As announced on Monday Mr Wonko has mentioned to me that he doesn’t agree with the idea of an elected House of Lords….
Well, let me explain why I do.
The House of Lords is the second House. Its main tasks are to amend and block legislation that it doesn’t believe are appropriate or safe and to pass legislation that it does believe is safe.
Throughout the greater part of the 20th Century the party in power in the House of Commons switched, with relative frequency, between the two main parties. Each party, while in power, appointed new Lords to the House from their own political affiliation and others. The majority, of course, with political sympathy for the party in power. This has meant that, in the main, the Lords who are appointed have been reasonably balanced but have favoured the Conservatives because they were in power more than Labour.
The Lords, though, also include Heriditary Lords; Lords who are Lords because their family was rich or liked by the King or Queen long ago. So the House which can block or allow legislation to pass is, to all intents and purposes, Conservative.
Before the 2nd World War (lazy as it may seem, I haven’t bothered to check when for this post) the party in power threatened to stuff the House with loads of liberal sympathisers and, to avoid this happening, the Conservative opposition allowed the Parliament Act to pass. This act allows the House of Commons to pass legislation without the House of Lords’ approval so long as it is presented several times. It hasn’t been invoked many times because the House of Lords, by convention, does not oppose laws that are included in a party’s manifesto.
The House of Lords, then, is useless if a Government really wants to pass an ill-considered law.
I have recently (thanks Ed) been reading about whether if being “democratic” is necessarilly a good thing. The book (link may be added later) offers the example of a democratic decision being made about religious freedom; it is democratic to allow people to vote on other people’s right to practise a religion, but not necessarily a ‘good’ thing.
That said, that the HoL is not democratic can be assumed to be a bad thing when its primary roles are to make decisions on the validity of laws made by a democratic institution.
So how would an elected HoL differ from the House of Commons? What’s the point of having two elected Houses?
The House of Commons is elected using First Past the Post (FPTP). Each constituency can choose one MP and, if you live in a ‘safe’ seat, your vote is effectively useless. The Electoral Commission works hard to try to ensure that the result of elections is reasonably fair. The danger with this method (as has been shown to real effect recently) is that one party could have 49% of the voters in every constituency and win no seats. The Labour Party polled approximately the same proportion of the votes in 1992 and in 2005. But the result was different!
The great things about the way the House of Commons is elected, though, are that each person in the country has only one MP and there are rarely hung parliaments.
- Each MP knows that they are individually accountable to their electorate and, ideally, they work for the people in their constituency. If an MP doesn’t do what they are supposed to, they can be thrown out as happened to gift George Galloway a seat at the last election.
- Because each area returns an MP from only one party, it is rare for one party to fail to get an absolute majority. This sort of failure means that none of the winning parties’ radical policies can be implemented and no-one gets what they want.
So, for all its flaws, FPTP is an excellent way to elect Members to the Parliament which proposes Law and which, under the British system, makes up the Executive.
But for a second House, one which is screening laws for dangerous irregularities, or protecting the constitution, an absolute majority is not necessary. In fact, an absolute majority of any party would make the House either useless or obstructive. So the second House would benefit from either proportional representation (PR) or different-sized constituencies or both. A second House elected by PR would reflect, hopefully, the public’s feelings on matters, and would have an unambiguous mandate to block laws or ask for amendments.
The European Union’s pathetic Parliament is elected by PR in super-constituencies. Where I live in the South East, we overwhelmingly elected Conservative and UKIP MEPs. But, because of PR, there are MEPs for other parties too. What this does, in effect, is make the MEPs non-accountable. I cannot approach my MEP, because there are several. If I do approach one, it is not likely to be an MEP for a party I didn’t vote for; in fact, it’s more likely that I’ll approach one for the party that I did vote for. But then there is more than one MEP for that party. This poses two problems: (1) I may not like the politics of one of the candidates but like the politics of the other (so which party should I vote for) and (2) neither candidate has any real compulsion to help me.
In the House of Commons this would pose real problems for the electorate and, I would suggest, result in greater apathy than already exists. But in the House of checks and balances (currently known as the House of Lords), it doesn’t matter. These people are not representing you in specific times of trouble, or over decisions that matter to you — they’re just representing your opinion when it comes to the laws made by the House of Commons.
If I were completely out of touch with my senses and wanted to vote BNP, Green or Communist, my vote wouldn’t be wasted. My opinions would be reflected by an equal proportion of Green “Peers” who would make my opinion on laws known and would block (in as much as they could) any non-green laws. Likewise if I had voted BNP, the politically correct anti-racism laws that I was opposed to would be voted against by the same proportion of “Peers” as there were voters in the country.
Hopefully, the BNP and Greens would not get many votes. They would almost certainly not get enough votes to block any legislation. But at least the opinions of those relatively unusual people would not be completely ignored by the system.
A return to an entirely Heriditary HoL is another option. But this poses the unanswerable question: Why would we assume that a child of someone assumed a good judge of a law, a good judge of a law himself. It is an accepted fact that companies who’s ownership is handed down from father to son etc. do less well than companies who’s manager is the person most suitable for the job. And who better, in the case of the second House, than the people to decide who that should be?
So, in summary, currently the HoL is impotent and has no democratic mandate. And an elected HoL would have a democratic mandate and real and appropriate power. What more could you want (other than a President — but that’s another debate)?
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Wonko on April 19th, 2006 - 9:05 pm
Yes, I concede that PR has the potential to elect an opposition in the House of Lords but it still results in a party political outcome and the members are still career politicians chosen by, and representing, their party.
#2 by Gav on April 19th, 2006 - 9:10 pm
I agree — which is why I didn’t contend those points in my comment on your post!
I think we’re both agreed that the HoL needs reform (and serious, democratically sensitive — though not necessarily democratic — reform).
#3 by Wonko on April 19th, 2006 - 9:13 pm
Reform, how I detest that word!
Yes, I agree that major changes are needed and (not wanting to appear to be blowing my own trumpet) I really think my idea about referenda has legs if only the career politicians could be convinced of its merits.
#4 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 1:21 am
My biggest concern of an elected Lords Chamber, is that previously the Lords have been very loyal defenders of British traditions and way of life.
If they are elected, people who don’t have the same loyalty to traditional Britain might get into the Lords Chamber and not fight to maintain our culture as much as the old generation. At first that wouldn’t matter, but over a period of time we could see big changes.
How long before we get quotas, for women, blacks, muslims, asians, etc. As no doubt Dave Cameron would support.
I’m not saying I want the Lords to remain whites, I know we have a changing country, but I do want the Lords to be a revising chamber with an eye on the traditions, history and culture of what made this country, and not become some new game for the ‘politically correct’ to play identity politics with.
#5 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 6:56 am
Most of the PC policies will be included in the manifestos of the main two parties at the next election so the Lords won’t block it anyway. The biggest problem with the Lords is that they are often, by convention, impotent.
#6 by wonkotsane on April 20th, 2006 - 8:39 am
Using by proposal for binding referenda when the Commons and Lords can’t agree then the issue of quotas would be decided by the electorate. The Commons would introduce a bill to provide quotas in the Lords, the Lords would obviously reject it, they wouldn’t agree so a referendum would be held and the electorate would decide.
#7 by Sarah on April 20th, 2006 - 9:52 am
Gav if the HoL was fully elected do you think it should have the power to block legislation indefinately? I do, IMO, it would have as much legitimacy as the commons then.
On a related note what do you think of fixed/rotating/different length election terms for an elected HoL?
#8 by alfie on April 20th, 2006 - 10:21 am
The Lords should be elected – absolutely no doubt about it. I can’t see how we can rein against the legitimacy of unelected regional assemblies on one hand and tamely aquiesce to a benevolent legislatative club where entry is via an accident of birth on the other.
It has to be elected – but I would time the elections to be held at the mid term time of a Commons Parliament. That way a balance will be achieved because cynism and weariness of an incumbent leader will have taken its toll on the electorate….. They do it in many other countries, and it works – most notably in the States – were the incumbent President is subject to the natural checks and balances between the House of Representatives and the Senate -.both of which quite often have different majorities from the 2 main parties at the same time.
This way, you are more likely to get say a Labour majority in the Commons and a Tory majority in the Lords – and thus a natural balance is achieved. Making the Lords a PR project will increase the representational mix even more.
To combat the ‘career politician’ concern, I would stick an age limit on entry. Say 35 years of age – so the candidate will already have had a career in industry/commerce etc.- and they would therefore be able to bring a knowledge of note to the Lords…. – rather be just another Tory boy or Blairite clone.
BUT – all this is in an ideal world, obviously. When England gets its own Parliament, what happens to it then?
#9 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 4:59 pm
Gav, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, I was not saying I wanted the house of Lords to block PC legislation from the Commons, although I would like that
.
I was saying with an elected Lords I can see the main parties fighting over who has the most Black Lords, Asian Lords, Muslim Lords, Gay Lords, etc, I don’t want to see the Lords become part of this politically correct identity politics game.
I don’t think we will get the best revising chamber under some kind of affirmative action.
Alfie, I really wouldn’t like to see a system of constantly swapping Labour majority in commons vs Conservatives in Lords, or the other way around, both ways around the Lords would try to frustrate the will of the commons.
Anyway, I think the Lords, the revising chamber should not be on the same short term electoral cycle as the commons but should be over a longer period of time.
Maybe PR over the last 3 election results.
1, C:30 L:50 D:20
2, C:50 L:30 D:20
3, C:45 L:35 D:20
Lords = C:42 L:38 D:20
This would mean the Lords had a more stable long term make-up rather than being subject of short-term reactionary electorate changes.
#10 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 5:07 pm
Dave, PR on other election results provides a conflict of intentions for the electorate. Votes in First Past the Post should not be analysed and reused in a PR context because people vehemently do vote differently in PR. Also, [titter] I cannot believe you found a legitimate excuse to say “Gay Lords” — my mentally-about-twelve-years-old sense of humour has been awakened!
Sarah, Alfie and Dave, I do think a longer term and non-coinciding election date would be a good idea…
Alfie, Maybe this would be the way the post-independence English Houses should be!
#11 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 7:00 pm
Yeah, you are right about voting intentions of the electorate it always annoys me when the pundits start claiming to know what the results would have been under a different system.
But the problem of a seperate voting system would be apathy, people might not bother turning out for a vote to the revising chamber..
Maybe we could vote for the Lords under PR at the same time as the general election, but voting only for one third of the Lords at a time, so they last around 15 years.
Would it also be good if party membership could elect who was on the list? So that there was a check on what the leadership was doing.
#12 by AJD on April 20th, 2006 - 8:04 pm
Humpf.
I still don’t know what I believe. Both arguments are compelling, but both have flaws.
Can’t I just stick my head in the sand?
#13 by Wonko on April 20th, 2006 - 9:10 pm
Dave, inter-marriage and sales of peerages (legitimately, not Labour-style) would ensure an ethnic balance of some description in the Lords as the “native” population of the country dwindles. If it doesn’t and the people decide that something needs doing about it then they will petition their MP’s to do so (who would presumably be more “ethnic” than “native”) to do something about it and you would no doubt have both houses at odds with each other in which case the public would decide.
I just can’t see any eventuality when amending the Parliament Act to replace the Commons’ right to pass laws without the Lords’ consent with a binding referendum wouldn’t be better than what we have now or, in fact, work.
#14 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 10:28 pm
Wonko, It would definitely be better than currently, but probably not as good as a PR elected second house incorporating Alfie’s, Dave’s and Sarah’s amendments
Mr Daily Sir, Sticking your head in the sand never works. Unless you are attempting to locate something under the sand. Even then, I would still suggest you move the sand out of the way — it’s a real pain in the eyes otherwise.
#15 by Dave on April 21st, 2006 - 3:18 am
wonko, do you seriously think people should be able to buy and sell peerages/power? sounds outrageous to me.
#16 by Libertus on April 21st, 2006 - 2:14 pm
If electing the Lords is cheaper than buying them, count me in.
#17 by wonkotsane on April 21st, 2006 - 3:19 pm
Dave, it’s possible already. There are more black and Asian peers than the Labour Stazi have appointed. Not all peerages can be bought and sold but some of them can. There are peerage brokers!
Libertus, elections cost money and who’s going to pay for the election campaigns? The taxpayer already foots part of the bill for elections.
#18 by Dave on April 21st, 2006 - 7:39 pm
I don’t care whether it happens already its still not acceptible that the rich buy control over my future.
#19 by Gav on April 21st, 2006 - 11:06 pm
Payments for peerages puts doubt in the mind of the electorate about the intentions of the Lords.
Also, I would suggest that elections are cheaper than referenda.
#20 by Libertus on April 22nd, 2006 - 6:42 pm
Wonko,
One way or t’other, the machinery of government costs us money. We have to be prudent.
#21 by Wonko on April 22nd, 2006 - 8:28 pm
You can’t put a value on democracy. Referenda are only expensive because they’re rare and the infrastructure put in place to hold one is dismantled every time. Hold them regularly and it becomes an industry in itself.
#22 by mike Haseler on May 15th, 2006 - 9:43 pm
We can keep the best aspects of the present House of Lords and make it democratic. Almost everyone respects a jury, yet how many of us know that Greek democracy was run by jurys? They are in fact the most democratic institutions we have in this country! If the ordinary person is capable of voting in a government in the soundbute fog and haze of a media manipulated general election, why can’t those same people sit in the quiet deliberation of a jury room and select candidates for THEIR CHARACTER AND NOT THEIR POLITICAL COLOUR?
#23 by Gav on May 16th, 2006 - 5:38 pm
Agreed. The Greek system, if it could work in a much larger way, would be ideal…
Though politics would still probably sour conversations.