House of Lords reform

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Poll question: House of Lords reform

There have been musings that something is going to appear in the Labour manifesto about House of Lords reform. What would you like to happen?

[ikri]

1. I used to believe in total abolition

That was before the Lords started blocking some of Blair's proposals.

We need a system in place where proposed laws go through a 2nd chamber that doesn't need to worry about being upcoming elections. If they need to worry about being re-elected they'll end up voting through the authoritarian laws that the frothing-at-the-mouth daily mail readers love instead of calling them what they are - illegal.

The Lords does need more balance, but that doesn't mean replacing it with a system that would hurt society in the long run.

[ben_packard]

2. With appointed Lords....

We're told all politicians would like to see a more representative Parliament. So how many of those appointed are young (and I don't mean 45)? Working class? Ethnic minorities? Why not appoint a single mum (assuming you could find a mother willing to do it) or some minimum wage earners, etc instead of academics and career politicians?

[D-Notice]

3. I'd like to know who voted for

a single chamber Parliament

The House of Lords is the only thing trying (at the moment) to keep Bliar under control. We need him to have less power, not more!

In the past, after the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell abolished the HoL & ruled as dictator - so unless you want Bliar to be like that...

[sweetheart]

4. Life appointments, none elected, no hereditary lords

I believe that the only reason that britain is not declined in to third
world status like the US has, is because the house of lords is not
elected. It allows them to reject stupid political expediency bills
like the british patriot act, and other stupid legislation that
people who are constantly running for election often pass.

Appointments by a non-partisan committee allow a long-term view, by
people who are not "party" members, rather experts in various fields and
such. I recognize the HOL today is not this, but certainly closer than
the filthy american sentate that has done nothing to protect america
from the monsters of the GOP.

Heck, the HOL is the only part of the british government with the balls
to stand up to the LIAR, and the opposition-liar. Even the bbc got
trampled and wrecked, but the hol has delivered in protecting the
british public from bad government.

I even like the idea of having religious appointments in the HOL, though
i would rather it be 1 member representing the 10 most common religions
in the UK, including atheism and star-wars-force'ism.

As well, HOL reform must consider the law lords and the supreme court
function, that the 2nd and 3rd estates are empowered by whatever
constitutional change is made.

[ben_packard]

8. star wars force-ism = jedi i think NT

[Guy_Montag]

5. How about something like:

certain positions confer appointment or elector status to the house of lords.

Eg.
Leaders of the trade unions
Vice Chancellors of universities
Any soldier/policeman of such & such a rank
Some bishops, rabbis, Islamic scholars (having a mental block)
CEOs of FTSE100 companies.
MPs who have served more than x years
etc

So say, each time a former Vice Chancellor Lord pops his clogs - all the Vice Chancellors get together & pick one of their number to replace him.

Obviously the list would need carefully tailored, and there would be no end of arguments about which groups deserve representation & which do not? Should the RSPB get lots of Lords, since they have far more members than any trade union or political party? & that sort of thing. But it removes the selection from politician's hands.

Does that make sense?

[tjwmason]

6. That's an idea to work with.

I have a number of different thoughts which pull in different directions.

I tihnk that the greatest strength of the old (mainly hereditary) house was its lack of partisanship - even if the Tories were the largest party (though notably without a majority) most of these old guys paid little attention to what the whips said. An elected house, especially a P.R. one will pass a vast array of power into the hands of the party officials (which would be terrible).

An elected house would also start to compete with the Commons (again a bad idea - you're then into struggles between the two as has often happened with the House and Senate).

I would much prefer some form of indirect election, the obvious choice then becomes local authorities (as in the original U.S. Senate, sort of); but these are all under partisan control - if less heavily held.

Whatever happens, I think that some appointments would be good. The Bishops provide a unique moral voice in the upper house (and frequently surprise us all too), alongside figures such as Prof. the Lord Winston, and indeed senior judges (I know it'd bad constitutional theory, but it works).

To my mind, the fewer politicians that get into the upper house the better. A few former Prime Ministers (though there's now only one of them in there), and former cabinet ministers (and I would perhaps prefer the Lord Chancellor out of the political melee of the Commons too) to give some experience (Maggie T. certainly has that, even if nothing else), but let's keep partisan politics out of there as much as possible.

[ianrs]

9. lack of partisanship????

Forgive the deluge of question marks, but the old HoL had a pretty substantial Tory plurality,(bolstered by many of the Cross bench peers) which was used to force the poll tax through the House in the late 80s, in a particularly noxious example (which is also interesting, and untypical, in that this vote was evidence of a Tory government needing to drag out the non-attending old aristocrats to implement an unpopular policy) It is a matter of demonstrable statistical fact that Labour governments, since such things existed, have been defeated far more often in the Upper House than Tory governments.

For instance, in recent times:

The average number of defeats in the Lords is 23 per session since 1970-71. All sessions since 1997/8, bar the pre-election session of 2000-1, have had a higher rate of Government defeats than any session since 1978-79. Previously, relatively high numbers of Government defeats occurred during the 1974-79 Labour Government, particularly in the first two sessions when over 85% of divisions that took place in the Lords were defeats for the Government. From 1970-71 to 1997-98, the average number of Government defeats per session under Labour Governments is 63 compared with 8 for Conservative Governments.

Source: a House of Commons library research paper, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-077.pdf

Now of course, there is no sizeable plurality for anyone, and it has to be said that in some areas, the Lords performs sterling work (line by line scrutiny of bills in the Commons is a joke, for example; in the Lords, it's a reality). Lords scrutiny of delegated powers, statutory instruments and the like is increasingly professional and thorough, and can noticably inmprove legislation, primary and secondary. Partly this type of scrutiny is effective because non-partisan, but my gut tells me that this wholly unelected chamber is an outrage. How to maintain and develop the excellent scrutiny work and improve (improve? introduce, I should say) democratic accountability.

I work there, in a non-partisan capacity, and I really don't know. Every time some vile Tory expatiates on buggery, immigration, or the bloody countryside, it makes me want to throw up, but elected Tories can be just as poisonous, so .... (and by the way, I'm gay, not an immigrant, and I know that the countryside faces incredibly serious issues, but in the House one does tend to hear the owners of the land, and no-one else).

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Very interesting

I'm still undecided about what to do with the Upper House, but I think you're on to a good idea (also Sweetheart's idea was good too).

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I thought that the Lords had no REAL power anyway

I thought that the Commons could just re-pass legislation even if the Lords did not.

[Stella_Artois]

12. The government can invoke the Parliament act

This will override whatever the Lords have to say. Its only meant to be used on matters of crucial national importance. I can only remember the threat of it being used once, for anti-hunting legislation.

[ianrs]

14. the 1949 Parliament Act

has been used only a handful of times. I think only 4 times. 1991 for the War Crimes Bill (about trying alleged Nazi war criminals - introducing retrospectivity into the law was the respectable reason for opposing this; the real reason on the part of some was anti-semitism), the European Elections Bill 1999(PR for Euro elections), Sexual Offences Bill 2000 (equal age of consent for gay and straight teens), and Hunting Bill . So a really interesting bunch of bills, but not all necessarily of crucial national importance, perhaps. Only used by Tories once (they generally had no need of Parliament Act before the composition of the House was changed).
Bills that start in the Lords cannot be Parliament Act-ed, by the way.

[Stella_Artois]

11. Why would someone want a single chamber ?

Where would the opportunity lie to scrutinise legislation passed by Parliament ?

If a party as a huge marjority they can force through unsound legislation, the upper house would be all that stands betwixt a commons dominated by one party and the judiciary.

You'd have thought the recent anti terror laws would have made that point well enough. If it wasn't for the Lords people would be locked up without trial left right and center.

Some people have really short memories don't they ?

[D-Notice]

13. We must have some

members of the Cabinet as members of this board!