Thought this might make an interesting point of discussion. Summarised:
House of Lords is the oldest second chamber in the world, so easy to assume it’s not changed in 700 years (such as ermine-clad media image). In fact since most of the hereditaries were remove in 1999, the House has changed enormously - in terms of how members perceive their role and impact on policy.
It has the same proportion of women as the Commons (23%) and slightly more ethnic minorities (42, compared to Commons’ 28); Parties are proportionally represented in Lords, unlike in the Commons.
The Labour Government of 1999-2010 suffered 450 Lords defeats - Cameron already 75; Lords has high success rate in defeats sticking, as either Government sees the point, is worried about missing deadlines, or their own backbenchers support the Lords. But importantly, the Lords is no longer a conservative body, large or small ‘c’, and will cause trouble for both major parties equally.
Large-scale reform attempts to the Lords tends to fail and are unlikely to take place, but plenty of room for small-scale, sideline reforms - remove hereditaries, remove patronage from Prime Minister,cap on numbers, and others.
On the whole, I agree with much of what the article says. Any thoughts from learned Dopers?
It seems like the whole point of the House of Lords, the whole reason that it was created and maintained over the centuries, is so that the hereditary nobility would be able to shape and influence the government’s policy. We’ve since moved to a feeling that this is unacceptable as we’ve embraced more democratic principles and the feeling that it’s wrong for a small group of elites to shape policy. Hence the reforms, “democratizing” the Lords, by removing hereditaries, stopping Lords’ ability to veto legislation, etc.
By doing this though, by turning the Lords into Commons-plus, you remove the very reason for the House’s existence. I say either embrace the idea that some people are innately superior to others by reason of birth or reject it. Lords now is neither fish nor fowl, neither one nor the other.
The House of Lords hasn’t been a chamber designating those of superior birth for about 60 years or so. The purpose now is that people of distinction through achievements get a peerage - they aren’t born with the right to one.
Doesn’t always go to the most deserving though!
I think the present appointments system needs major reform (and the article says so too), principally taking the appointment power out of the hands of the PM and putting it in a more accountable, professional and open statutory commission. Should greatly improve the Lords’ meritocratic credentials.
I agree with this. I also agree that there is some benefit to having an upper house of intelligent and experienced people who aren’t constantly panicking about votes. I would, however, like to see fixed terms, such as 5 or 10 years, as I think it’s important that the Lords gets regular fresh thinking that better reflects the country at large. And a mandatory retirement age.
The last thing we need is more elections. The problem is that while we do need a second chamber to act as a brake on the wilder excesses of a government with a big majority, we have trouble deciding who should be in it.
The original house was made up of the lords (and ladies) who were the big landowners and the most influential, and that made sense then. Todays Lords are a mixed bunch of inherited privilege, time served politicians, wealthy people who paid, assorted arse lickers and some deserving people who have served their country for years in other capacities. Once they are promoted, so to speak, they are there for life.
I can not think of any way of choosing candidates that isn’t open to abuse. A committee is the traditional British solution, but who appoints the members of that? I have always thought that merely expressing a desire to go there, never mind campaigning, should mean automatic disqualification.
Glad you agree although I am still attached to life appointment, but with possibility of retirement if desired (a lot of present peers have expressed keenness to do so!) and making it slightly easier to kick out lawbreakers.
As for appointment of a Commission, a possibility is something akin a select committee (which seek unanimity and tend to find cross-party agreement, and are independent of government), but with public questioning of candidates if desired, perhaps. The Committee could periodically report on the verifiability of candidates to the Houses, and either House could vote to reject a member if they feel they are unacceptable or the Committee has been got at.
Yeah, why do you even need the HoL at all? (I incline to the view that a unicameral, or dromedary, legislature is better than a bicameral, or Bactrian, legislature generally speaking.)
To support the Commons in scrutinising legislation and the Government. Both Houses have a different perspective on things - the Lords kind of civil society, the Commons the voters, so it’s good to have both bases covered. Also, with the Commons the way it is as the moment, I wouldn’t feel easy having it without the Lords!
The Lords actually has an excellent track record at scrutinising high-detail matters. Their means of scrutinising delegated legislation is excellent, but not emulated in the Commons. The Lords’ manner of handling delegated legislation is actually taken as a ‘best practice’ example for other legislatures by certain scholars.
Have them appointed for a single 10 year term by the Queen, at the recommendation of a committee of the Commons. Things like leading scientists, elder statesmen, etc. The kind of people the Queen honors with knighthoods and shit.
Of course, since I’m an American, you’re free to ignore me.
although I am still attached to life appointment, but with possibility of retirement if desired (a lot of present peers have expressed keenness to do so!) and making it slightly easier to kick out lawbreakers.