Whats wrong with the House of Lords?

[Ryoko]

Moaning again on the TV about changes to the house of lords to make it more democratic, I think they have completely missed the point.

The lords was there so the land owners could have their say on policies.

The commons was there for the commoners to have their say on policies, via elected representatives.

At the end of the day bills where meant to be passed after both the common man and the rich had reached an agreement.

Now the Commons is full of rich landed gentry, who serve only themselves and their rich mates, they never listen to the voters, the Lords are still the lords, so what we have is really two houses of lords.

Thus I say it is the house of Commons that needs reforming, chuck all the millionaire Etonian landed gentry out.

You may have a point...
I'd like the system to stay much as it is minus heriditary peers.

I fear excesses of democracy; no system is perfect & having this "anachronism" has had its major plus points because it has so little of the worst of democracy in it. Also, the role for a new Chamber would have to be completely different if mostly elected reps. It needs very hard thinking.

I feel that it's a major part of the UK constitution & tinkering with it has not received half the attention it deserves.

The Bishops need to go too.

And who gets to pick who can stand for election for the lords?

All we are going to have is the commons for the rich to rule for the rich followed by retirement into the seats at the lords. I don't see it being any other way, the same old farts passing between rooms until they die thats all.

If both worked as intended I see no reason for the lords to be voted in, they are the house that should be based on individual power, the biggest business people and land owners automatically getting seats to voice their views on policy that effect them.

"Now the Commons is full of rich landed gentry"

That's not borne out by the facts. You could stand for election for your local council or parliamentary seat if you meet the criteria.... one of which is not that you are 'landed gentry'. No-one can make you feel inferior but yourself.

Government spending on secondary education per pupil last year was just 58% of private school spending

There'll be a party list system. Each party produces a list of people they want to sit in the Lords. Seats are allocated according to the proportion of the vote the party gets. If they get 3 seats the top three people on the party list become Lords. They will be allowed to sit for one term of office (15 years) so they can't keep 'passing between rooms'.

Party lists are used for European Parliamentary elections. It should ensure that smaller parties and minority groups are represented in Parliament in line with the will of the people.

The rich and powerful don't need seats in the Lords to get their opinions heard.

The Lords should be - and sometimes is - a voice for those who need a voice. Even now, if there's e.g. a disability issue, it will be the Lords who have people with the knowledge to be advocates for the disabled.

They need to get rid of the hereditary element and the automatic places for Bishops, and then have a list system - which might be arrived at in something like the way existing non-hereditary, non-religious lords are selected - the Great and the Good, but also the Knowledgeable. And then let them be elected.

Danny Alexander gave a good speech on HoL reform last week, I was fairly indifferent about HoL reform but found some of his stats quite impressive:

"Those who say an appointed second chamber rises about grubby partisan politics seem to ignore the inconvenient facts.

Many Peers fall into a category of people that Boris Johnson yesterday described as "has beens and never wozzas".

More than a quarter of Peers are ex-MPs.

70% are appointed on a party political basis.

Which unsurprisingly means that they are almost as likely to vote according to the party whip as often as their colleagues in the commons.

Another argument used against reform is the importance of appointed Lords being able to provide an expert perspective to the legislative process.

The only problem is many of the "experts" are actually "ex" experts.

They might have been experts in their field in their day, but for many it has been many decades since they retired and the knowledge of their profession has become very out of date.

Whilst it is possible to ensure perspectives from all parts of the country have the opportunity to be represented in the Commons, the same cannot be said of our second chamber.

Members from London and the South East dominate.

Around 50% of Peers originate from these regions.

And they are not socially representative either.

Four times as many are over 90 as are under 40.

More than 60% were privately educated, and 40% of the total attended just 12 private schools.

It's an outdated system. And it doesn't come cheap.

Every single peer is entitled to £300 per day, tax free, just for turning up.

A right that they retain regardless of their attendance or performance for the rest of their lives.

And it's getting more expensive with every year that goes by.

Without reform the number of peers will hit 1,000 within 10 years at the current rate of growth, making the House of Lords the biggest legislative body outside the Congress of the People's Republic of China."

It was also a manifesto pledge from each of the three main parties. Reform has its problems too, HoL could just become an extension of Commons in terms of career politicians and lack of "real world" experience but I broadly think it's a step in the right direction.

The only problem is many of the "experts" are actually "ex" experts

among many good points, that's an interesting one (maybe why disability issues stand out ... Dame Tanni, for example, won't become an ex-expert). Hopefully 'expert' Lords and Ladies would be expected to remain active in their fields.

MammaBrussels "There'll be a party list system... If they get 3 seats the top three people on the party list become Lords."

The obvious problem with this system is that the politician is more accountable to the person who draws up the list (specifically, how high up there name is on it) than they are to their electorate.

Secondly, the beauty of democracy isn't that we get to choose our leaders; it's that we get to kick out the self-serving, lying, snivelling little pricks if they fail to keep their promises. If each 'lord' has a fixed 15 year term, after which they are ineligible to re-stand, how do we exercise the right to kick them out? How does that make them accountable to us, the people? And, how does that make the system any more democratic?

I say this with my tongue in cheek, but we might as well have a system where every five years a few hundred darts are thrown at the phone book. Whoever gets picked has to sit in the House of Lords for the duration. At least this way, there is real peoples representation from all walks of life with varying degrees of life experience, it's free from political party interference and yet doesn't have a democratic mandate to challenge the Commons.

If the answer is that we need even more tribal minded politicians, what the hell is the question???

Judgy

The party will be accountable even if the 'Lord' isn't. If we don't like what UKIP are doing their share of the vote in the next set of Lords elections will fall. Political Parties will have to listen to voters and ensure that they represent their viewpoints.

It will be more democratic because it will allow a wider variety of voices to be heard.

Yes there are problems. Parties will draw up the lists. There'll be no selection by local parties so people who would never be elected can still sit in the Lords.

An elected upper House could just copy the adversarial style of politics in the HoC. Its role could be completely undermined by effective whipping.

Imagine what a reformed Lords would have looked like over the period 1997 - 2012 (working on the assumption that HoL elections were held in 1997, 2002, 2007). We'd have a massive Labour majority who, between 1997 - 2010, would have provided very little in terms of effective revision and scrutiny. After 2010 Labour would have held their majority in the HoL. Both Houses would claim have a legitimate democractic mandate for their actions, each one could claim a superior mandate. Nothing would get passed without using the Parliament Act.

The current Act (in its current form) seems to be upholding the current asymmetrical bicameral system, I don't know whether I'd like to see that changed.

The candidates being linked to parties seems hard to avoid which is a shame... one of the good things about the present HoL is independent-minded 'cross benchers' who aren't affiliated to any party.

I would hope that the HoL elections would be out-of-sync with Commons. Presumably with 15 year terms they don't all come and go at once so there would be a dampening of the swings betwixt parties?

Grimma

Each 'Lord' would sit for 15 years; they wouldn't all be elected at once. One third would be elected at any one election (so a third of seats would be at contested each election - like the US Senate). I'd imagine the elections would be at the same time as general elections to maximise turnout and minimise cost.

Hopefully though smaller parties would have representatives in Parliament and would act more independently, flitting between factions according to issues. In the 2010 election the big three got 89% of the vote. I'd hope that that wasn't replicated in the Lords (especially if the Salisbury Convention stands).

"If each 'lord' has a fixed 15 year term, after which they are ineligible to re-stand, how do we exercise the right to kick them out? How does that make them accountable to us, the people? And, how does that make the system any more democratic?"

But isn't that the point of HoL? The HoC may be accountable to the people (and that only once every five years) but individual MPs are, really, accountable to their Party, not their constituents.
However, in HoL there is less Party pressure and so they are more able to follow their own principles & conscience and take a long-term view. I quite like the idea of that.

Oh, and the reform that I would like is for them to stop calling themselves "Lords". The politicians got rid of the aristocracy in HoL but don't mind apeing their ermine and fancy titles.

We do, at least, all seem to be in agreement that it's the party system which royally fucks up politics and we all seem to be in agreement that a cross section of voices need to be heard.

I refer you to my idea of randomly appointing members of the public by some lottery system as with jury service. The more I think about it, the better an idea this seems. THIS IS VERY WORRYING!!!

Cogito-

"Now the Commons is full of rich landed gentry"

That's not borne out by the facts.

But that's the point. It is borne out by facts.

The Cabinet rich list

It is the £60m Cabinet. David Cameron's coalition Government may have adopted 'fairness' as one of its defining slogans, but his team of Ministers has been drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of the financial elite - leading to accusations that politics is once again becoming the preserve of the wealthy.

Of the 29 Ministers entitled to attend Cabinet meetings, 23 have assets and investments estimated to be worth more than £1m.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1694722/The-Cabinet-rich-list.html

---

Why do you keep making stuff up without any sort of attempt to back up your hatred and prejudice?

It is madly undemocratic that we have political appointees, bishops and hereditary peers having a say on how we live our lives. I think root and branch reform is needed: all 'lords' (senators?) should be democratically elected

I have been very grateful to the HoL for throwing some good sense into the mix in the past, but all the same I wonder why we need a second house. What we really could do with is more democracy in the HoC.

Would the Government still be able to draw from the Lords for the Cabinet?

The Lords may need reforming, but I don't fancy having another x hundred politicians on board. Yet more posh-boy yah-boo politics and 15 bloody years til we can kick them out! No thanks!

Couldn't they make it elected but abolish the party whip for Lords so they are forced to vote according to their constituents' wishes, private expertise and manifesto commitments?

It is disgusting that in this day and age we have Lords at all, never mind an unelected house of them.

The idea that some rah rah twat gets to decide our countries policy based on inbred parentage is frankly absurd.

"Why do you keep making stuff up without any sort of attempt to back up your hatred and prejudice?"

I have no idea where you're getting hatred and prejudice from. Thought that was your stock in trade tbh. :) The poster said the Commons was full of rich landed gentry, not the Cabinet particularly. There are 650 MPs and they are not, by and large, rich, landed or gentry. A lot of them have been in business, quite a few are lawyers or other professionals, and there are plenty that get there through the union movement and local councils.

"MrJudgeyPants Tue 03-Jul-12 10:01:16
I refer you to my idea of randomly appointing members of the public by some lottery system as with jury service."

Didn't the Greek shave something like that? I remember them showing on the TV some device that you put marked stones into that randomly picks them?

I've just had another thought. If we elect these 'lords' with a 15 year term of office, we would only just have got rid of the class of 97 - the bunch that would have been elected alongside Blair (remember him?). Since then, despite September 11th, the odd illegal war, financial meltdown, debauched public finances and the most unpopular Prime Minister in history, we would still have the same politicians elected back in the days when 'Things Could Only Get Better' and Tony Blair was 'a pretty straight kinda guy'.

15 years is too long and we need to get the opportunity to throw the bastards out.