Wow. I must admit I did not expect the 100% elected option to be voted for. And if I'm right, it has a bigger majority than the 80% option. The government has said it would go with whichever option got the highest vote. The House of Lords will now no doubt use every delaying tactic at its disposal.
The challenge now is for those of us who believe in a fully elected chamber to come up with considered proposals which will keep its current character and maintain its role as a revising and scrutinising chamber.
76 comments:
The good old BBC news got it wrong again.first saying the 80% option had won then oh dear its the 100%.
Thank god this is only a motion. 800 years of history wiped away in 1 hour- OH NO!
Mitch, they had voted for 80% before 100% via this voting system
I cant see how the chamber can keep its current character under a 100% elected system.
Unless we keep the appointment system but use - dare I say it - Proportional Representation to dictate the ratio of appointees.
Of course what this all means is that truly independent Peers area a thing of the past.
I left this comment in your 'Gillian Sheppard' post at 3:15:
I don't know if anyone has put forward this suggestion yet: why can't we have a House of 'Lords' (or whatever it will be called) based upon the election of independant persons, who are not subject to a party whip and not funded by any parties?
I know this is off topic and please forgive the intrution, but.............
From what I’ve read on some political blogs, Tony Blair is going to sign a document on 25th March that will sign the UK up to what is, effectively, an EU ‘constitution.’ It would appear that once signed, there is no way that we can get out of it. They are calling this document a ‘treaty’, but as far as I can ascertain it is a re-worded version of the EU constitution.
As far as I know, Tony Blair is intending to do this without either a debate in Parliament or a referendum. I do not want him to be allowed to proceed on this basis. I think a petition at his famous website would be a good idea, but I do not have the relevant expertise to instigate it correctly (necessary legal wording, etc). Would someone else more competent in this area please proceed some with urgency? I would also suggest petitioning your MP!
so now you pay to get on the voting list not to get appointed?
"The challenge now is for those of us who believe in a fully elected chamber to come up with considered proposals which will keep its current character and maintain its role as a revising and scrutinising chamber."
You can't, because it's impossible. That's why it hasn't been done before.
If this problem couldn't be resolved by the combined wisdom of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot it certainly isn't going to be resolved by Chris Bryant and John Bercow.
100% elected and PR?
Now we can move away from the "big tent" parties that allow the meedia, Murdoch and the BBC to run this country.
Boring politics will disapear and turnout will rise without having to resort to giving heads of households ALL the votes of people living in the house (via postal voting given to us by Tone).
I'm very slowly going to go down the pub and buy a celebrity drink when this all actually happens.
Which way did Gordo vote?
Or what he Frit??
I love it, the likes of Europhiles Patton, Kinnock having to stand for election. Better still, the Falconer's, Drayson's, Hunts and Amos etc. All those who not hereditary and not elected should be stripped of the title.
It will be plain old Mr Tony Blair, cos when they abolish the Privy Council 'Rt Hon' will mean sod all.
it will be a house of minorities where every single Labour special interest group, oops, i mean vulnerable minority will be elected by party list.
The problem with bribery and cash for honours recently has been that the money has been going to the wrong people - the political parties. Now we are to have an elected Lords we should reinstate the honourable tradition of bribery, with the money going to the constituents - which is right and proper. Candidates should make promises- ie pay for a hospital wing or a swimming pool or free pints of beer and deposit bonds to pay for it, if elected. Independent people with the interest of the community at heart would get elected. The parties would have no hold over them because they could not possibly afford to subsidise the bribes and money would flow to those areas which the people themselves consider most important.
It will never happen. Look at how many goes they had at 'abolishing' fox hunting, and it is still alive and well. They will just bring in the camp beds again. The only way Jack Straw will get his way in the face of serious and committed filibustering will be if they abandon whatever else is on the legislative timetable.
Politics is about picking fights you can win -- this ain't one of them..
I really dont care what happens as long as we get away from this very Sleazy Government and indeed ALL governments selling peerages.
Such a system is corrupt and anything is better than that.
Somehow I have to change my honest son,s mind about all politicians being out to feather their own nest!!
A lot of cynical views out here guys!! CANT VOTE WONT VOTE ITS ALL CORRUPT!!
>I don't know if anyone has put forward this suggestion yet: why can't we have a House of 'Lords' (or whatever it will be called) based upon the election of independant persons, who are not subject to a party whip and not funded by any parties?
I don't see why the House of Commons can't do this.
Apart from the self interest of those in there.
I am Europhiles Patton and resent the attack on me. Is it because I'm half Greek ?
NEWSNIGHT EXClUSIVE:
"I'm afraid we can't yet give you any details about the story we're leading the programme with tonight but it's a shocking story and it's well worth tuning in for."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6428173.stm
I would like to see a 100% elected chamber but to dampen the possibility of it becoming a House of Stooges the members should serve one very long term (ten or twelve years) and not be eligible for re-election. This would mean that the members aren't vulnerable to the party pressures that effect MPs.
Perhaps a lower age limit of around 50 should also be imposed so that the members are less likely to look on it as a stepping stone to a further political career.
Does this mean there'll be a change on the cards to the current Parliament Act's section on the Lords' power of veto?
I'm disappointed to an extent that there won't be the opportunity for an independent appointed portion, but take heart knowing that at least a fully-elected chamber won't have a single Church representative at all!
newsnight: Is that the Rachel from London, survivor of the 7/7 bombings? Some 'big' revelation is been hinted at.....
Awful, awful, awful. Bring back the hereditaries and get rid of everyone else (except bishops). That's the truly conservative option.
Anonymous 7.34
Try this link
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoEUConstitutn/
If this elected nonsense goes through, the government of the day will be able to whip their people to toe the party line like nothing we've ever seen.
People will be begging for Tony's cronies to come back after this.
This all very well, but here we have people who want to be professional politicians, and, most of them are unqualified in anything – except – er…politics!
OK, there are a few with ’family’ businesses, often handed down, but just because ‘one’ becomes a politician doesn’t ennoble the person with ability to engage successfully with real commercial problems.
Having watched a myriad of politicians in my lifetime, I am happily (unhappily) assured that they have an easy option, paid of course, by the taxpayer. I don’t really mind that, because this is UK inc, but lets see some business minded heavyweights working at doing a good job for UK plc, not a bunch of wannabe losers who are crap at getting baby-head-noshing careers going.
Real business heavyweights don’t piss around with this sort of work, unless they are vain and want some undeserved letters after their name.
One 1/3 elected every two years to avoid the chamber believing it has greater democratic legitimacy than the Commons if it was elected at one time.
It would have to be like the US senate. Say 400 members with 100 each from Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Agreed, Tom. The hereditaries worked. Until Tony got his interfering little figidty fingers on them. There is no reason to accept the Constitutional vandalism he has wrought on our country. We should simply return it to what worked for 800 years. Let Blair's sycophants keep their toy titles, but don't let them into the House of Lords any more.
Evening Verity,
You've got to prepared to see 'Lord' Prescott in your papers - wherever you are.
That really hurts.
Anyone who listened to the debate would recognise that it was a classic size of losing the argument and winning the vote. Straw was truly terrible, as was Theresa May. Straw kept contradicting himself, without apparently realising it. In practice, I suspect this is an ever bigger train wreck for Government than the 2003 votes.
Ooops, should have read...
Got to 'be' prepared...
Sozzza
Wonder if Newsnight is anything to do with this:
http://tinyurl.com/3duvqh
Soviet-era compound in northern Poland was site of secret CIA interrogation, detentions
"According to a confidential British intelligence memo shown to RAW STORY, Prime Minister Tony Blair told Poland's then-Prime Minister Leszek Miller to keep the information secret, even from his own government...."
Elected by the regions- open lists or STV. No more than 300 'Senators' needed please!
I can't see any problem with the present method of selection. A K or a P, £1M please.
Britain's constitution is in a mess, a mess of New Labour's creation. I have said so in the latest post on my own blog (though I don't know the extent to which Iain would agree with my analysis): http://toryheaven.blogspot.com/2007/03/britains-constitutional-mess-part-1.html
100pct elected, only 1 per county, irrespective of size.
That way it cant be broken down into party dominated areas as with MP's.
Will you be standing then, Iain ?
Dunno, but I couldn't see much wrong in the way it was before Blair started fiddling with it.
Don't endorse and nail down the damage blair has done to our Constitution. Put it to rights again. The hereditaries have served us very well.
No more politicians scampering over the political landscape, please.
Froth and bile flying over on ConservativeHume.con - usual stuff;
"I've always said the 1832 Reform Act was the thin end of a very nasty wedge...";
"Being governed by descendents of Royal Whores is an honour working class scum scarcely deserve, and had I not left the country decades ago for tax exile, I would be chaining myself to railings at Westminster to defend the hereditaries...";
"What is to become of Brave Sir Patrick Condom if there is no seat for him in the Lords when he dies...?";
"I didn't serve in the Boer War to allow some so-called elected representatives to defy their natural lords and masters...";
All very jolly and heartwarmingly democratic.
Is it true that Gordon Brown faked tooth-ache to avoid voting on any of the options this evening?
They are calling this document a ‘treaty’, but as far as I can ascertain it is a re-worded version of the EU constitution...Tony Blair is intending to do this without either a debate in Parliament or a referendum. I think a petition at his famous website would be a good idea...
Apologies from me too for this off topic response, Iain. I totally agree with anon 7.35pm regarding this. Blair must not be allowed to subvert our democracy yet again or to further destroy our sovereignty with this EU Constitution by the back door.
Auntie Flo'
A result! now let's stand by and see the struggle to get this motion through. Can't wait.
Oh my god, what a disaster! Yet another election opportunity for me to spoil my ballot paper.
Is it too late for me change my name to Mr None-of-the-above. At least I could then vote for myself.
Ah, so the pleasures of candidate selection await me too?
You'll need all your ingenuity to find a system of election that will produce an effective and independent-minded Senate - so go to it!
Will the bishops' ejection from the Lords mean disestablishment, do you think?
What an awful outcome. So now we will have two chambers of political hacks in their late 20s / early 30s, who have no experience of life outside of Westiminster. Why not at least retain 20% appointed by an independent authority who might bring some real life experience to what will still remain a chamber with, at best, only the of power scrutiny - of course, the govt will probably emasculate the Lords further.
"I love it, the likes of Europhiles Patton, Kinnock having to stand for election. Better still, the Falconer's, Drayson's, Hunts and Amos etc."
Sorry this won't happen. I guarantee the elections will be by PR from a party list with no real electoral accountability. It's not democracy, just proportional patronage and will see the end of any independent element in the second house. We'd be better off without it
but at least senator Dale will be able to claim a salary from the taxpayer
Great so now in the case of a mass of public opinion against a political party, we'll be stuck with a majority in both houses for a particular party and the whips will see that #10 has absolute Power. I have to disagree, Ian, the reason the Lords should remain as is is not because it's perfect, but because in it's present state it does at least provide some checks and balances, a newly elected chamber won't. I know you probably don't have a lot of time, but if you get a moment Ian, I would be very interested in your answer to the criticism of the fully elected proposal on my blog.
Anybody notice how the Beeb spun it? "Progress", "historic" and "a step forward". Another piece of our unwritten constitution bites the dust. I don't know what shape the second chamber will take, but I'm virtually certain it'll be a big step back from what NuLab inherited in '97.
I wonder if Newsnight would have bothered with their exclusive "shocking story, well worth tuning in for" if they had cctv footgage of a 20 year-old white man being arrested after he had been violent soon after being thrown out of a club in Sheffield on a Saturday night, having pushed a Police officer down some stairs.
More of my 134 quid being well spent.
two houses full of liars and chancers and two sets of expenses
Newsnight - I was really sold a pup here. They said it was well worth tuning in for. Englishmen are dying cruel deaths and being crippled for life in Iraq/Afghanistan on a daily basis for oil? for Israel? for the NWO in any case, and all they can come up with this crap passed by the Grauniad. Well, I'm not shocked because BBC/Grauniad/Independent says I aught to be. The antics of low lifes interests me not one wit. Give up fishing, Paxman - you dont know what one looks like anymore.
No change there, The Hitch...
No, David Anthony, truly independent peers are not now necessarily a thing of the past. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each of the nine English regions (though with their boundaries altered to reflect those of the historic counties) could each elect eight Senators every two years, for six-year terms.
On one list would be party candidates: vote for one and the top five would be declared elected at the end. And on the other list would be Independents: vote for one and the top three would be declared elected at the end. This would give 144 in all.
Furthermore, since peers, unlike MPs, currently have responsibilities only to the whole nation and not to individual constituencies, there would also be a six-year term as a Senator for any person independent of party who, by the close of nominations for that election, secured the nominations of at least two thousand registered voters in each constituency used for elections to the House of Commons.
There could never be more than about 40 such Senators, and even half of that number would be unlikely in practice.
Well that now gives Daves boys the chance to be Lords rather than Queens.
When Blair carried out his original destruction of the House of Lords, I had a long and loud argument with an ardent old-fashioned socialist (in a bar in Chiang Mai, fuelled by rice whisky mixed with 7-up). Surprisingly, we reached a consensus.
1. The hereditary system has been broken and can't be put back.
2. There is no point in having a second elected house: it would be no better than the first one. Anyone who runs for office is inevitably morally compromised before they get as far as a winnable seat.
3. Any other kind of appointment is open to corruption, which is not really controllable.
4. The advantage of the hereditary system (however unfair in his view) is that it is random. You just happen to become a lord; no interest is involved.
5. The only other system that gives this degree of disinteredness is a lottery, 'jurycracy', a simple idea often mocked but who has tried it?
6. Lords to be chosen entirely at random from the entire population aged 18-70. Refusal to serve tolerated only on compassionate grounds.
7. This is an honour, and it gets its proper respect. They are real Barons and Baronesses, with antique oaths and robes and coronets (and a subsidy for the expensive services of Ede & Ravenscroft). They are properly paid, subject to attendance of a reasonable proportion of debates, non-attendance punished by being docked a month's salary. They get a subsidy for housing in the division bell area, secretarial services, and a properly supervised expense account.
8. They are given back the power to stop a bill, after the usual fight.
9. They can retire after, say, five years, but may choose to stay on until a reasonable retirement age. (There might have to be a discreet expulsion procedure, run in traditional style with untraceable nods and winks.)
How could they be worse than the recent additions?
What a pity there wasn't a true Conservative option to go back to 1998 with Hereditary peers or even pre 1958!
We don't need senators!
We need a disinterested (yes, Tony, some people are not interested in interfering in the lives of other citizens) body that checks the executive.
Tony Blair has unravelled Britain's ancient Constitution and thus made Britain a very dangerous place on every level. We need disinterested lawmakers to oversee its return to normality.
The hereditaries, who have no axe to grind, are a part of the process of return to normality. who are aware of their duty but who are not compulsive-obsessives like Tony Blair. The checks and balances which so chafed Blair must be reimposed. "Modernising" Tony has been a flop - mainly because there was no need for it. The House of Lords wasn't broken, so busy-bee, flighty, headline grabber little Tony decided to fix it.
When, at the next election, he is flushed down the loo, let us return to the sane, civilised status quo that has worked for centuries. The French and the Germans should be so lucky.
if the house of lords is to go and I will regret it because it bridles idiot governments,how about a system where no party politics takes place and being an mp stops you joining.make it a jury of the people selected like the lottery if you dont want to join dont enter the draw.fix a term and no reselection.Truely impartial i would think.
Remember these words in years to come. "This will be a complete and utter disaster for this country."
Iain asks: "How to keep at least some of the character of the original Lords?"
Here's some ideas:
To prevent stupid populism
Members limited to a single, long term.
A minimum of 9 months cooling off period between a bill leaving Commons and being submitted to Upper Chamber for consideration.
To prevent patronage
No former political hacks or beneficiaries of state appointment to be eligable to stand for election.
No party whips.
No former "Lords" to be eligable for any other elected or appointed government position. Ever.
Then abolish the Parliament Act and introduce sunset clauses for all "non-constitutional" legislation.
That might just do it.
New Labour's second coup
The best government will only be achieved if politicians and the civil service reach a truce
Anne Perkins
Thursday March 8, 2007
The Guardian
Isn't Anne Perkins aka Mrs Jack Straw ?
ps I also like Ross F's idea of a minimum age limit.
Let's say candidates must be at least 45 and have worked in the real world.
By the way, is anyone else not the least bit worried at the way Swiss Tony is making fundamental changes to the way Britain is governed with there being barely any discussion?
Technically this is the equivalent of someone amending a country's constitution. Can you imagine the Americans or the French allowing major changes to the structure and makeup of their Senates to go through almost on a nod?
All it proves is that the HOC is looking out for its own to teh detriment of the public interest. The HOC allowed itself to become irrelevent, the HOC didnt stop its abuse of honours system, the HOC is allowing those guilty to contuinue in office, the HOC has seen its credibility collapse over the past 15 years, the HOC caused a problem by allowing morons like Bryant airtime, it caused a problem by allowing Straw to get away with lies and spin but most of all it now thinks that IT has SOLVED the honours problem.
It cant happen again because they have removed the Lords, not the people who abused it.
You must listen to the arguments put forward by Bryant, Hughes etc They basically revolve around 'legitimacy' for the second chamber coming from election. It of course hasnt even dawned on them that the reason they had credibility was that WERE NOT elected.
When the best performing, most credible part of government is ruined by the worst performing you know its all about protecting their own.
Will the sleepwalkers fall for the same old guff when it comes to teh treaty proposed by merkel?
How about a continuous random ballot like the Premium Bond draw in which anyone can put their name forward but exclude anyone who has:
1. ever stood for election to the House of Commons;
2. been convicted of a criminal offence.
3. is under 45 or over 60.
Everyone who is randomly selected is to have the right but not the obligation to serve until age 70.
After the initial appointment of randomly selected citizens there would then be a natural process of very gradual replacement of appointed members as a result of resignations, retirement, death.
This system would avoid election style shock changes to the Upper House composition and make its composition reflect real world experience not career politicians.
I suspect that the London Review of Books is not the favoured reading of many regular visitors to this blog, but there is a rather good piece in the current edition by Bruce Ackerman on Lords' reform. He actually favours some form of appointed second chamber, as I understand it, because:
- an elected upper house would introduce tensions and potential conflicts given that the Commons could no longer exclusively claim popular legitimacy
- if you put in place mechanisms to ensure that the upper house remains subordinate, no-one good will be interested and you'll get second raters, time servers etc
- you lose the potential for interested/independent mavericks etc
- you're more likely to get posturing and showboating than people who really want to get stuck into the detail on specialist subjects, which is one of the real values of a revising chamber
He also says that a single long term for elected members (as advocated by at least one poster in this thread) is a bad idea as they then have nothing to fear and have no real accountability.
But he also points out that there is scope for adjustment and fine tuning and suggests that relevant legislation specificaly allows for another look in (I think) 15 or 20 years time - ie has an expiry date.
Food for thought - I feel that hereditary chamber and no elective element is indefensible, but I worry about unintended or unforeseen consequences of any new scheme.
The first thing to do is to claim it as a Conservative victory and suggest it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Tory Party.
Then claim it as forever the view of the Conservatives and suggest that all gains made are because of the Conservatives and not in spite of you.
Nobody will believe you, but that has never stopped you before.
Doom
Steve,
Point taken re the accountability, but then the place hasn't been accountable to date and still seems to have done a reasonable job.
And as for the maverick/independent bit. Well, how about having a few hereditaries elected by the other hereditary peers and a few bishops and judges as well? Not too many of course (maybe 15 to 20% of total membership). That's have the added advantage of giving the place a bit of colour and upsetting the die hard socialists.
The problem with a new elected House of Lords is that we no longer have independent minds, men and women of experience not beholden to political parties. Although restricting election to those over 45, such a policy would breach the new age discrimination laws and is entirely unacceptable.
O/T - But Blair's intention to sign the new European constitution - masquerading under some other name - on 25 March and which will formally finish Britain as an independent country, has to be spiked.
Emailed petitions to Downing St are pointless, because Blair knows he is going against the will of millions of Briton who want to keep their country.
Does anyone know how we can petition HM and beg her to dissolve this Parliament and dismiss her prime minister? If millions of us wrote to the Queen, she may respond.
What a disgraceful idea, another lot of thick clowns playing at being politicians, don't you think there are enough of them now. The House of Lords worked, perhaps imperfectly sometimes but it did the job it was charged with, to check the arrogant executive and keep it in order. Now, with this scam there are to be NO checks at all. God help us all.
Sod the age discrimination laws. And let's have a qualified electoral roll for the Upper House elections while we're about it.
How about limiting the vote to those who actually pay tax and therefore have to pay for the dimwitted ideas that emanate from the House of Commons?
We can't sod the age discrimination laws, this inane Government has only just introduced them. There is only one sensible option, keep the Lords as it is. If Blair really wants a clone of the House of Commons create a Middle Chamber. Pointless, but it would be an even stronger check and balance on democracy than the current system.
I can't see any justification for the current system.
Did it stop the Poll Tax?
Did it stop the Iraq war?
Did it stop cash for peerages .. or even detect it?
Nope.
Waste of space.
Whether any other system will do as welll :-) is debatable.
How about an IQ test?! Anyone beneath say 130 is not allowed to take part in elections to the upper house, or indeed be allowed to sit in it. That rules out two many labour politicians ever getting themselves in there, yet at the same time Labour couldn't argue it was skewed towards the Tories as that would be admitting that you have to be thick to vote Labour. Perfect.
Rules out me from voting too, unless I stop typing 'two' instead of 'too'. Arse.
How to keep its character, make it effective, and not detract from an effective Commons? Easy. Require that every elected "lord" - or whatever they will be called - renounce unequivocally and forever his or her party affiliation.
Post a Comment