Your proposal for House of Lords reform?

[sweetheart]

The house of lords combines the american supreme court and senate
in one body, that is made up of heredetary peers, and life appointed
peers who are "the great and the good".

Tony Blair has lost his political momentum in reforming the body, as
he's changed his mind regarding constitutional reforms, largely
as a more indpendent HOL, would reduce his imperial powers.

I frankly, thought the heredetary body, was doing an OK job, as so
many generations had passed, that the old house was a collection of
mostly regular people, and not politicians. I'm sure i'll be
corrected on this, but even today, the HOL seems the only body
capable of saying "NO" to tony. In this regard, this unelected body
seems to have done more to preserve british democracy than elected
bodies. Why is this?

What do you believe should be done to the house of lords?

[Sporadicus]

1. Haven't Some Reforms Been Enacted?

A Wikipedia reference to the HOL Act of 1999:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

As an American who believes fervently that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, I can't bring myself to criticise the political systems of other sovereign nations...beyond mentioning that the HOL appears on the surface - to myself, anyway - antidemocratic, elitist & anachronistic.

[izzie]

2. Oh I thought you were talking about the White House. My error.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I would get rid of all the hereditary peers

and the Church of England bishops. That's the most important step; I'm not too worried whether the Law Lords keep their voting powers or not (I regard them as responsible, intelligent people who are not driven by party political considerations, and having the best legal brains able to give speeches on legal matters in the Lords is quite good).

I'm a disestablishmentarian (and not just because I like long words), so the bishops have to go; and I don't think the hereditary lords were "regular people". Take the proportions of their party affliation, that determined the basis for the vote on which hereditary peers were retained:

In accordance with the Standing Order, they were elected in proportion to the four organised groupings in the House of Lords by the hereditary peers in their respective groupings. This gives 42 Conservatives, 28 Cross-bench, 3 Liberal Democrats and 2 Labour.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/en1999/1999en34.htm

There was still a huge number of lords whose job was 'landowner'. While some conservatism in the second chamber might be a good idea, party Conservatism had gone much too far. The rules of inheritance were also very sexist, of course.

I also like the ability to co-opt some of the best from various fields - eg Robert Winston, to talk about reproductive science - into the House and its committees. So I would retain at least a few appointed peers, the appointments done by a committee that should try to be independent - either no politicians on it, or a spread of them.

I'd like the majority to be elected, for a reasonably long period (10 years? Perhaps in staggered elections, every 2 years?), and I'd like this to not end up dominated by party loyalists. But I'm not sure of the mechanism to ensure this. A national vote, perhaps with each voter choosing their favourite 3 candidates? It sounds a bit like Sports Personality of the Year or Big Brother, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The powers of the House should remain roughly as it is - perhaps make it so that they can reject a bill from the Commons until the next general election. After that, the government would have a renewed mandate, so the Lords would have to let the bill pass.

Sporadicus' description - "antidemocratic, elitist & anachronistic" - is fairly close to the mark, especially for the pre-1999 chamber. 'Elitist' isn't that bad a thing to be, if it means those of great ability, rather than those of a social class.

[non sociopath skin]

4. Nobody has ever totally convinced me ...

... that we actually need a second chamber, specially one where all or part is non-elected.

The Skin

[sweetheart]

6. You're kidding, right?

That second chamber has kept british democracy sane against partisan
influences for several hundred years. The "long" track record is
only explainable by the HoL, IMO... certianly not the monarchy.

That the second chamber are not constantly positioning, constantly
campaigning lawyers like the american senate is so dang refreshing.
I can't believe you don't appreciate it.

The short-term political folks of the commons need a chamber with
a longer view on time, to checkpoint their partisan zeal, or the
country would be bankrupt long ago, like the US is today, as both
chambers are under the same short-term'ist zeal.

The supreme court, in the american system, is supposed to include
that "time dagger" (my phrase), to think long long term, and
control the partisans. In the UK, that is clearly the HoL, and its
integrated supreme court function.

Clearly you're thinking that the supreme court would be spun off as
a separate entity in the non-constitution, as simply eliminating this
highest point of appeal would simply break the system, inappropriately.

Somebody with a long term view, needs to supply sanity to these
blair-types who can't see beyond the next poll.

[non sociopath skin]

7. And you seem to be forgetting that this wonderful safeguard ...

... has never been elected. Not indirectly (like your Senate used to be) or directly (as it is now)but not at all. It has therefore ALWAYS represented the most reactionary of vested interests (even as "reformed" by Blair, it has a massive Conservative majority) and only successive legislation to MODIFY its powers has stopped it from putting a permenant armlock on any progress whatsoever. Look at the lengths Lloyd George had to go to, to get through any vestige of social security policy.

Even an old Tory maverick like WS Gilbert, in his 1882 libretto for "Iolanthe" parodied the view that the Lords provided useful checks and balances mercilessly, coming to the conclusion that if they all flew off to fairyland and were replaced by someone with intelligence, things would be a lot better.

Sorry, I tend to buy democracy as a whole package. If you need the great and good to execise a veto when the plebs get out of hand, it may be "good government" but it ain't democracy.

The Skin

[sweetheart]

11. Beyond history for a moment

Do you not agree that the more recent non-partisan comittees appointing
hairdressers and whatnot are better? After growing up with the
american senate, i have the following concerns with making the HoL
elected.

The senate is a bunch of scumbag money grubbers, who run after the
corporation who doles them out the bux so they can re-elect themselves. It ain't democracy by a long shot, plutocracy reigns, as
the population is so large and spread out, the only way to talk to
your constituency is using big money on advertizing and whatnot.
Granted, british campaign finance controls are better, but the issue
of just another pack of campaigners chanting the latest mantra is
hardly worthy of a second chamber... and it leads to the thinking
you first mentioned about reducing the equation to 1 chamber (commons).

Livetime appointments remove the re-election partisan issue from the
concern, and allow the people to focus on the whole of britain to the
advantage of all. There is merit to this, after perhaps jettonsoning
the inherited titles and related riffraff. This allows the second
chamber to not be swayed by the politics of the day, which in the
case of the HOL blocked the british PATRIOT act which was a wise
thing to block.

I also like that the HoL is realated to the law lords, so that the
people involved in making the law help to refine it and interpret it
that it is properly implemented. The american speparation of powers,
whilst appearing to be more benevolent, actually winds up more
corrupt, as each having their own political adgenda, a law is read
differently than written... like how the first amendment is being
distorted now for "national security" bollocks.

So, back to the question, how would you reform it? Myself i would
stick with a non-partisan committee elevating life peers, ditching
the heredetary peers and the institutional old-stink. As for the
electoral component, i feel it should be small enough that a nazi
party takeover, as in americana, can not influence the house overltly
by swing-of-the-moment cognitive dissonance. As well, i feel the
HoL should have constitutional veto on any mobilisation of troops for
going to war.

One must admit that british democracy is, for all its faults, far
healthier than its american cousin, and something needs to observe
that largely the HoL is part of that survival. I am no fan of the
tory's... heck, i think they're down to 1 seat north of the border,
thankfully! That said, Blair should press forward with a reform,
and your proprosal is ??? how much of the chamber should be elected
by your thinking? Appointed?

As well, were the elected group to model the populace plurality,
how should that be achieved... proportional 1,2,3 voting?

[gbarford]

5. I think the HoL should be replaced with a "hybrid" Senate

That is, it should be mostly elected, but also have a non-elected, appointed element, based upon the existing Cross-Benchers, who are independent peers, and bring a different perspective to debates in the HoL, but in the new Senate, they would only have a vote on committees they are on, not on the floor itself.

A different election system should be used from the House of Commons, one possiblity is using the system the Australian Federal Senate uses, which is proportional representation with open party lists (also known as preferential vote, and it is simular to instant runoff), using the existing electoral regions used for the European Parliament elections (North West England, London, South West England, Scotland etc.).

This would also probably ensure that no one party would have a majority in the Senate, so all governments from all parties would have to listen to the Senate, rather than rely on same party Senators to simply ram legislation through.

Also, a bit off topic, I think the Parliament Acts (used to force through bills when the HoL blocks it twice in successive sessions of Parliament) should be repealed, and replaced with a provision where the House of Commons can override the Senate if it blocks a bill or doesn't agree to an identical version of the bill, if a supermajority of two-thirds concur. Even Blair's current 160+ landslide majority is short of two-thirds I believe, so it would stop governments with large majorities from ramming through bad legislation, while allowing the House of Commons to override the Senate if they are being too obstructionist.

[non sociopath skin]

8. But would that be "democratic," gb.

I'm amazed that so many "democrats" seem to think that we need unelected senators to rein us in when we act irresponsibly. Sorry, but I really don't need anyone to help me do me democcin' (grin.

The Skin

[D-Notice]

9. No-one's menitoned Billy Bragg's idea:

have it elected, but based upon the % vote at the General Election.

So even though Labour have 400+ MPs they'd only have about 30% of the HoL...

[fedsron2us]

10. The Lords should be replaced by a fully elected second chamber

This would immediately increase its legitimacy. My favourite option is for each member to be elected for a period of eight years by a ballot using proportional representation. A quarter of the House would come up for re-election very two years. The Chamber would have no power to introduce legislation but would have a full and final right of veto on all bills sent up from the House of Commons, apart from the annual Finance Act, which the government would still be allowed to push through using the Parliament Act. Members of the second house would not be allowed to hold any ministerial position within any current or future government. The role played by the current House of Lords as a Court of Appeal would be devolved to a Supreme Court.

In my opinion these changes would have a number of advantages.

First, the electoral cycle for the second chamber would be set so that its members were not chosen at the same time as the House of Commons. This would put a check on the winner takes all aspect of the current British electoral system which means that the party which wins a sufficiently large majority in the House of Commons at a General Election can effectively ignore the wishes of the populace for the next six years.

Second, the rolling cycle of elections would enable the country to pass judgment on an incumbent government at regular intervals during its period of office. Any administration that reneged on electoral promises or was pursuing unpopular policies could then be brought to heel far faster than is possible with the current cycle of elections.

Third, elected representatives careers would not be so closely tied to the success of the leader or their party. The absence of the promise of the opportunity of ministerial office or the fear of annihilation at a General Election would hopefully encourage some independence of mind among members of the chamber.

Fourth, proportional representation would hopefully mean that the second house more closely represents the views of every section of the populace of the UK.

The aim would be to create a Chamber that could effectively place a some check on the powers of the Executive as currently wielded by the Prime Minister through a parliamentary majority in the House of Commons. The second House would not have the power to bring down governments or to prevent the raising of taxation. It would, however, be able to block all other legislation including new spending bills. The critics would, of course, claim that this could make 'strong' government impossible. My personal experience over the last 40 years in the UK is that no legislation is often preferrable to bad legislation

On edit - The main value of the Life Peers in the current House of Lords is the experience of Parliament and government that they bring to the scrutiny of legislation. In order to prevent ambitious politicians exploiting the chamber as a route to office it is vital that the second House would effectively be the end point for any political career. There might even be an argument for setting a lower age limit for this chamber of say 50 years though I know there are many good arguments against such a restriction.

[sweetheart]

12. I'd even consider 12 years, and i like your age 50 minimum

Or, as well, you could have each member who arrives at the HOL, take
an oath to surrender party and forever hence represent only the
whole of the british public. Relection of 12 years after 50 would
mean that anyone running for re-election would be minimum 62 years
old, and 2 terms 74 years.... so dubious that it could be hyjakked
by partisans.

As well, the spending controls MUST control whether to go to war.
the HOL should have a special veto on war mongering.