House of Lords

[johnloony]

An assembled congregation of wise and experienced elders, untainted by party political bias or sectional interests, nodding sagely at each other in formulating constructive solutions to the nation's problems instead of bickering and squawking like the hysterical mob in the House of Commons.

[yellowperil]

Nov 20, 2022 12:27:28 GMT @johnyorks said:

Nov 20, 2022 12:11:29 GMT Sibboleth said:

I suspect that it might be a little easier to defend the institution without absurdity if 'Lord Lebedev of Siberia' did not exist and if Johnson had not breached the usual conventions with his resignation honours list. Conservative Party toleration of the increasingly open corruption of its leaders - and I note that the only defence ever offered amounts to 'and you are lynching negroes' - is going to result in the destruction of a lot of the things that the average Party member holds dear.

You mean a foreign born press baron for a peerage? Such a thing to happen and drag the place into disrepute. How awful. I’m sure Lord Beaverbrook would be turning in his grave… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s wealthy isn’t it. I’m sure Lord Sainsbury of Turville would vociferously oppose such a thing… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s accused of being compromised with a foreign power. I’m sure Lord Bradwell would have campaigned against such a horrific… Oh wait.

Yes, you make an excellent case for getting rid of an appointed secind chamber.

[greatkingrat]

Nov 20, 2022 9:42:30 GMT Crimson King said:

I refer the forum to my previous suggestion. 75% elected in thirds by STV from the regions an nations for single 15 year terms (elecions every 5 years). The remainder ex officio (eg retiring heads of certain institutions if they want it) topped up with nominees from an independent panel.

If you were using STV you'd need to go smaller than regions. I don't think a 20-seat STV election in the South East would work very well, particularly as the vast majority of the electorate will know little or nothing about the candidates anyway.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2022 13:47:35 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 20, 2022 12:27:28 GMT @johnyorks said:

You mean a foreign born press baron for a peerage? Such a thing to happen and drag the place into disrepute. How awful. I’m sure Lord Beaverbrook would be turning in his grave… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s wealthy isn’t it. I’m sure Lord Sainsbury of Turville would vociferously oppose such a thing… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s accused of being compromised with a foreign power. I’m sure Lord Bradwell would have campaigned against such a horrific… Oh wait.

Yes, you make an excellent case for getting rid of an appointed secind chamber.

Indeed I acknowledge that argument can be made. What I dispute is the ‘innocence’ of the other parties in exploiting the system.
Or that Boris was notably worse. The most infamous examples of the power of patronage remain the Liberal Lloyd George, and Labour’s Wilson with his Lavender List... or perhaps Blair with the ‘Cash for Honours’ scandal.

[polupolu]

Nov 20, 2022 10:00:38 GMT matureleft said:

The composition of a second chamber and how it is chosen and renewed should follow from a clear definition of its purpose, not the other way round.

If we seek an expert revising chamber with no powers to substantially delay, let alone thwart legislation than we need to ensure that we have a membership that can do that job. If it’s intended to reflect the nations and regions of the UK then some thought on how that works in a more devolved state is required. The establishment of the Supreme Court valuably simplified the definitions of purpose.

Just a few thoughts...

matureleft seems to me to hit a key point in any discussion of the future of a second chamber.  Purpose first.

The HoL is one of the few checks on the powers of the HoC (limited in its scope though it may be).  I can understand that people who want/wanted sweeping changes (from whatever perspective) like the idea of removing that check.  I don't think there is much appetite for that in this country.

On the other hand, there is clearly no appetite for a second chamber that has a similar (or even superior) democratic mandate compared to the HoC.  That would be a recipe for legislative grid-lock and would mean any change would be very difficult to get through.  So an STV elected second chamber won't do.

Eliminating those possibilities, we fall back on something similar to the powers of the current HoL.  So what would a second chamber with some powers to examine legislation and potentially delay bad laws look like, ideally?  And what should it NOT look like?

The original purpose of the HoL was to ensure that the privileges and interests of the Peers would not be eroded without their acquiesence (vis a vis first the Crown and then the HoC).   There is no case for that in 2022 that I can see, so the continuation of the heredetary element seems to be anachronistic at best and damaging to the interests of the rest of the country at worst.  Having an ancestor who performed "sevices" for the monarch a few centuries ago, should not be the qualification for a legislator today. 

A chamber filled entirely with political donors and cronies of party leaders is going to lack a lot of credibility and suffers from a similar problem as the Hereditaries in terms of whose interests they serve (though there is an argument that some ex-MPs and other politicians would be useful in terms of knowledge of how the systems of government actually work).  Consequently a system where party leaders or party machines choose who goes into the second chamber is sub-optimal.

So we come to the question: how should the second chamber be chosen (if we discount direct elections and party machines)?

One possibility is to take a leaf out of the Jury system, and introduce an element of chance.  At its most extreme, this would be a chamber chosen at random from the electorate.  As in the Jury system, you would get a lot of chaff; but make it large enough to be able to overcome that and you might have an interesting sample of the country.  More practically, the random element could be used to create a group of selectors to choose who sits in the second chamber (so more like a simplified version of the old Venetian system).  Add in appropriate safeguards (a sensible nomination system; long overlapping terms; a removal mechanism etc.) and there is something to recommend this.  However I doubt whether anyone would like this method very much.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

[yellowperil]

Nov 20, 2022 14:30:59 GMT @johnyorks said:

Nov 20, 2022 13:47:35 GMT yellowperil said:

Yes, you make an excellent case for getting rid of an appointed secind chamber.

Indeed I acknowledge that argument can be made. What I dispute is the ‘innocence’ of the other parties in exploiting the system.
Or that Boris was notably worse. The most infamous examples of the power of patronage remain the Liberal Lloyd George, and Labour’s Wilson with his Lavender List... or perhaps Blair with the ‘Cash for Honours’ scandal.

I'm not sure who you think is defending past regimes of any colour - I wouldn't and I don't know who would.  Was Boris worse than his predecessors? Maybe in the sense that I don't feel there was any worthwhile political purpose behind the Boris corruption,  and maybe there was earlier, but arguable I would agree.

[The Bishop]

But its a bit like Qatar getting the World Cup, innit. We all "knew" that the process had long been corrupt and unfair to a certain degree, but the sheer shamelessness of that decision meant there was nowhere to hide anymore - it was in total plain sight for all to see.

IMO what Johnson has done with his Lords appointments is pretty similar. His predecessors could usually, even if not always, hide behind "plausible deniability" for what they did. Whereas he has, as indeed in other matters, revealed things in their full indefensible ugliness.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2022 15:25:23 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 20, 2022 14:30:59 GMT @johnyorks said:

Indeed I acknowledge that argument can be made. What I dispute is the ‘innocence’ of the other parties in exploiting the system.
Or that Boris was notably worse. The most infamous examples of the power of patronage remain the Liberal Lloyd George, and Labour’s Wilson with his Lavender List... or perhaps Blair with the ‘Cash for Honours’ scandal.

I'm not sure who you think is defending past regimes of any colour - I wouldn't and I don't know who would.  Was Boris worse than his predecessors? Maybe in the sense that I don't feel there was any worthwhile political purpose behind the Boris corruption,  and maybe there was earlier, but arguable I would agree.

Posters above - and it would appear Keir Starmer who's just realised this new priority - who seem to think the past few years of Tory government have been more corrupt in patronage than previous regimes.

[Crimson King]

Nov 20, 2022 14:20:21 GMT greatkingrat said:

Nov 20, 2022 9:42:30 GMT Crimson King said:

I refer the forum to my previous suggestion. 75% elected in thirds by STV from the regions an nations for single 15 year terms (elecions every 5 years). The remainder ex officio (eg retiring heads of certain institutions if they want it) topped up with nominees from an independent panel.

If you were using STV you'd need to go smaller than regions. I don't think a 20-seat STV election in the South East would work very well, particularly as the vast majority of the electorate will know little or nothing about the candidates anyway.

fairy nuff.
I can’t remember what numbers I worked out when I last thought about this - I suspect it was a a 400 seat house so 100 seats elected every 3 years - I’m not sure how that would break down regionally, but split the big ones by all means. That is just fine tuning though

[matureleft]

Nov 20, 2022 14:51:52 GMT polupolu said:

Nov 20, 2022 10:00:38 GMT matureleft said:

The composition of a second chamber and how it is chosen and renewed should follow from a clear definition of its purpose, not the other way round.

If we seek an expert revising chamber with no powers to substantially delay, let alone thwart legislation than we need to ensure that we have a membership that can do that job. If it’s intended to reflect the nations and regions of the UK then some thought on how that works in a more devolved state is required. The establishment of the Supreme Court valuably simplified the definitions of purpose.

Just a few thoughts...

matureleft seems to me to hit a key point in any discussion of the future of a second chamber.  Purpose first.

The HoL is one of the few checks on the powers of the HoC (limited in its scope though it may be).  I can understand that people who want/wanted sweeping changes (from whatever perspective) like the idea of removing that check.  I don't think there is much appetite for that in this country.

On the other hand, there is clearly no appetite for a second chamber that has a similar (or even superior) democratic mandate compared to the HoC.  That would be a recipe for legislative grid-lock and would mean any change would be very difficult to get through.  So an STV elected second chamber won't do.

Eliminating those possibilities, we fall back on something similar to the powers of the current HoL.  So what would a second chamber with some powers to examine legislation and potentially delay bad laws look like, ideally?  And what should it NOT look like?

The original purpose of the HoL was to ensure that the privileges and interests of the Peers would not be eroded without their acquiesence (vis a vis first the Crown and then the HoC).   There is no case for that in 2022 that I can see, so the continuation of the heredetary element seems to be anachronistic at best and damaging to the interests of the rest of the country at worst.  Having an ancestor who performed "sevices" for the monarch a few centuries ago, should not be the qualification for a legislator today. 

A chamber filled entirely with political donors and cronies of party leaders is going to lack a lot of credibility and suffers from a similar problem as the Hereditaries in terms of whose interests they serve (though there is an argument that some ex-MPs and other politicians would be useful in terms of knowledge of how the systems of government actually work).  Consequently a system where party leaders or party machines choose who goes into the second chamber is sub-optimal.

So we come to the question: how should the second chamber be chosen (if we discount direct elections and party machines)?

One possibility is to take a leaf out of the Jury system, and introduce an element of chance.  At its most extreme, this would be a chamber chosen at random from the electorate.  As in the Jury system, you would get a lot of chaff; but make it large enough to be able to overcome that and you might have an interesting sample of the country.  More practically, the random element could be used to create a group of selectors to choose who sits in the second chamber (so more like a simplified version of the old Venetian system).  Add in appropriate safeguards (a sensible nomination system; long overlapping terms; a removal mechanism etc.) and there is something to recommend this.  However I doubt whether anyone would like this method very much.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

There’s a few things we must accept and allow for:
1. The confusion of our parliamentary system. Unlike some states we do not separate the executive and the legislature. 
2. Thus our legislators in the Commons (by convention, not law, the providers of our leading executives), are not focused on good law. Arguably they are biased toward bad law that allows more executive reach.
3. If we want better law we need scrutiny of law originating in the Commons. That task won’t be performed by the Commons itself - the standing committee system is dominated by the executive.
4. Thus the Lords has gravitated (but in the English way, not by design!) into an expert scrutiny function. 
5. Yet its membership is not designed for that purpose. It’s a gross bastion of patronage. There are still hereditary elements. It’s ridiculously oversized. There is expertise there, but it’s patchy in the extreme.

Of course it might be better if we had a proper rethink of how are governed but that’s not the English way so we must progress by increments. A start would be a clear definition of what a second chamber does, its powers and its relation to both the executive and the Commons. Assuming that we don’t want to rectify the faults in the Commons we need a scrutiny chamber with modest delaying powers. 

Democracy needn’t be absent but it shouldn’t be dominant. The larger proportion of the chamber should be appointed by recognised scientific, legal, medical, educational and other bodies. Others should come from those on the receiving end of law and those should be elected democratically but using a proportional system. Terms should be sufficient to build some experience. The chamber shouldn’t exceed around 200-300.

[tonyhill]

I agree with polupolu's argument. I would suggest using the National Lottery to select members of the second chamber using a special draw or draws so ensure that people who actually wanted to do the job were chosen. The income from the draw would support training, and terms would have to be for a reasonable period like 10 - 15 years to make it attractive for people to set aside their careers, and there should be an adequate salary (dependent on attendance and doing the work required) and a pension at the end of the term. The random element could be leavened by party political appointments based on vote share at the most recent general election.

[Max]

Nov 20, 2022 16:51:24 GMT matureleft said:

Nov 20, 2022 14:51:52 GMT polupolu said:

Just a few thoughts...

matureleft seems to me to hit a key point in any discussion of the future of a second chamber.  Purpose first.

The HoL is one of the few checks on the powers of the HoC (limited in its scope though it may be).  I can understand that people who want/wanted sweeping changes (from whatever perspective) like the idea of removing that check.  I don't think there is much appetite for that in this country.

On the other hand, there is clearly no appetite for a second chamber that has a similar (or even superior) democratic mandate compared to the HoC.  That would be a recipe for legislative grid-lock and would mean any change would be very difficult to get through.  So an STV elected second chamber won't do.

Eliminating those possibilities, we fall back on something similar to the powers of the current HoL.  So what would a second chamber with some powers to examine legislation and potentially delay bad laws look like, ideally?  And what should it NOT look like?

The original purpose of the HoL was to ensure that the privileges and interests of the Peers would not be eroded without their acquiesence (vis a vis first the Crown and then the HoC).   There is no case for that in 2022 that I can see, so the continuation of the heredetary element seems to be anachronistic at best and damaging to the interests of the rest of the country at worst.  Having an ancestor who performed "sevices" for the monarch a few centuries ago, should not be the qualification for a legislator today. 

A chamber filled entirely with political donors and cronies of party leaders is going to lack a lot of credibility and suffers from a similar problem as the Hereditaries in terms of whose interests they serve (though there is an argument that some ex-MPs and other politicians would be useful in terms of knowledge of how the systems of government actually work).  Consequently a system where party leaders or party machines choose who goes into the second chamber is sub-optimal.

So we come to the question: how should the second chamber be chosen (if we discount direct elections and party machines)?

One possibility is to take a leaf out of the Jury system, and introduce an element of chance.  At its most extreme, this would be a chamber chosen at random from the electorate.  As in the Jury system, you would get a lot of chaff; but make it large enough to be able to overcome that and you might have an interesting sample of the country.  More practically, the random element could be used to create a group of selectors to choose who sits in the second chamber (so more like a simplified version of the old Venetian system).  Add in appropriate safeguards (a sensible nomination system; long overlapping terms; a removal mechanism etc.) and there is something to recommend this.  However I doubt whether anyone would like this method very much.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

There’s a few things we must accept and allow for:
1. The confusion of our parliamentary system. Unlike some states we do not separate the executive and the legislature. 
2. Thus our legislators in the Commons (by convention, not law, the providers of our leading executives), are not focused on good law. Arguably they are biased toward bad law that allows more executive reach.
3. If we want better law we need scrutiny of law originating in the Commons. That task won’t be performed by the Commons itself - the standing committee system is dominated by the executive.
4. Thus the Lords has gravitated (but in the English way, not by design!) into an expert scrutiny function. 
5. Yet its membership is not designed for that purpose. It’s a gross bastion of patronage. There are still hereditary elements. It’s ridiculously oversized. There is expertise there, but it’s patchy in the extreme.

Of course it might be better if we had a proper rethink of how are governed but that’s not the English way so we must progress by increments. A start would be a clear definition of what a second chamber does, its powers and its relation to both the executive and the Commons. Assuming that we don’t want to rectify the faults in the Commons we need a scrutiny chamber with modest delaying powers. 

Democracy needn’t be absent but it shouldn’t be dominant. The larger proportion of the chamber should be appointed by recognised scientific, legal, medical, educational and other bodies. Others should come from those on the receiving end of law and those should be elected democratically but using a proportional system. Terms should be sufficient to build some experience. The chamber shouldn’t exceed around 200-300.

This seems to me to be the right approach.  If we must have a second chamber for revising purposes, then a corporatist model of sectoral experts, matched with some representatives of "consumers" as well as a thin layer of political leadership to enable accountability sounds right. This could allow it to be smaller and focused while not challenging legitimacy.

Of course, it's all very well to state this, but then the tricky questions come in working out the balance between different groups and proportions.

[John Chanin]

Nov 20, 2022 17:56:05 GMT Max said:

Nov 20, 2022 16:51:24 GMT matureleft said:

There’s a few things we must accept and allow for:
1. The confusion of our parliamentary system. Unlike some states we do not separate the executive and the legislature. 
2. Thus our legislators in the Commons (by convention, not law, the providers of our leading executives), are not focused on good law. Arguably they are biased toward bad law that allows more executive reach.
3. If we want better law we need scrutiny of law originating in the Commons. That task won’t be performed by the Commons itself - the standing committee system is dominated by the executive.
4. Thus the Lords has gravitated (but in the English way, not by design!) into an expert scrutiny function. 
5. Yet its membership is not designed for that purpose. It’s a gross bastion of patronage. There are still hereditary elements. It’s ridiculously oversized. There is expertise there, but it’s patchy in the extreme.

Of course it might be better if we had a proper rethink of how are governed but that’s not the English way so we must progress by increments. A start would be a clear definition of what a second chamber does, its powers and its relation to both the executive and the Commons. Assuming that we don’t want to rectify the faults in the Commons we need a scrutiny chamber with modest delaying powers. 

Democracy needn’t be absent but it shouldn’t be dominant. The larger proportion of the chamber should be appointed by recognised scientific, legal, medical, educational and other bodies. Others should come from those on the receiving end of law and those should be elected democratically but using a proportional system. Terms should be sufficient to build some experience. The chamber shouldn’t exceed around 200-300.

This seems to me to be the right approach.  If we must have a second chamber for revising purposes, then a corporatist model of sectoral experts, matched with some representatives of "consumers" as well as a thin layer of political leadership to enable accountability sounds right. This could allow it to be smaller and focused while not challenging legitimacy.

Of course, it's all very well to state this, but then the tricky questions come in working out the balance between different groups and proportions.

While these comments are eminently sensible, and probably more or less shared by all those with an interest in and knowledge of how the system works, any such solution would be deeply unpopular among the public.  Which is basically why nothing is ever done.

[gwynthegriff]

Nov 20, 2022 9:22:19 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 20, 2022 0:23:22 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

Long overdue. But then you woud have viewd every parliamentary reform from 1832 onwards as a yet more constitutional vandalism,

They'll be giving votes to women next you mark my words.

[gwynthegriff]

Nov 20, 2022 9:42:30 GMT Crimson King said:

I refer the forum to my previous suggestion. 75% elected in thirds by STV from the regions an nations for single 15 year terms (elecions every 5 years). The remainder ex officio (eg retiring heads of certain institutions if they want it) topped up with nominees from an independent panel.

I've often expressed the view that certain august bodies should have a right of nomination.

[myth11]

I predict the return of university constituencies......which has the potential to reintroduce a form of plural voting.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Better to have the 2nd chamber abolished completely then have a corporist interest infested second chamber. 

[mattbewilson]

Nov 20, 2022 0:23:22 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

given the number of Tory legislation; brexit, benefit reform, etc. that's been nobbled by unelected politicians denying what people voted for, shouldn't you want this

[matureleft]

Nov 20, 2022 20:37:52 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Better to have the 2nd chamber abolished completely then have a corporist interest infested second chamber. 

No problem, and better. But then we have to reform the Commons to make it far better at examining laws and therefore gaining a distance from the executive (that currently writes virtually all our laws and is responsible for stuffing them through the Commons). 

[ricmk]

I'd make it part of the honours system. Nominate in public or private, then on strict criteria including merit, achievements in field, and a thorough review of any troubling aspects, the successful nominees can be chosen. As per existing honours they can mix celebrity, political, and community heroes. I hate the idea of random draws, but people who are nominated locally for honours are exactly the sort of people who should be considered to sit in the Lords. So the PM can nominate all his cronies all he likes, but they won't get any preference over nominees from others. And it's totally forbidden to put your mate in the Lords so you can make him a government minister.

I would have happily gone along with the coalition proposals, but a few years on I can see why you don't want election the same way to create competing mandates. When I waver on this, I look at the US Senate and House. However if it can be done by merit and nomination - I'd welcome all shortlisted nominations being made public and a period of consultation - that should sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Only issue I can see is who sits on the panel that decides this? Who makes the final decisions in borderline cases? If the PM can't get all his nominations through on the nod, he'll rig the nominations panel to put all his mates *there* instead. And we are then at how you select the nominating panel. Same issues, one step removed.