Comments on: Elect the Lords?

By: Katie Bartleby

Katie Bartleby — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:03:54 +0000

Oi! Hands off, I get first dibs.

By: John B

John B — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:41:19 +0000

Sounds awesome: are they recruiting?

By: Katie Bartleby

Katie Bartleby — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:06:43 +0000

You know, Demos put out a report in 1998 calling for the replacement of the House of Lords with a citizens’ assembley chosen through sortition and rotating on a regular basis. Like a really big jury. But then, Demos is a bit odd. They have an in-kind sponsorship deal with IKEA in exchange for office furniture and have bean bags and stressballs all over the office. They also have an annual sports day at an ‘organic pub’ and have rebranded ‘usual suspects’ active citizens as ‘hoodie two-shoes.’ Not to be taken seriously, IMO.

By: Owen's musings

Owen's musings — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:50:38 +0000

House of Lords Reform 1: The Bloggers Round Up

A summary of the blogosphere’s collective wisdom on House of Lords reform, in response to the Elect the Lords campaign. A summary of the main themes, which suggest quite a lot of consensus about what we want from a reformed House of Lords, thou…

By: Chris Lightfoot

Chris Lightfoot — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:19:29 +0000

Nah, that’s not enough — you have to weaken the whipping system too. Without a larger net incentive to rebel, a smaller Commons will be an even more loyal tool of the executive than the current one. Unfortunately weakening the whips is almost impossible in when majorities are so large that rebellions are rarely successful. This is one of the strongest arguments for a proportional electoral system: if the Commons were perpetually vulnerable to deadlock, individual MPs’ prejudices would have to be taken much more seriously by the ruling party. If we were lucky, the net effect might be constructive.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:57:32 +0000

I think any real reform of the Lords would need to be accompanied by reform of the Commons, to give that body some power independent of the Administration. The simplest way to do this would be to cut the number of MPs to about 200 (Congress gets by with 435 for a population five times larger) and give them lots of researchers/admin backup.

By: Jim B

Jim B — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:35:53 +0000

I can’t say that Government by Lottery appeals to me any more than Government by Ancestry, or even Government by Election, but clearly Lords reform is needed if only to stop foreigners like myself taking the piss out of it.

I mean, does anyone seriously think it’s a good idea to address members of the government as “My Lord” here in the 21st century? Well, obviously there are plenty, but that just mystifies me.

I would take issue with your assertion, however, that “Nobody sensible believes Labour are going to lose a General Election anytime soon.”

Far be it for me to self-apply the epithet “sensible”, but I’d be willing to bet on Labour suffering a massive defeat at the next general election. It’s my view that Britain will have entered a period of major economic readjustment (there’s a euphemism if ever I heard one) not long before the next election and that the opposition parties will claim (falsely) that they can do something about it.

By: Shuggy

Shuggy — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:26:12 +0000

I find your honesty refreshing; most people genuflect before the mystical will of the British Volk as if it’s existence was an unchallengable fact.

However, I do support the election of the Lords, or at least some elected members. You mention, rightly, how the American constitution limits the pretensions of elected politicians with its separation of powers. But a key ingredient of this is mutual independence of tenure – and having an elected second chamber would give us this. At present, the good work the Lords has been doing over the last few years in restraining the executive is limited because of the continual recourse by the government to the legislative superiority of the Commons as the elected chamber.

By: Owen's musings

Owen's musings — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:53:53 +0000

House of Lords Reform

My ha’porth on the House of Lords:*
1. Don’t stop here. Just because the hereditary peers are largely gone does not mean we have ended up where we want to be.
2. Elect the upper chamber in rotation – eg a third of the house every …

By: nikolai

nikolai — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:43:49 +0000

I think an appointed House of Lords is useful. Most politicians in the Commons don’t bother to read the Bills which they vote into law, and most of them are also reluctant to act against their party. The Lords does have people with genuine expertise who are not accountable to political parties and have helped revise laws and hence stopped stupid mistakes being made in legislation. I’ve no problem with a revising house, subordinant to the Commons, made up of people with real skill and talent who can improve legislation. Though this is different from the checks-and-balances mandate that John B is proposing, if it useful, and would be lost in an elected house or one chosen by lot.

Obviously, in this context though, letting the PM appoint whoever he wants to the Lords isn’t the best selection device. So we need another one. Perhaps MPs could be selected by lot to appoint someone when a place comes up – like the way in which Private Members Bills are handed out.