this residence to her successor, therefore she cannot sell Buckingham Palace and neither could Henry IX. :)

[Steve Wright]

Oh, yeah, I was forgetting "This isn't ours, it's a tied cottage" (HRH the Duke of Edinburgh).

[Boris B]

It doesn't make much sense to call it the House of Lords unless it's a house of lords. The British could just follow the examples of Canada, Australia, and France and the U.S. for that matter, and call it a Senate. Then they could various regions equal representation regardless of population, and abandon the habit of overrepresenting Scotland and underrepresenting Northern Ireland in numeric terms. With the simple abolition of the monarchy and ratification of a written constitution, they could be just like the U.S. Wouldn't that be much simpler?

Just kidding. But I do think they should change the name; the classism implied by the names Lords and Commons is getting pretty hoary and could use a good dusting.

[DPWhite]

I want to thank all the Anglophiles for my education on the House of Lords. I've watched the opening of Parliment on C-Span, and they have some commentary there, but it is mostly about the pagent. (Which you Brits do very damn well. Every once in a while I will visit our local British pub for fish and chips (cod and french fries for the unwashed.) MMMM, mushy peas.) The Queen gave a nice speech too.

[Dave Stewart]

Originally posted by Northern Piper

I believe that the Law Lords do not participate in the activities of the House sitting as a legislative body. They only carry out their judicial functions.

With respect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is a separate body from the House of Lords. The Law Lords are also sworn of the Privy Council when they are appointed so that they can sit on the Judicial Committee. That means that the membership is much the same, but that is not always the case. At one time it was customary to appoint some of the prominent judges from the Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council. Justice Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada was sworn of the Privy Council and I've seen some judgments which he wrote on behalf of the Judicial Committee. I seem to recall seeing names of judges from Australia and India in Privy Council cases as well.

The custom has fallen out of disuse for Commonwealth countries which have abolished appeals to the Privy Council; dunno if judges from the Caribeean countries still get appointed.

The Law Lords are a fine court, as is the Privy Council - they apply the local law of the country of the parties to the appeal as appropriate. They have, however, been known to criticise those laws, with effect - I'm thinking especially of Hong Kong's stupid conveyancing laws. Australian judges have served on the Privy Council, most notably Sir Owen Dixon, the finest legal mind of his time, and until 1985 Sir Garfield Barwick, when Australia and Great Britain passed the Australia Acts by which Australia's High Court became the court of final appeal for Australians.

On the Privy Council passing sentence on Carribean prisoners, see the excellent book "The Justice Game", by human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson. Its not that straightforward.

The Law Lords are in fact a subcommittee of the House of Lords - their judgments are called "speeches", and Privy Council decisions are called "advices", to the Crown.

New Zealand and many other countries still use the Privy Council as their final court of appeal, and House of Lords decisions are very persuasive common law authority across the British Commonwealth, partly because of the calibre of the judges. This is why I suspect any reform of the House of Lords would not affect the Law Lords - the effects would go well beyond England.

From the link to the Guardian, above:



In addition, it proposes that Church of England bishops should remain in the Lords, but with their numbers reduced from 26 to 16. Ministers have shied away from providing guaranteed places for representatives of other faiths, but expects the appointments commission to choose key figures from other faiths.



Dave runs around in circles with his hands in the air, muttering, "Separation between church and state! Separation between church and state!"

[APB]

The role of the Law Lords is the simplest and least controversial aspect of Lords reform. If it was decided to make the Lords a wholly elected chamber, a new, separate final court of appeal would simply be created to exercise the Lord's existing judicial functions, possibly in the guise of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It has, in any case, been suggested that the Law Lords should be provided with more convenient accommodation elsewhere in London, even if they technically remain a committee of the House of Lords.

The idea of appointing religious leaders to balance the presence of the bishops has often been suggested and a number of governments have in the past considered making such appointments on an informal basis. The big stumbling block has always been that neither the Church of Scotland nor the Roman Catholic Church, the two churches with the strongest claim to such representation, would be easily accommodated under such a system. The problem with the CoS is that, in so far as it has a leader, it has a Moderator who changes every year. The same applies to the major Presbyterian denominations in England. The problem with the RC Church is that its priests are theoretically barred by the Vatican from sitting in parliamentary assemblies. It is widely believed that the late Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Basil Hume, repeatedly turned down the offer of life peerage for that reason.

As for the composition of the rest of the Lords, the argument used to be that an hereditary peerage was indefensible and that an appointed peerage was not much better, but that, in practice, the Lords often took a more sensible view than the Commons. (The Poll Tax springs to mind as one obvious example.) This is the one advantage of having a chamber which is conspicuously undemocratic - it can't simply assert that it represents 'the people', so that, if it wants to carry any weight, it needs to make sure that it does in fact reflect public opinion. Similar arguments can be applied to the political role of the monarch. Attempting to preserve the virtues of the old House of Lords while making it more democratic was always going to be a project likely to fail. Any reform which retains any element of the existing structure can only look half-baked.

[Northern Piper]

Originally posted by Dave Stewart

Dave runs around in circles with his hands in the air, muttering, "Separation between church and state! Separation between church and state!"

Oh, c'mon Dave - we can do better than that! What about the Lord Chancellor and the separation of powers?

The Lord Chancellor:

a) is a member of the Executive, with a new one being appointed whenever the Gov't changes, with executive responsibilities;

b) a member and presiding officer of the House of Lords in its legislative capacity;

and

c) a member and presiding officer of the Law Lords, sitting in their judicial capacity.

Montesquieu obviously missed the Lord Chancellor when he started talking about the separation of powers. :)

[Dave Stewart]

Originally posted by Northern Piper
Originally posted by Dave Stewart

Dave runs around in circles with his hands in the air, muttering, "Separation between church and state! Separation between church and state!"

Oh, c'mon Dave - we can do better than that! What about the Lord Chancellor and the separation of powers?

The Lord Chancellor:

a) is a member of the Executive, with a new one being appointed whenever the Gov't changes, with executive responsibilities;

b) a member and presiding officer of the House of Lords in its legislative capacity;

and

c) a member and presiding officer of the Law Lords, sitting in their judicial capacity.

Montesquieu obviously missed the Lord Chancellor when he started talking about the separation of powers. :)

Gah. I didn't know that.

[2sense]

And yet the Brits haven't devolved into totalitarianism. In fact they matured into a democracy from true monarchy.

Many Americans fond of quoting Montesquieu obviously are missing something.


-----
Just my 2sense

[sirjamesp]

My view: since the job of the Lords is to scrutinise bills, not propose them, I would rather they were non-political. Since cronies appointed by the Prime Minister or politicians elected by the people will by nature be political, a hereditary peerage system would seem the natural way to ensure that a long-term view of Commons Bills can be taken without any politics entering into play.

The current situation, in which the elected MPs propose Bills and independant Lords study them, seems perfect to me.

Of course, that is in an ideal situation, where MPs aren't silenced by their party leaders, and where the Lords are not dominated by peers with decidedly Tory views. This ideal situation only ever occurs on JamesWorld - others would argue that an elected house is the only fair way to do business, and here lies the main problem: under Blair's proposals, neither case will come into play.

You see, according to one's point of view, we either need the long-term views of unelected, non-political peers, or the "people's views" of elected peers. One must, without doubt, be better than the other.

But what is Blair proposing? Well, he removed most of the hereditary peers, packed the Lords full of his cronies, and now grudgingly suggests putting a small minority of elected representatives into the House.

Well, whoopee doo, thank you Mr. Blair. As it is, you have taken apart a system that was working fine, and meddled with it so that we now have a bizarre half-way mess between two systems.


Addition to 2sense's piece: our system protects against totalitariansm. A Prime Minister cannot extend Parliament as this is the one Bill that he cannot force through the Lords using the Parliament Act. An independant Lords would never give assent to such a Bill.

[Embra]

I cannot agree with any system of hereditary peerage (or whatever we'll call it once we've gone all sensible). The fact that an elected second house risks short-term political bickering is neither here nor there when discussing the concept of the inheritance of political power. Thank god the Royal Family no longer wield realistic political power, but they remain a symbol of a society that seems to accept that birth is enough qualification for status and respect. I would dearly love to see the UK rid itself of the monarcy, a hereditary peerage, and the established church, but I think it will be slow because the UK has an evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) history in political terms (NB no jumping on me shouting for Cromwell :) - I think that political institutions developed at a tortoise-pace even considering the Civil War).

As you can see at

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldinfo/ldanal.htm

the number of hereditary peers in the Lords is actually now substantially reduced by recent reforms. I believe those remining are the survivors of a process whereby they had to justify their presence in the House.

I don't see why a process of selection by independent commission shouldn't apply to a larger proportion of life peers - so called "people's peers" (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,9061,479256,00.html). At the time the first of these were chosen, there were complaints that there were "no hairdressers", and that the selected people were already elevated in society. To be honest, I don't see why there should necessarily be "hairdressers" in the upper chamber. All I want is people who are engaged with contemporary political issues, prefereably from a non-party perspective, and who are willing to give their time and experience to their new position. These need not be "Oxbridge" educated, as someone suggested, but they are likely to have demonstrated through their career that they have the wherewithal to deal with ideas at a national political level. I don't want "people like me" debating issues of state: I want people with MORE nous than me.

Embra "lordy"

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by Embra
I cannot agree with any system of hereditary peerage (or whatever we'll call it once we've gone all sensible). The fact that an elected second house risks short-term political bickering is neither here nor there when discussing the concept of the inheritance of political power.

My concern with a wholly elected House of Lords is not with political bickering, but with short-termism.

The duty of the Lords is to look at the long-term impact of Bills passed by the House of Commons. This acts as a brake on any short-term whims embarked on by the Commons.

So, where should these peers come from? It is clear that there has to be some clear system. The hotch-potch cooked together by Blair is clearly a shambles. If there is a problem with the system, then change it. If there is not, then leave it alone. Don't mess around, tinkering here and there, as that can have no benefit (except to Blair, of course, who managed to remove a huge number of opponents from the Lords by promising reforms that he has no intention of completing).

So, putting to one side Blair's political meddling, which system is best? Remember that the job of the Lords is to scrutinise Bills passed by the House of Commons for constitutional problems, conflicts with other laws, and the long-term effect on / general good of the nation. It is not an all-powerful law-making position, but merely gives a Lord the power to request the Commons to look at a Bill again.

One option is for peers to be elected in the same way as MPs. However, the peers cannot take a long-term view if they have to court short-term populism in the same way that politicians do. So, regular elections do not seem to be the best way forward.

Another option is for the peers to be elected for life. This improves on the above system, in that the peers can now take a purely long-term view, as they no longer have to chase votes. However, where will the candidates come from? Popular figures? I hope not, as I want someone who knows something about constitutional law, politics and economics to be scrutinising Bills. Captains of industry? Again, I hope not, as checking Parliamentary Bills is a full-time job, not one that can be carried out inbetween sitting on various company boards. Retired politicians? Still doesn't sound too good, as the whole point of the Upper Chamber is that it needs to be largely non-political.

Assuming, though, that suitable candidates put themselves up for election, how will we choose between them, given that they must be non-political experts in points of law? We may as well let them be appointed.

So, the third option: all peers are appointed. Nice idea, but unless politics can be completely removed from the appointment process, then it still isn't perfect. Even "independant commissions" are still set up by the ruling political party of the day, and still have to keep the Prime Minister happy.

There is of course an easy way to appoint peers whilst keeping the Prime Minister's nose right out of the process: rely on accidents of birth.

To me, this is the obvious choice. This is the easiest way to fill the Lords with people who do not have to chase a vote, do not have to tip the wink to any political leader, can afford to take unpopular decisions if need be, and will know from the day they are born that this is what they will be expected to do, so will have plenty of time to brush up on their knowledge of law and constitutional matters.

In fact, I would go the whole hog and say that we should give these peers a cushy life, plenty of money, maybe a nice pad somewhere, so that they can concentrate on checking the impact of Bills. Sure, the politics of envy screams out that this is unfair, but I want the peers give all their time to the important job of checking the fine print of the government's plans; I don't want them having to seek time-wasting jobs in the "real world".

If a peer doesn't want this vocation, then fine - give up your house, salary and the rights of your decendants.

Remember - "I don't think it's fair" is not a reasonable argument. We are talking about the long term interests of the country.

DISCLAIMER: All this is academic anyway, since Blair has messed the whole thing up to suit himself anyway.

Jeez, that was long. Plenty there for you all to rip to shreds now... :)

[Embra]

sirjames, are you one of those hereditary leftovers? Go on, identify yourself! :D

When I said that entrants to the Lords should be "non-political" I didn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to identify with the politics of a particular party, only that they shouldn't be beholden to that party. A life appointment is a partial antidote to this as there's plenty of time for (e.g.) a Blair appointee to change their mind and become a thorn in the side of their party.

I agree that second-chamber members should be paid, and should dedicate themselves to their position. Remember that it's really only since 1911 that MPs in the Commons have been salaried: it used to be thought that a wage was far too base a motive to become involved in politics at all, and that legislation should be left to that class of people who had a private income.

I still completely disagree with the whole concept of hereditary titles of political power. To me it's not an alternative. It represents the completely false assumption that people from the same family line will (a) always be even competent at a particular job, and (b) always WANT to do that job. We would potentially miss an enormous amount of candidates, AND we would be reinforcing an aspect of the class system that we really should be trying to escape from. Inheritance of social and political power is something which underpins the persistence of class in the UK, I think.

More thoughts as I receive them... ::moves political antennae around::

Embra

[sirjamesp]

Embra - Sadly the monarchy has overlooked my family when dishing out peerages so far, but I am sure the Queen will put it right when she realises. :D

Anyway, we agree on the need for payment though it pisses me off that MPs get paid and then don't bother turning up for work and the need for lifelong membership of the Lords. That's a good start, I guess.

The only thing we disagree on in the method of selecting the said peers. The real problem I have with appointed peers is not their association with parties (hell, everyone has views), but that it goes beyond that. "Beholden" is exactly what they are - generalisation alert you become a life peer by showing your loayalty to a party, either through donations or general arse-licking. This behaviour rarely changes in the Lords, which is why Party Whips are accepted by peers in the Upper House (which, in my view, is completely wrong). Once a sycophant, always a sycophant.

I settle on the hereditary method of selection only because it seems the only way to get someone who is (a) non-political and (b) knowledgeable. Any moral problems with hereditary titles should be thrown out the window, as we are not talking about real "power" here.

But, as you rightly point out, there are still many problems with the hereditary principle for peer selection. In reply to the ones you identified:

People from the same family line are not necessarily competent.
I would say that if they know from birth that this is to be their role, then they have plenty of time to pick up the necessary skills.

People may not want the job.
Certainly, which is why they are able to renounce the title.

As I see it, opposition to the hereditary principle normally comes from the "it's not fair" line of thought. Sure it's a bummer if you come out of the wrong womb, but hey, it's not massive power we are dishing out here. And even if the very principle offends, I would say if it works, it works. So what?

Note that I am not defending the hereditary principle; I am saying that in this case it is the best method of selection, and so should be used. How "fair" it is should be irrelevant. On the other hand, if there is an equally effective method that avoids this principle, then even better. The problem is, the other proposed methods are certainly not equal.

James (no Sir there really!)

::sees Embra's political antennae sweeping by::

Jeez, mind those things, will you? That one nearly had my eye out.

[Polycarp]

The Lords as the revising house is a 19th Century modification; originally they were the stronger house, introducing and passing laws to which the Commons consented back in Wars of the Roses days. The shift came when the Commons asserted their right to originate and levy taxes in a way such that if they didn't get the laws they wanted, they wouldn't give the King the taxes he wanted.

With regard to my early comment on hereditary peerages, all I was trying to say is that while typically a hereditary peer might be a nonentity, uninterested in government and tending to be a cipher politically, there is some excellent evidence in British history and elsewhere for the recurrence of the sort of shrewdness and leadership skills that make effective members of government on a biologically hereditary basis. (Another example: Sir Winston Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, radical 19th Century Tory and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and descended from John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, political and military leader under William III and Anne.) To have persons of this caliber entitled to access voice and vote in government forestalls their having to make their way up through the bureaucracy to a position where they can be effective, since they're already there. Giving the country the benefit of 20 years or so more of their skills. The ones who are not so skilled will in general stick to their hunting, horseracing, and other aristocratic activities, not sit in the Lords on a day-to-day basis (which would bore them silly).

Finally, Sir James, insofar as the family tradition that our family originated as wrong-side-of-the-sheet byblows of the Plantagenets may have any merit, I'd be happy to ennoble you. That and a fifty-pence piece will get you a good cup of coffee, but I can at least offer. ;)

[Monty]

I guess it's too much trouble to hie over to http://www.parliament.uk and read what the government actually says about its plans, etc.

[APB]

Originally posted by Polycarp
The Lords as the revising house is a 19th Century modification; originally they were the stronger house, introducing and passing laws to which the Commons consented back in Wars of the Roses days. The shift came when the Commons asserted their right to originate and levy taxes in a way such that if they didn't get the laws they wanted, they wouldn't give the King the taxes he wanted.

Not entirely true. The Lords has pretty much always been primarily a 'revising' chamber, as there was never any point from the fourteenth century onwards when the Commons did not do the bulk of the legislative work in preparing most bills. Of course, the Lords did have the power to introduce bills, but that is a power which it continues to exercise no less frequently than it ever did in the past. The more significant shift was rather the almost complete removal of its powers of veto, a process which occured during the twentieth century. Moreover, this did not coincide with any real shift in the powers to levy taxation. Several centuries prior to either the nineteenth or twentieth centuries the Lords had already recognised that taxation bills ought to originate from the Commons and that (with one or two minor exceptions) it did not have the right to amend them. Its theoretical powers of veto over money bills was never exercised, which was why its attempt to do so in 1909 caused such a fuss. The Crown's recognition that taxation could only be levied with Parliament's approval (a process which also long pre-dated the nineteenth century) largely occured after the Lords had conceded that taxation bills were primarily a matter for the Commons. One should not make the mistake of confusing the collective political power of the peerage merely with the rights of the House of Lords.