It is often the case in Labour leadership contests that constitutional reform plays a role, only to disappear from the scene once the new leader is chosen. This is likely to be the case this time with Rebecca Long-Bailey’s idea of having an elected upper chamber to replace the House of Lords, whether she wins or loses. This is just as well because an elected upper house is a bad idea, as I will now argue.
There are many worthy criticisms of the House of Lords that could be made. It is too large, as in, there are too many members; it is supposed to be impartial and detached from party politics, yet most of the members are under a party whip; the remaining hereditary peers and bishops give it an unnecessarily antiquated feel. Yet, for all the complains about the upper chamber, it works. It holds its own against the House of Commons, as much as it allowed, very often. Although a whip is operated against a large number of the members, it is a relatively weak one given no one can lose their peerage. If the a member of the House finds something is important to them, they can largely ignore their party when they feel like it.
An elected House of Lords would solve few of the problems that the current upper chamber faces, while losing a lot of its benefits. Complain all you like about the fact that members of the House of Lords are whipped, if it was an elected chamber, the parties would have way more power in the upper chamber than they do now. The members would be elected, and thus susceptible to the whims of the electorate of the moment, just like the House of Commons. Why have a revising chamber that is made up of more elected politicians? There is also the primacy issue. At present, the House of Commons has way more power than the House of Lords, and rightly so on the basis of being elected by the people. If both were elected, why should the House of Lords have less say?
If you want to reform the House of Lords, the answers are pretty simple. First, get rid of the rest of the hereditary peers and the bishops. Have a minimum amount of time needed to be spent in the chamber every year, maybe on a yellow card-red card basis. Establish the maximum number of appointments that can be made in any given year. Formalise the number of peerages available each year to the official opposition and to smaller parties (in relation to the latter, probably less than one a year). Do those things and you iron out most of the bugs.
Some will say that the problem with the House of Lords is that is rewards people sucking up to the prime minister/the leader of the opposition. Well, if you stop and think about it, so does the House of Commons to a large degree anyhow, and an elected second chamber would certainly not get rid of patronage in politics. Like many constitutional reform issues, it is talked about as a silver bullet to solving most of the country’s problems when it would do no such thing. It is also imagined that it would get us closer to the “progressive majority” being able to assert itself, the less said about here, the better.
None of the above. The new upper chamber should neither be elected nor should the members be there for their lives. Indefensible nonsense and the reason why the HoL is universally despised.
A Royal Commission should establish a list, to be updated on a 10:year cycle of all the following, the main faiths, chartered and non-chartered professional institutions, the major charities, and trade associations. But no political parties. These will be offered the opportunity to second for period of 5 years whoever they nominate. Number of places for each to be decided by the Commission (for example the Royal College of Nursing might get 2). But there should be some allocation of wild cards for the minor charities and small community groups on a random selection basis.
The new chamber to be called the House of Voices.
What a ridiculous idea. A bunch of self-selected busybodies?
Do you think the backside licking creeps are better?
Yes. The present situation is stupid and nonsensical, but it’s still miles better than your suggestion, which would basically be a bunch of groupthinking metropolitan liberals inviting a load of their friends to have a say on legislation.
Sounds better than those who have bought their peerages, the has been politicians, the never were politicians and any number of disgusting sycophants and C list celebrities. All universally despised by the British people. Anyway, a second elected chamber is a recipe for disaster and endless wrangling over which chamber is the more representative and will us give several hundred more of the professional politicians we have too many of now. Any ‘life’ system will leave us the same coffin dodging old fossils in the Heaven’s waiting room that is our current HoL.
No, your protests are ill judged. Personally, I would trust the Royal College of Nursing, for example, to second some sound delegates rather than BoJo or Corbyn filling it with those whose only skills are shameless flattery.
Anyway, a second elected chamber is a recipe for disaster and endless wrangling over which chamber is the more representative
Yes. Definitely.
Personally, I would trust the Royal College of Nursing, for example
Maybe you would. I wouldn’t. I’m pretty sure the Royal College of Nursing has been just as infiltrated by woke liberal groupthink as every other organisation that a Royal Commission, itself undoubtedly made up of liberal progressives, might come up with.
So your suggestion, which basically boils down to a bunch of mates picking their mates who agree with their world-view, would have absolutely no legitimacy.
Are you a peer yourself? It’s just that I’ve never met anyone who defended the HoL who wasn’t one. No ordinary citizen would defend it. You really only have two options. Elected or appointed. Elected gives us an identical bunch of politicians to the one we already have and appointed means someone has to appoint. At the moment politicians do it so it’s full of the corrupt, the incompetent and the sycophant. And all there for their entire lives. I can only suggest we part as friends and may I offer you the best of luck in finding someone else (outside of the red benches) who would also endorse the current elephant’s graveyard.
I’m not defending the House if Lords, I’m just pointing out that your suggestion manages the impressive feat of being even worse than the current situation.
I would welcome hearing your own proposals which won’t be like the current arrangement which you don’t defend.
I don’t need any proposals of my own to be able to see that your system is worse than the current mess.
‘We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this’ is not a good basis on which to proceed.
I didn’t think so.
It’s a hard problem, but I think the most important part of any attempt at a solution is, ‘Don’t make it much, much worse’. Your solution is much, much worse. So.
And remember, we’re here in the first place mainly because Tony Blair decided to reform the House of Lords without a clear idea of what better thing he was going to replace it with, and so managed to make it even worse than it was.
And you want to make it worse still?
Just go away and think before you tamper with things. Especially as you seem to be the kind of person who starts jabbing at something that’s broken and manages to make it not just broken but broken and actively dangerous. I hope you never try replacing a light bulb, you’d probably blow the entire grid.