Labour has done more to change the way Britain is governed than any government since 1911. It has delivered devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and introduced a form of PR for European elections. In Scotland in local government a refreshed and renewed local political culture is growing now that STV is used for local elections there. And of course it almost abolished hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
That’s it though – almost! It simply beggars belief that we have unelected legislators in any form, let alone that there are still remaining hereditary peers in the Upper House of our Parliament. t was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the reforming manifesto of 1997, and in 1999 Tony Blair even evicted all but 92 hereditary peers. But despite the ‘loans for Lordships’ scandal in 2006 and even the disgraceful ‘cash for amendments’ scandal, progress continues to be slow and is highly unlikely to happen before the next election.
Jack Straw at the recent Unlock Democracy and The Guardian seminar said himself:
“Our 1999 reforms dramatically changed the Lords for the better. But this remains unfinished business. The constitutional reform and governance bill, which will receive its second reading in October, sets out our plans to phase out hereditary peers from the second chamber. It is an outdated concept in a society where influence and power should be based on merit rather than on the family into which one is born. The current situation where 90 hereditary peers retained their seats in the Lords was only ever intended as an interim step.
We aim for an elected second chamber which could become wholly elected, but would be substantially so. Our proposals stem from the outcome of free votes on Lords reform which took place in 2007. The House of Commons voted in favour of reforms leading to a 100% or 80% elected second chamber and against all other options.”
Although election systems and retirement packages are areas that need to be worked out, it simply isn’t good enough that we have allowed these to block the process of reform. We need to be bold, we need to push the envelope – after all there are four simple key ideas underpinning the case for Lords Reform:
1 - Party Patronage devalues politics
The perception that people can buy or connive a seat in the legislature has been a source of controversy for over a century. The public perception of politicians is at an all time low – the Lords, though, have paved the way with numerous dodgy and corrupt exploits in the last few years, well before the ‘expenses scandal’ broke.
2 - An unelected House lacks legitimacy
While the House of Lords often does a good job at improving legislation, it is constantly hampered by the fact that it has no claim to be representing the will of the people. The Government constantly cites the Lords' illegitimacy as a reason for ignoring what it says. An elected second chamber would have more authority. Lord Mandelson may be landing the blows on the policy-lite Cameron media machine and could even be as some argue the most powerful man in Government – but the fact is he has absolutely no democratic legitimacy or accountability.
3 - An elected second chamber would be more representative
Elections would allow for members from smaller parties and independents to sit in the second chamber as working peers. (Or senators, depending on the semantic option we choose).
4 - The public want it
Opinion polls consistently suggest that around two-thirds of the public want a majority or wholly elected second chamber. More than 55% of the public voted for a party committed to an at least substantially elected second chamber in 2005.
Re-building trust in our massively damaged legislative institutions is paramount – Jack Straw and the Labour party must discover that historic reforming zeal. No more fudges, no more compromises, no putting things off to find ‘consensus’ - we need full and radical reform which must be in our manifesto for 2010 - just one year short of an entire century since the 1911 Parliament Act that first laid down the beginnings of Lords reform. We must ‘clear the way’ because our broken democracy cannot wait another four years, let alone another century.
Sam Tarry is a fomer campaigns officer for Unlock Democracy.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
It's ridiculous that we still have appointed individuals who decide our laws. It's even worse that there are still hereditary peers and Bishops who are given automatic places too.
Sweep all of them away and let's have a fully elected Senate.
No. Wales and NI have assemblies which are not parliaments, but Scotland does have a parliament. England does not have a parliament (but London does have an assembly). Also, remember that before "direct rule" Northern Ireland had a parliament. So basically the whole devolution process has been cack-handed. Before you tell us that we need more constitutional reform you must first complete the process of devolution, which means parliaments for all the four nations (England included).
and introduced a form of PR for European elections.
And you are proud of this? The Party List system is the worst form of PR there is, and is the worst system to elect representatives that has ever been devised. Yes, I know that the EU mandates that we should use this terrible system, but don't you think it might be good for us to show that we have a spine and tell them that we value democracy more? The Irish have an exemption to this rule, why can't we?
Again, we need to fix this terrible system before we can make any other changes.
.
The reason Labour have not changed this is simple.
How else would Mandelson be a Minister?
However a second, revising chamber for UK laws is important. The problem is that if it is elected then it will subject to the same party issues as the Commons. If it is elected by a different system (some form of PR perhaps) then it would claim more legitimacy than the Commons which would lead to stalemate.
I am in favour of of a more radical system. Instead of the governing party "advising" the Queen on appointments to the Lords (ie they determine who the new Lords will be), instead this responsibility should be given to UK membership organisations. So for example, unions, professional organisations, even organisations like the National Trust will be able to appoint someone to the revising chamber for a fixed period (say, seven years). That way the second chamber will be made up of experts rather than politicians, and that is what you need for a revising chamber.
I 100% support the proposal of a 100% elected House of Lords, but was curious as to why you feel that people should only be able to serve in one House?
Thanks!
R
It is possible to criticise the political party system and also have values:
http://www.juryteam.org/about.php
Athenian Democracy
Is that politics or not? I'll let others decide.
Old Holby has made his own stance, and is joining the English Defence League. So instead of Parliamentary Politics, we get bundles in the Bull ring.
Is that politics or not? I'll let others decide.
Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Hindus and Muslims can all live together peacefully.
Radical Islamists in the UK (and Europe) cannot, as they refuse to. So I oppose them and all they stand for. See 7/7 for futher details.
Political? Nah.
PS. Never been compared to Charlie Manson before - congratulations.
On the race war thing, I was just repeating something you'd said a few weeks ago. But just to get this right: you believe in an internal religious war with Islamists in the UK?
If so, how will your adherence to the English Defence League do anything but foment this war further?
I disagree, If we have a elected lords it will just mirror the commons , Wfat we need is the commons to start scrutnizing the whole bill and not just some parts that the goverment allows .
The lords in recent yaers have helped improve the bills passed from the commons and have stopped the goverment when it has tried to pass insane methods ( 42 days detention) , We always try and blame things on other people/ policys but what i would like to see is the house of commons checking every clause in the house of commons and not leave it the house of lords .
ricki
The present HofL contains a high proportion of people with real life achievements and no interest in licking ministers' backsides.
Perhaps someone will explain how, under our political system a totally elected house will operate with the independence the present Lords (thankfully) has displayed?
Since the labour administration of 1945 - 51 the Lords has acted principally as a revising chamber for new legislation (at which it does a good job which the Commons and the Government can't be bothered to do), as a constitutional watchdog (eg 42 days) and - increasingly - as a commentator on the European legislation which, again, neither the Government nor the commons is interested in - and on which Commons members seem to have little to contribute.
There's one running the country!
Anyway, well done on getting to a point that affects ordinary people, nothing in 1 - 14 would have benefitted me or the average Joe in any way.
...sorry - got confused. I though we were talking about the EU constitution, but you're OK making that point about the HoL.