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

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I think the first question we need to ask on Lords reform is whether we need a second chamber at all. Put another way, what is the second chamber for?

I think a second chamber is useful for

1) A check on the Commons. This is particularly important given the flawed electoral system used to elect the Commons. I don’t buy the whole sovereignty of the people aspect about checking the Commons. Firstly, that is not a doctrine of English constitutional law and the only part of the UK where that doctrine is explicitly espoused is Scotland through the Declaration of Arbroath. Secondly, First Past the Post does not reflect the will of the people unless by People you mean the 1.6% of the electoral who live in swing seats of the members of the Home Counties Conservative Associations.
2) Expertise and the Long View which allows more considered scrutiny of legislation. There is an argument that Scotland can manage without a second chamber but I have heard it argued that the UK at 10 times larger than Scotland is much more complex and needs more scrutiny.
3) Stability. I think a flaw of our current system (partly driven by the electoral system is that) policy can swing about. I’d like to see a body able to say “Hang on, we discussed this ten years ago. What’s changed to make us change our mind?”
4) A check on the Government. Again, given the tendency of the current electoral system to return majority governments on a narrow vote share I would like to see a more effective check on the Government. If only a body that can say “Are you sure? Really?”

The House of Lords can do these job well.

I would like the selection process to dove tail with these purposes.

I think it has to be democratic. This means giving power to the people and not to existing politicians and as little as possible to Party managers and whips.

I favour direct election for the majority of the positions. I do think it important that members come from several different routes and be different in mandate from each other. To make a difference between the Commons and the Lords.

I would hold national elections using STV for persons nominated by a small but significant percentage of the population. I have some other suggestions but I might save up my full system for a separate post. If a selection panel were used I would have STV elections to that. I would include some appointed Lords and / or some ex officio (say former mayors of the ten largest cities in the UK and former first ministers and former cabinet ministers upon retirement). I like the idea of appointments in part being driven by balancing party influence.

I would bar any “Lord” from standing for any elected office within 5 years of ceasing to be a Lord. I think this prevents careerist politicians using it as a stepping stone. It should be the highest and ultimate status office in the land. Not sure about an age restriction. Not sure it’s legal, not sure I think it is necessary. Not agin the idea, just not sure.

I think terms should be long. Perhaps for life, certainly for 15 years. I would require a right of recall on a petition.

The place needs to be different from the Commons. Partly this will be achieved by things like the election / selection process and the terms of office. Not sure what the best way to achieve this is. I am a big fan of Aristotle’s view that the best constitution has a mixture of government of the one, of the few and the many.

It definitely needs to be freer from control of individual voting patterns than the Commons is. Not just government control but also control by the whips.