An idea regarding House of Lords reform.

Great Debates
1

Originally an idea put forward by Ramsay MacDonald, not a great thinker and not a good man or Prime Minister, but everyone can have one good idea.

Back then the Soviet Union was very in vogue, and the idea was based on the Grand Soviet, MacDonald wanted the Lords reconstituted as representatives of Trades Unions, as they are in the Labour Party itself. That’s too party political, but if only those Trade Unions not affiliated with a political party were included, and if you added other charitable and mutual organisations it could be workable. RSPB. Skipton Building Society. Co-operative Bank. Howard League for Penal Reform. Marylebone Cricket Club. Royal British Legion. Certainly an improvement on the fools appointed by HMG for services to the arms trade and suchlike things. It’s meant to be a consultative assembly, it would be nice to have some experts in there instead of the most corrupt and unpalatable elements of society.

The flaw in most ideas about Lords reform is that it would make the Lord more legitimate and democratic, while the entire English political system is based on only the Commons having any claim to democratic legitimacy. Making the Lords elected by PR or something like that would be an awful idea. It’s better to keep them powerless and “deliberative”, but with a more respectable element than is currently there. Representatives of the civil society and the like.

2

When Wellington thrashed Bonapare,
As any child can tell,
The House of Peers throughout the war
Did nothing in particular
And did it very well.

3

The Lords are full of experts on this or that. Very few of them are hereditary. I dont trust non affiliated trade unions any more than I trust affiliated ones. Neither do I particularly trust the Co-op or the British Legion . It all sounds like filling the Lords with a new load of vested interests. Try getting pension reform past the Co-op and the British legion.

I cant say I have a solution, other than them being elected, but with only limited powers. We really dont desperately need another bunch of full-time politicians.

4

How’s this idea for reform of the House of Lords? Get rid of it. Chuck it.

5

And replace it with? Difficulty: you can’t create another chamber with the same rights as the elected Commons.

6

Get rid of the House of Lords.

Reform the House of Commons so that it takes 60% to pass a Law but only 40% to strike an existing law down.

Whipping to be abolished, so each vote is a free vote by the MP.

Referendum required if 25% of a voting population (parish council, county council, National, all UK, demand it by petition.

7

How on earth do you think that this would work in the current electoral framework?

8

Who says you need a bicameral legislature? Unicameral can work and isn’t rare.

9

There would have to be electoral reform, one way or another, if we are to abandon the second chamber, but still have some form of review process on legislation.

My suggestions just makes it a little harder to pass legislation, and a little easier to abolish it.

But this idea would require the proverbial turkey to vote for xmas.

10

Since the foxes are protected and the Badger Cull failed, how about “the unspeakable in full pusuit do the unspeakable” :smiley:

(You would have to train the hounds to catch and release)

11

Actually, it’s not an idea exclusive to Ramsay McDonald.

The basic idea here is that people can be organised for purposes of parliamentary representation not according to where they live, in territorial constituencies, but according to what they do, in vocational constituencies.

Territorial representation, on one view, is an accident of history. The nation-state was built up by accretion, either through previously separate territories being united (by conquest or by dynastic alliance), or through quasi-autonomous provinces being brought under increasingly effective central control, with the domination of the king over the nobles. In each case, the newly-incorporated territories are given their own parliamentary representation.

Nowadays, on one view, our contribution to the nation is related not to where we live but to our engagement in the social and economic life of the nation. Different interests and different perspectives will be more comprehensively represented in the political structures of the nation if people are organised vocationally, rather than geographically, for representative purposes.

It was quite a fashionable idea in between the wars – geographically based parliaments were characteristic of the oligarchies which fought one another in the Great War – but it was most strongly voiced by the Italian Fascists, which of course led to its falling into disfavour after the Second World War. Also, the idea of vocational constituencies also tended to be associated with the idea of indirect democracy – parliamentary representatives are not chosen directly by workers, farmers, businessmen, etc, but by trade unions, farmers organisations, chambers of commerce, etc.

Still, in the context of the House of Lords, that would be an improvement over the present system, under which the overwhelming bulk of the members are simply appointed for life by the government which happens to be in power.

12

The Lords probably did more for liberties than the commons in the last decade.

I never understand it. The Lords as it is presently constituted is filled with elder statesmen, captains of industry, retired military and naval chiefs, former judges etc, all of whom can bring a wealth of experience and insight to the table. Why do you want to get rid of it?

13

I have advocated a simple solution for a considerable time. The main problem with the British system of Parliamentary democracy is the conflation of Executive and Legislative powers.

I suggest an elective House of the Executive elected on the same First Past the Post system on treble sized constituencies producing about 200 members. Such constituencies to be so far as possible rural and urban, and if all urban, then to represent a mixture of classes of people. This is likely to ensure more marginals and a more decisive (unfair to small parties) choice of Government.

To ensure a decisive majority to the largest party or coalition selected to Government a further 20 appointments can be made to Cabinet posts- if a member of this chamber is chosen to be in the Cabinet, a further member is chosen by the Government to replace him or her (a bit like Aldermen but appointed retrospectively) or if outsiders are chosen, they become voting members of the house for the duration of their tenure. Vacancies are filled by appointment from party lists ensuring that a Government cannot fall easily by losses in by-elections. Six year fixed term Governments

This is accompanied by a House of the People elected on pure Proportional representation with about 600 members in similar sized constituencies to those used now. To run for the House of the People one cannot have been a Member of the other house or on the Government Payroll (Quangos etc) for a decade prior to the election, and one can not become a member of the other house or be on the Government Payroll for a decade after your term; this ensures separation between the two houses. The House of the People would have the ability to delay all but supply bills for consideration in the same manner as the Lords currently does, but would have the extra power that a super majority against the Government (say 2/3 or 3/4) would precipitate a General Election. Election to this house is a third every two years, ensuring that people can (with adequate compensation to employers etc) take sabbaticals from real world jobs and return easily to their work.

This would create two classes of Members of Parliament- career politicians either by election or by appointment to the cabinet, and amateurs with little chance of being affected (bribed) by the Government who serve a short time as representatives of the People.

Stable Governments and popular oversight.

14

Can we not call it “House of the People”, though?

15

In a country with such strong regional identities and such domination of all industries by the capital as the UK, and maybe some other European capitals, it’s got to be a geographical Commons. Elected by STV would be best, I think.

The Lords, on the other hand, as the secondary and less important house, would be a good candidate for indirect democracy involving membership organisations, like vocational bodies and mutual organisations and charities and the like. They should continue not to be paid, though.

Second-best, though, would be to abolish it altogether.

16

The strength of the British system is that it produces governments that can get things done. America has plenty of these bullshit checks and balances, and hence their government achieves nothing of any merit. Britain, on the other hand, can with a single election radically change the country, as in 1906, 1945 and 1979. Separating the legislative and executive branches produces an ineffective American-style government incapable of serving the people.

You want to treble the size of constituencies which would make MPs less accountable to their local electorate. You want party-lists, which would save the entire parliament for a small and corrupt elite. You want overly long six-year parliaments, which have been illegal for over a century. You say you want strong governments, but you want fixed-term parliaments which only serve to keep weak governments in power rather than replacing them with a new election. You want “pure Proportional representation with about 600 members in similar sized constituencies to those used now”, which implies you either don’t know what proportional representation is or don’t know what a constituency is. You also want the more representative house to have less power, as in the American system, and to be elected piecemeal, which is again based on the American system and reduces turnout and the possibility of a truly decisive, 1945-style, result.

In short, you are comprehensively wrong about every single thing in your post.

17

In the common law system there’s no real distinction between “passing” and “abolishing” a law. They are functionally equivalent. They both change the current law in one way or another.

18

It’s an interesting idea, but I see problems down the road. In geographically-divided representation, Gerrymandering is a big problem.

If you are apportioning votes among organizations and professions, how do you decide:

  1. Which groups are entitled to representation. E.g., should Bronies get their own representation? What prevents me from starting up a “West Lake District Park Four-Square Tournament Club” with a bunch of friends as a pretense to get us a legislature seat? After all, we do play four-square most weekends in the park and it is important for us (heh heh) to be able to work against the First Baptist Church Ladies’ Sewing Circle’s attempts to sand off the four-square courts and replace them with hopscotch boards.
  2. What the qualifications should be for a person to be allowed to vote for an organizational representative. E.g. most countries do not have any specific definition that can determine exactly who is a “software developer” and who isn’t. Do you automatically get in if you have a degree in Computer Science? What if you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and write freeware in your free time? Do you get rejected from the polling place because you don’t have at least 2 years full-time, paid experience in software?
19

And the main problem with the American system of democracy is the separation of the same… :slight_smile:

20

It would have to be based on prominence, membership numbers and the like. As with the current system there would have to be approval from the Commons and the reformed Lords. So The FA or MCC might get in, maybe even the RFU, but not your West Lake District Park Four-Square Tournament Club.

Obviously we’d need to limit the number of members of the upper house. The Lord have gone from not much more than a hundred to over seven hundred in the last hundred and fifty years or so. We should have less, and we could start by getting rid of those who haven’t turned up in years, have brought the House into disrepute or have broken pledges made at their induction, such as the Lords Ashcroft, Hanningfield, Blencathra… then replace them with the most unobjectionable of organisations. Woodland Trust, RSPB, that sort of thing. As there are hundreds of Lords and they tend to be quite old there must be many deaths every year, just make it the law that they must be replaced by organisations. Leave the Bishops and the Law Lords and so on.

Easy, you have to be a member of the organisation. Paying dues to the RSPB, being a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, whatever membership rules the organisation has.