I wrote BELOW about Lord Lipsey's toe curlingly smug performance on Newsnight last night, where he spoke out against elected Peers. It has prompted several emails and comments. I thought I'd share this one with you...I remember when I was working for the electoral reform society and David Lipsey was the chair of the make votes count coalition. We always had problems cos he had so many different hats and when he appeared on the tv we never knew with what hat he would be speaking. Eventually he wrote a vehemently anti Lords reform article for the Times Thunderer column under the title “You couldn’t elect better lords than me”. I wrote a single line letter in reply “Trust me, we could”. It got me a right b*ll*cking from my boss and Lipsey. But it was worth it.
I defy anyone to listen to Lipsey for more than five minutes and still be in favour of an appointed House of Lords. He truly believes that as a so-called member of the 'intellectual elite' he knows better, and that 'the little people' are not to be trusted. He personifies all that is bad about the House of Lords.
PS I remember the first time I met Lipsey. I told him that his economics text book had got me through my A Level Economics (albeit with a Grade E). He have me a thunderous look and informed me that those books were written by "the other David Lipsey". Marvellous.
I am shocked and appalled that in 2007 there is anyone who thinks we should have any appointees in a second chamber.
ReplyDeleteIf parties want the have a hand in who ends up in the Lords (presumably some experts in various fields) then can't we have a list system?
Iain, generalising from a single example is not usually regarded as a valid way of reaching a decision!
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of arguments for appointed members. It is perfectly valid to argue, that, in a representative democracy, a single elected chamber is necessary and sufficient. Those who want election argue that it is necessary but not sufficient. One can make a valid argument for that as well. Each has its merits. One should not proceed on the basis that the case for election is self-evidently the only one.
Elected House of Lords?
ReplyDeleteWe all ready have an elected House of Commons and they are a bunch of useless drunks who behave like 13 year old schoolboys.
If the House of Commons ran a business it'd lose all it's customers in a week.
Anon 11.18
ReplyDeleteThat's not how I read Iain's comment. He says that he's not in favour of appointees. He makes no mention of other means of selection.
I'd like to hear a decent rationale for appointees (or electees, for that matter).
Care to offer one?
I watched Party Animals, and despie being slightly watchable in a Neighbours sort of way, it was basically terrible.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that the list would contain some higher calibre people than the MEP list.
ReplyDeleteBan Party from the Upper House and just have Independents elected on STV
ReplyDeleteChuck Unsworth: I was responding to ed's comments, not Iain's. There are plenty of arguments for appointed members: read the White Paper, the Royal Commission report, as well as some of the postings on the earlier message about reform of the Lords.
ReplyDeleteI got an "A" on reading that Lipsey
ReplyDelete.... but I was a very dull boy
.... and it was almost before you were born
.....
Iain, I can't really comment fully until I have taken time to view the guy on Newsnight. I only know that [as a good Guardian reader] that I used to sign up to their 'abolish the monarchy / fire the Lords' line. But as ever one has to come up with a better alternative.
ReplyDeleteListening frequently to 'Today in Parliament' [well, it helps me get to sleep..] I only know that the Lords we have there at the moment talk more sense, on the whole, than the MPs. Sacrilegious to say it, but that is just my opinion.
Yes, this particular Lord may be a prat. But for everyone like this, you have a Lord [David] Ramsbotham who has spent his life at the sharp end, in his case inspecting prisons. Okay, you say we could move to reform the 'Upper House'.
The problem is you then get some 'Nulabour' bo!!*cks like 'People's Peers' where they pretend that the inclusion of hairdressers would be a more democratic chamber. I've nothing against hairdressers, and I'm a working class lad myself, and detest snobbery.
Tony Benn is, of course, very anti the hereditary principle [you wouldn't use a guy as a dentist just because his dad was one] and left the Lords.
But 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. At least until you have much better alternatives - and I don't think we will while we still have that Nulabour 'shower' in there.
Sorry, one final thing - and I hope that you will forgive me for this slightly facile comment. Having seen 'Shilpa' on the box yesterday speaking from Parliament, I think she should be running the country!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLipsey may be an appalling advert for the Lords, but there are many in the commons who give that house a bad name.
ReplyDeleteMay favoured option is leave it as it is. (As I have made clear on my blog!)
Voyager said...
ReplyDeleteBan Party from the Upper House and just have Independents elected on STV
How about a Commons full of independents? The wretched whipping system has a lot to answer for - it undermines personal conscience, relieves the member from having to actually think about the problems at hand, encourages the farce that is PMQ's and undermines the currency of new ideas.
Just a thought.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6341599.stm
ReplyDeleteBBC are featuring suggestions for new names for the 'House of Lords' - my favourites on this bbc site are 'the house that jack built' or the 'house of straw...'
The noble lord was, of course, vigorously opposed to greyhound racing and yet these days occupies a comfy and well-paid sinecure as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board.
ReplyDeleteNot that he was willing to sell out his principles, obviously.
In many ways a hereditary elite was less irritating than an elite that claim to be a meritocracy but is , if anyhting , more excluding than the old system.
ReplyDeleteI know I keep banging on about it but Class immobility in the country and in the political system is turning the entire process an offshoot of the media and Law who are usally the same people.It is especially a problem when the careers of this elite are at odds with the electorate of the Parties they represent.
The more votes you get the less democracy you have.You have to know who to vote against to stop something happening . The amorphous the system becomes the harder that is to do. I am far from convinced that an elected Upper house will be an improvement.It will also be very expensive
I've just listened to Lipsey debate the issue with the Earl of Onslow on Radio Wales. Onslow was outstanding. A real democrat. How Lipsey can describe himself as a Labour Party member is beyond my ken. His performances in the media over the last few days seem to indicate that he must be one of the most arrogant individuals on the planet.He seems to believe for some reason that people took notice of the tosh he has written over the years as a journalist. Perhaps there was a mistake as with the Attenborouh boys and they really wanted the economics textbook writer in the Lords! How can he defend an unelected institution which for years had the 'go to work on egg' guy wandering around in his slippers and claiming expenses.
ReplyDelete"There are plenty of arguments for appointed members"
ReplyDeleteSure there are, there are also arguments in favour of dictatorship, absolute monarchy and slavery, but we don't have those.
Wouldn't it be nice if Britain actually had some kind of commitment to the principles of democracy, rather than to the practice of self interest? Democracy requires those who govern to have the consent of those who are governed. As both houses of parliament are involved in shaping the laws that govern our lives then they must be entirely elected. It's that simple.
There are members of both Houses who give the institution a bad name, but most MPs and peers are decent, hardworking sorts who are genuinely motivated by a desire to do something that benefits others. The pay (and more especially the pension) of an MP is not bad, but then not brilliant. Peers get only allowances; there are some wealthy peers, but there are also some who are pushed to make ends meet. Far too much comment derives from stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious solution is to hold a lottery for the Lords every year in order to allow old pensioners a chance to top up their pensions by becoming members. It would also allow them to see the sights and have subsidised meals. Having watched Lipsey last night any one can do the job.
ReplyDeleteGraham: 'democracy' is not that simple. Accountability is a core feature of a representative democracy. Popular election is an essential component of a representative democracy. But accountability relates to what electors can do if their wishes are not met. Under our system, there is a fundamental accountability in that there is one body - the party in government - that is responsible for public policy, and that one body can be held accountable at the next election (as the Conservatives found in 1997). The moment you start having elections to a second body, you start to disperse accountability. On your argument, the USA is highly democratic, yet the empirical evidence shows that there is little relationship between what US electors want and what Congress actually produces. The system there is characterised by deals done between the chambers - deals that favour the parties and, more especially, special interests. And it is difficult to turn out incumbents, who have channelled public money to their districts or states; hence pressure for term limits.
ReplyDeleteThe elections proposed by Jack Straw certainly won't produce any element of accountability as they will be for single, fixed-terms.
Anon 11.18 and 12.14.
ReplyDeleteOf course you're absolutely correct in indicating that many such arguments have been put forward. Most of them are completely crass.
I was merely asking you to advance a single 'decent' argument.
It's simple enough for anyone with your knowledge and understanding of the subject to do, surely?
Chuck Unsworth: which arguments in the Royal Commission report don't stack up?
ReplyDeleteElecting a second chamber for the sake of it seems pointless if the consequences are a system that is less effective than the existing one. There seems little evidence in the White Paper that Jack Straw has given any thought to the likely effects of his proposals.
ReplyDeleteWhat is particularly cunning is that Straw's proposals involve voting for the House of Lords (name to be changed) based on EUROREGIONS.
ReplyDeleteEver closer union it certainly is.
Anon 11.18 12.14 and now 3.00pm
ReplyDeleteJust the fact that Wakeham's opening statement is entirely predicated on the notion that there actually needs to be such constitutional reform. It goes rapidly downhill from there, full of suppositions and pious hopes, with very little real supporting evidence. True, various individuals did proffer evidential contributions to Wakeham and his colleagues, as to how 'improvements' might be made - but most of those have been opinion solely. One should remember that 'A House for the Future' was not/is not fully accepted.
And I'm still waiting for your single decent argument for change...
I would have thought the arguments for the present second chamber are to be found in terms of what it actually delivers. It adds value to the political process through fulfilling functions that complement the work of the elected chamber. It is qualitatively distinctive and therefore draws on knowledge that enables it to improve the quality of legislation (one study estimated it made twice as much difference to the detail of legislation as the Commons) in a way that another elected chamber will not be able to. Those who advocate election have not said what this will actually bring to the table in terms of outcomes. The elected chamber can get its way in relation to the second, so it is not a block on the will of the people's elected representatives. The judges can be a far more effective block, but that is another(though not altogether unrelated) issue.
ReplyDeleteChange is power - no change does not create exciting. lucrative job opportunities.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, of course, change is also helping to get the EU into more aspects of our lives.
Chuck Unsworth was asked what arguments used in the Royal Commission report didn't stack up, but responds with general comments on the report; I canot see any specific argument that he engages with. His line appears very similar to most of those who argue for an elected second chamber: they take it as self-evident that this is the 'democratic' option and are not prepared to countenance any challenge to that.
ReplyDelete"The moment you start having elections to a second body, you start to disperse accountability."
ReplyDeleteReally? Why? You simply have accountability for more people. Australia does just fine with two elected houses of parliament. The electorate are quite capable of distinguishing between the two houses and vote accordingly.
America's problems are to do largely with money and electoral funding and the odd electoral college system they use. But they are certainly a whole lot more democratic than we are.
One good argument for not having an elected second chamber is what is termed in the literature as redundancy. Why have two chambers fulfilling similar if not identical tasks? Most countries have a unicameral legislature. Of those with second chambers, only a minority are wholly elected by popular vote. If you are to have a second chamber, it has to fulfil tasks that differentiate it from the first. If the first is the popularly elected House, what value is served by having a second elected? The House of Lords carries out tasks that are recognised as valuable and has a membership that is legitimate for the purpose of fulfilling those tasks.
ReplyDeleteAmerica's problems in respect of two elected legislative chambers has nothing to do with the Electoral College (which is cofined solely to the presidency) and the Australian system does not have that good a history. There is pressure in New Zealand, I gather, to bring back a second chamber, but I don't know how strong that movement is. The grass is always greener....
ReplyDeleteAren't the parties in enough financial trouble already, without having to raise funds to fight elections to an elected House of Lords? Given the problems of getting people to vote for the first chamber, how many will bother to vote for the (less powerful) second? Holding the election on the same day as European Parliament elections doesn't sound like a recipe for success!
ReplyDeleteAs anonymous above says, the House of Lords thing is fundamentally about dismantling another bit of our ancient constitution, national life and freedoms in the stealthy move to "ever closer union".
ReplyDeleteAnorak
ReplyDeleteYou're way, way off the mark.
At no stage have I advocated an 'elected' body. What I have repeatedly asked is for just one decent rationale for appointees or electees.
As to the Report - well please re-read my comment. I'm not in the business here of going through that substantial tome line by line to highlight the holes in it. Suffice to say that I have read it and profoundly disagree a) with most of the proposals, and b) - more radically - with the concept that the Lords actually 'needs reform'. I'm not prepared to lecture the assembled masses with what might be fairly esoteric detail, and I'm also conscious that this is not my blog.
That much should be obvious to even the dimmest reader.
However, nothing forthcoming yet from the illustrious 'Anon' or anyone else in response to my challenge...
Blimey. I have just been reading the posts on this subject, not least the earlier one on reform of the Lords. I can only assume Chuck Unsworth has missed the comments on the earlier post or is blind to anything that makes a case against an elected House. I know - 'll save him the trouble - my comments are 'crass', I don't make an argument against election - but why should I? I was convinced by the earlier comments.
ReplyDeleteThe best argument against election is that it would remove the benefits - in terms of legislative revision, administrative scrutiny, and giving voice to views outside the context of partisan conflict - that derive from the present House. Having a House derived from experience and expertise adds value to the political process in a way a second chamber of elected politicians cannot.
ReplyDelete