I’ve not been in favour of electing the Lords for a few years now. Some people might find that surprising, but there you go — what’s the point in me writing this stuff if I’m not going to surprise you?
It’s just a checks-and-balances thing. Because the government is elected, it is always looking for shiny tinselly things to wave at the electorate. And whether you like it or not, people will always ask why the government isn’t doing something about [horrendous aspect of life x]. As such, the government can never look like it’s doing nothing, otherwise it won’t be able to justify its existence. Think respect agendas, Asbos, ID cards, weird anti-terrorism laws, general attacks on civil liberties and so on.
The Lords can’t be arsed with all that. Because they’re not elected they don’t have to try and impress the public. They just have to follow their principles. And follow their principles they do. Time and time again I read bloggers expressing their delight whenever the Lords rescues us from the latest ploy to keep readers of The Sun voting New Labour. Ironically enough, some of them have an Elect the Lords banner on their sidebar.
Well, I’ve never had one of those banners on my sidebar. This is because I’ve taken a look at the House of Commons. The last thing we need is two of those. The only way I would support an elected House of Lords would be if the voting system was contrived in a way that forced the majority in the Lords to be made up of an opposition party — but this would require members of the second chamber to also become members of political parties, and they’ll all start it with the tinselly Daily Mail-pleasing stuff as well.
Who you do stick in the second chamber is another matter. The current system, whereby rich people pay Tony Blair for the privilege, is obviously not ideal. There are all sorts of suggestions that float around. As always, they will all have their pros and cons. But right now, I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t like to see an elected second chamber. I like the idea of a bunch of tinsel-wavers and experts having their say.
Chris Applegate
19 January 2006 12:41
#1
Just because the Lords would be (mostly) elected does not mean it will be a duplicate of the Commons. Make it based upon proportional representation, and New Labour wouldn’t have anything like the unfair majority it enjoys in the Commons. Even less so if a significant minority of the upper house (e.g. 30%) are expert crossbenchers appointed by an independent commission (not the PM). Also, if we went to a fixed-term system (rather than making elections at the PM’s discretion) and have the Lords elected in mid-term, it would compensate for the cyclical nature of parties’ popularity. Making the terms long, and limit them to only two (or even one) will help discourage knee-jerk short-term populist politics. In short, there any number of ways to set up the Lords so that it is democratic yet retains its character as a chamber of reflection and inspection, and its separateness from the Commons.
Having an upper house that runs on its principles is fine, but only if those principles are the ones you agree with. I’m not convinced that the principles of someone appointed for life merely by way of being in the ruling government’s favour is necessarily going to reflect the true mood of the nation. The UK is only one of two countries to appoint its upper chamber for life (the other being Lesotho), and plenty of democracies get by just fine with an elected upper house. The Lords can still be democratic and retain its essential qualities, if we get it right.
Will
20 January 2006 13:54
#2
I was about to counter your arguments, but Chris appears to have said everything that needs to be said.
Garry
20 January 2006 14:50
#3
Until recently, I was of exactly the same opinion as yourself. There is some value in having a second chamber which is not directly accountable to the public.
Last year, I changed my mind as to whether the pro’s outweigh the cons. It was Blair’s cronyism what done it. I just can’t see any way in which you could realistically protect an appointed chamber from this sort of thing.
That’s why I now support an elected Lords. It would need a markedly different electoral system (Murky had some good ideas on that) of course. Staggered long terms, 8 years perhaps, with a quarter of the representatives to be elected every 2 years. This would reduce the likelyhood of the second chamber becoming a mirror image of the Commons while individual representatives would have some long term security (hopefully freeing them from the temptation of short term populism to some extent).
When the Lords behave so sensibly, as they have done recently, it does make me stop and think. But then I realise that Brown will most probably continue to load the Lords with cronies until they dominate the second chamber. That’s my real fear.
I do think electoral reform for the Commons is a far more urgent issue though.
Garry
20 January 2006 14:51
#4
Ah, apologies, I appear to have left a tag open. That’s a slightly bigger link to Murky than I’d intended.
doctorvee
20 January 2006 15:39
#5
Sorted it for you.