Thoughts On The House Of Lords

[andrewducker]

First - some context! There's ongoing discussion about the British House
Of Lords* (which really ought to have its name changed, but for the
purposes of this post I'm going to refer to it that way) and how it ought
to be reformed. So I've been thinking about that while bored on the bus

I like that members of the House Of Lords cannot be leant on, and do not
have to worry about re-election. It allows them to function as impartially
as possible. I also like the idea that they get more and more expertise as
time goes on, and we don't have worry about losing that expertise after a
few years because they're pushed out of office.

What I'd like to see is a more proportional makeup of the House of Lords.
But I'm not convinced that direct election is the way to go for that. Nor
am I convinced that popularity is the correct way forward - if we're not
going to be re-electing them every few years then we're talking about a
very small number being elected each time (possibly one), and I can't see
that working well.

So, what I'd like to see for the House of Lords is this:

Membership
For life (with the possibility of removal in the case of senility or some
criminal acts). I think we can trust most people to retire when they reach
the point they aren't functioning well any more.

Election
If the number of members of the House of Lords is less than the number of
members of the House of Commons, then the party (which has at least one MP)
whose proportion of Lords is the furthest below the proportion** of their
share of the vote at the last national election will name a new member.

This would mean that the membership will vary slowly in line with the
proportions of recent elections, and stay generally in line with the
general public. At the moment we have a ridiculously high number of people
in the House of Lords(789 vs 650 MPs)***, so we may need either a purge
down to the same number as the House Of Commons to start with, or an
interim period where we replace 1 in every 2, to move things in the right
direction until they achieve parity.


So, having come up with this on the bus into work this morning, I'm sure
it's full of holes - someone care to point them out to me?

*The second chamber in the UK. It can revise and reject laws proposed by
the first chamber - the House Of Commons. It used to be made up of
hereditary peers, but nowadays is mostly made up of people appointed by
whichever party is in power.
**i.e. calculate for each party "Percentage of vote - (Party Lords/Total
Lords)" - the one that with the highest number gets to name the new member.
***Because having control of the Lords is handy, and there's no theoretical
limit to the membership, parties like stacking it full of their own
members.

Comments

[nwhyte]

I'm in agreement with those who point out the desirability of a substantial element of the chamber nominated by a non-partisan commission, as at present. And if you get rid of the hereditary peers and bishops, you're down to 676 immediately.

Apart from that I quite like your numerical balancing, but bear in mind that only 19 Lords died last year, so it would take quite a while to get down to 650 (or 600). Also your equation would massively favour the Lib Dems for the first ten years of any new nominating cycle... (Bear in mind that only 19 Lords died last year, and those who do snuff it are usually in the gap between the official 789 and the full 830.)

[andrewducker]

By "favour" I assume you mean "reduce the existing imbalance against"? :->

I still don't understand how the non-partisan commission works when the coalition just stuffed a bunch of partisan people in there. Can you explain?

[makyo.livejournal.com]

The Commission has a couple of separate functions: it recruits and nominates suitable apolitical candidates, and it vets political appointees (which are nominated by the main party leaders and the PM). The vetting process for political appointees is mostly just to check they aren't actually crooks, and that there's no weird party donation shenanigans going on behind the scene - they don't get to say "yes, but he's not really the best qualified person for the job is he, he's just an old mate from university" or "not another twenty, surely? it seems like only last week that you were in here with the last lot", whereas they are a lot stricter when considering the apolitical candidates.

Personally, I'd like to see them apply similarly strict criteria to the political nominees too, and say "well, ok, she really does know what she's talking about so we'll have her, but the other guy is just some rich buffoon you went to Eton with, and who doesn't actually know very much about anything, so you can't have him".

[zz]

how are people appointed *to* the commission? :>

[makyo.livejournal.com]

Good question. The Commission has seven members at present - three nominated by the main three political parties, and four non-party-political members (including the chair). The Commission's website says the non-party members are selected through open competition. So I guess that when vacancies come up (every five years, I think) anyone can apply, and some selection committee (the House of Lords Appointments Commission Appointments Commission, perhaps?) sifts through the applications, shortlists, interviews and then offers the job to the best four candidates. Which, I guess, is as good a way as any of doing it.

[matgb]

your equation would massively favour the Lib Dems for the first ten years of any new nominating cycle

Not if this system were implemented as of the end of this Parliament--stated Govt policy is to bring the current Lords broadly in line with votes cast in 2010, which is why the LDs are getting as many in in the current appointments.

So if numbers were balanced up first, as is the plan, then it could work favourably, and of course it's likely that the LD share will be down a bit in 2015 (not by as much as some predict, and likely won't cause loss of too many MPs, but...)