You are here: Home » Comment »

The case for a Lords referendum is strong

April 20, 2012 5:13 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

When I first heard that Ed Miliband was advocating a referendum on Lords reform it’s fair to say I was more than a little baffled. We’re in favour of an elected Lords – aren’t we? We certainly were last time I checked. Our manifesto certainly called for an elected Lords.

It’s shameful that in our 13 years in government we didn’t manage to bring about democracy in the second chamber, preferring instead to retain the inherent conservatism on patronage.

But on reflection, the case for a referendum on Lords reform is strong – because the case for a democratic upper house itself is strong.

It’s easy to get misty eyed about the Lords after the sterling work of Labour members in recent months on behalf of the marginalised, and in defence of the health service – but that doesn’t mean that any Labour person should join the upper house with any intention other than to eventually abolish it. We either believe in democracy or we don’t – all arguments in favour of an unelected Lords are mere blah blah compared to the arguments for democracy.

I personally couldn’t give a damn about the primacy of the Commons if that primacy is achieved by having unelected Lords plays a role in the making of our laws.

So why not just abolish the Lords and be done with it? Miliband’s argument has been about democratic consent, but it’s hard not to believe there’s a more hard nosed thought process in play.

This is about tactics.

Ed Miliband has evidently calculated that a referendum on Lords reform would drive a wedge between the coalition partners – and could even leave the Tories arguing in favour of an undemocratic second chamber. That’s one powerful brand retoxificant right there. Labour meanwhile would face a relatively easy referendum battle – in favour of democracy, against vested interests, for the voice of the people being heard and against perceived party stooges.

The debate on Lords reform suggests that Miliband is becoming more proficient at boxing the Tories in. After the “omnishambles” of recent weeks, they should be very wary indeed.

20120420-171138.jpg

Related posts:

  1. Reforming the Lords
  2. Adonis says move the Lords out of London
  3. The case for New Labour is as strong as it was in 1997
  4. The strong case for the Libyan intervention, and two reservations
  5. Lords Reform: Time to Agree with Nick
  • ovaljason

    This tells you everything you need to know about Miliband.

    As you observe: “This is about tactics”

    Let’s forget that we are reforming the basic DNA of the British constitution.

    Let’s forget that Miliband promised a blank sheet with regards new policy.

    Let’s forget Miliband promised to re-found Labour from the bottom-up.

    Let’s forget we are in opposition and this is our chance to brave.

    Just forget all that and let’s define our position entirely around what is more difficult for the coalition.

    And yet, Mark, you continue to support him.

    • treborc1

      You can see what is wrong with Miliband  today he came out against the race in Bahrain, but why today, why not last week, last month, it’s simple because the press and media is all over it today.

      Miliband is not making the news he is following it, and unless he gets a pair of  googlies and starts making his own waves and starts telling people look this is what I think, sadly he will be one of those people who take over leaderships and then disappear for ever.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    I am no expert, but what is being proposed is voting for the current situation vs “not the current situation”.  A referendum needs to be more specific than that, doesn’t it?

  • Slakah

    “We either believe in democracy or we don’t “Fantastic attempt to shut down any argument, you don’t agree with removing scrutiny from the legislative process, which can help temper the harsher dangers of “the party line”. Then you must hate democracy, please can the lords reform debate rise above this.

    “Labour meanwhile would face a relatively easy referendum battle – in favour of democracy, against vested interests, for the voice of the people being heard and against perceived party stooges.”
    Already forgot the AV campaign then? Want to waste £Xmillions on an elected second chamber when petrol prices are going up and your struggling financially is an extremely potent message. I certainly would hate to see Ed throw away an 13 point lead on such a frivolous venture.

  • http://twitter.com/tugsandtost matthew bond

    Labour should spend more time trying to connect with ordinary voters rather than trying to split Tory and Lib Dems over an issue with limited public salience.
      Labour’s commitment to elected HoL is a very big mistake.  If it were elected the HoL would inevitably be strengthened by the democratic legitimacy bestowed on it.  It would entrench the liberal/Tory veto and make the possibility of radical reform more remote. Divided government is a classic liberal means of limiting popular will’s influence over political decision making.  Status quo and abolition clearly preferable to elected HoL.  Better that Labour keep quiet on HoL reform rather than get itself mired in elite strategic gaming that could have dire consequences for the prospect of progressive change.

  • Brumanuensis

    Guy M asked me about HoL reform on the Sue Marsh thread, but here is a better place for my thoughts.

    I’d just like to say I dislike referenda. I agree wholeheartedly with Clement Atlee, who once said that they were ‘a device of demagogues and dictators’. We live in a representative democracy, where Parliament is sovereign and the supreme law-making body. It’s members are elected by us to make decisions on our behalf, weighing up the evidence before them and coming to decisions. Of course, this is a heavily idealised picture and in practice it’s a rather different matter. However, after the sordid farce of the AV referendum, are we really going down that route again? Politicians have to make unpopular decisions sometimes; referenda are a cop-out designed to excuse them from having to do this. If we don’t like a government’s decisions, we vote against them at the General Election. By all means, let’s have petitions and greater public participation in local and national government structures, but if we want to improve the quality of political discourse and public debate, then let’s stay the hell away from these devices, easily hijacked by demagogues and rich advocacy groups.

    Now, on to the Lords.

    I favour a fully-elected HoL. Not 50 or 80%. 100% alone will do. It’s a fundamental principle of democracy that those that help shape our laws should either be directly-elected or democratically-accountable. The current House meets neither criterion. 

    The Lords should fulfill a function analoguous to the US Senate. To equally represent all parts of our Union. Let the HoC be the proportional chamber and the new ‘House of the Realm’, a body to represent our common national destiny. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, should each be allocated 25 members. These will be elected through strict proportional representation (i.e. 4% = 1 member). This will act as a deterrent to fringe parties. To illustrate:

    Say in England, the vote percentages are as follows:

    Labour = 42%

    Conservatives = 39%

    Lib Dems = 12%

    Greens = 3%

    UKIP = 3%

    Others = 1%

    Strictly, Labour gets 10 seats, Tories 9, Lib Dems 3 and nothing for the rest. 22 out of 25 seats. Now we see who is closest to getting another seat. So we round up the percentages so that the Greens get 1, UKIP get 1 and the Tories end up with 10.

    To guard against the Lords replicating the Commons, I propose that all those standing for election must:

    a). Be 45 years old or older.

    b). Must not have been elected as an MP, an MEP, a councillor, MSP, AM (Wales and NI), member of the GLA, or be a sitting member of the House of Lords.

    c). Anyone elected to the new House is barred for life from standing for the above public offices.

    d). No member of the new House may serve in the government. 

    This will deter career politicians.

    The roles of the new House should be:

    a). To scrutinise and amend proposed Westminster legislation.

    b). To take over from the HoC the role of reviewing key strategic policy areas (e.g. health, the environment, etc.) leaving the HoC the role of reviewing specific proposed legislation.

    c). To scrutinise legislation proposed by the devolved assemblies.

    d). To approve awards of public honours.

    e). To confirm appointments to the judiciary; to scrutinise the judiciary. 

    f). To scrutinise the civil service, but NOT ministers (this will be reserved to the HoC, to whom ministers are accountable); to confirm all appointments to the civil service.

    g). To approve all appointments to public bodies (e.g. The Bank of England, The OFT, Ofcom, etc.)

    h). To mediate in negotations between Westminster and the devolved assemblies.

    i). To decide whether or not MPs and members of the new House should be barred from public office, in cases of proven misconduct.

    In terms of powers:

    a). To delay non-money bills for up to one Parliamentary year.

    b). A full veto over any proposed constitutional changes.

    c). Existing Lords powers in relation to money bills.

    d). Will no longer be able to propose legislation, but the Salisbury Convention will be held to be void.  

    e). Can independently order public inquiries, up to and including Royal Commissions. 

    Anyway, a few loony ideas I’ve had.   

    • Brumanuensis

      Sorry, that should be ‘MLA’, not ‘AM’, for Northern Ireland. Silly
      of me. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715486331 Alex Otley

       I don’t think the idea of equal representation for England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland will go down very well! When the great majority of the population live in England, it is unthinkable that only 25% of the HoL would be English. Brings an entirely new aspect to the West Lothian question.

      I think there should be more than 100 members (but fewer than there currently are in the HoL), and they should probably be elected by STV to maintain the constituency link that we have with FPTP and is so central. Might as well keep it consistent. The presence of fringe parties doesn’t really bother me. I like pluralism.

      I do like your ideas about changing the specific roles of the houses though, and ratification of executive appointments is a great idea.

      • Brumanuensis

        Thanks Alex, I’ve tried to reply to your points above.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

      Interesting ideas: thanks for sharing them – I hope that more people comment, because clearly you have put a lot of though into them.

      And because it is easier to bring things down that build them up I will be gentle in any criticisms…

      So…

      Referenda: agreed – it is right to ask the people periodically on issues which transcend governmental responsibility, or cannot be undone once implemented (European integration and UK devolution spring to mind), but otherwise, governments should have the balls to say “this is our view, and we invite you to vote accordingly”.

      The HoL: 100 people scrutinising all bills and committees seem low, and would put very high expectations on both the skills and time of these members.

      Equal weighting for each country?  I suggest this will be difficult to sell in England, where the general mood appears to me to be increasing hostile towards such ideas.  This may scupper the plan.  The US model is not helpful here either.

      While I see the value of the non-fringe point, I disagree strongly with the idea of making the HoL completely partisan.  Indeed the value of Independents in the current HoL is invaluable, and I would strengthen this role by requiring one independent (defined as having never been a member of any recognised political party) for each partisan member.

      Alternatively (or additionally) to these independents, and to continue to avoid fringe elements but simultaneously prevent the HoL having too strong a “rubber-stamp” partisan tendency, I would recommend a make-up which reflects the previous, say, 5 elections on a rolling basis (acting as an electoral “drag” on a single term government).

      Finally, note that your age restriction is illegal under EU law… the other points seem sensible however.

      • Brumanuensis

        Could you point to the relevant case for the last point? The Electoral Commission’s consultation paper from July 2003, which considered whether to lower the then candidate age of 21, to 18, made no mention of any legal requirement to do so. In Italy, part of the Senate is elected by members of the electorate who are 25 or over, whilst for the Chamber of Deputies the voting age is 18. The candidate age for the Chamber of Deputies is 25, whilst for the Senate it is 40. I believe the equality regulations on voting age and candidate age only apply for elections to the European Parliament.

        On the point about independents, I do not share, alas, your enthusiasm for independents. I do not believe our Parliament would be better served by having more people without Party ties. True, Party politics can be frustratingly unimaginative and bone-headed, but as Disraeli commented:

        ‘Sir, it is very easy to complain of party Government, and there may be persons capable of forming an opinion on this subject who may entertain a deep objection to that Government, and know to what that objection leads. But there are others who shrug their shoulders, and talk in a slipshod style on this head, who, perhaps, are not exactly aware of what the objections lead to. These persons should understand, that if they object to party Government, they do, in fact, object to nothing more nor less than Parliamentary Government. A popular assembly without parties–500 isolated individuals–cannot stand five years against a Minister with an organized Government without becoming a servile Senate’.

        Dizzy has always been my favourite Tory Prime Minister.

        I will reply here to your point and also Alex Otley’s point on weighting. I’d just like to make clear I’m English btw, so there’s no anti-English sentiment at work here. 

        Politically, I agree it would be very hard to sell. I also agree that the US system is not necessarily the best model, although I think it’s defects have more to do with procedure, than with its electoral composition. My point was the the new House must serve a different function to the House of Commons. This should be reflected in its make-up. The House of Commons is the proportionate House and England has a huge majority there (513 out of 650 seats, if I recall correctly). The upper house must not follow the same model. It should reflect the fact that the UK is a union of four countries and give each of them equal weighting, otherwise it risks replicating the balance of power in the Commons.

        I agree 100 might be too few, so that is an arguable point. Perhaps 200 then, but not many more. I don’t think a bloated second chamber is a useful addition to our system.

        On Alex’ STV point, this is related to my desire for equal weighting, which I don’t think would be possible using a multi-member, multiple-constituency model like STV. Also, the Commons provides local MPs and the clash of responsibilities would be unhelpful for effective relations between the Houses.

        Thank you both for your interesting critiques. I hope this answers some of your questions.

         

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715486331 Alex Otley

           I can see where you’re trying to go, giving the four constituent countries equal weighting. To truly emulate the American senate, there would need to be a proper federal system with an English parliament and equal powers across all of the devolved legislatures, otherwise you will have the West Lothian question on a vast scale. I think that in the case of America it works partly because there are 50 states rather than just 4. However the system is still open to attack as voters in California are horrendously under represented compared to those in Vermont, for example. On another note, do we really want the SNP, Plaid and Northern Irish parties controlling 50+% of the seats?!

          I am, in priciple, in favour of a federal government (I’m all for abolishing the monarchy and having a codified constitution, but that’s another issue!). Our current semi-unitary system is an awkward compromise between our traditional unitary government and devolution to the ‘other’ nations, which is certainly seen to be unfair on England. I’ve always liked the idea of regional assemblies, breaking England down into manageable chunks on a par in terms of size and population with the other nations for the purposes of devolution whilst also fostering regional identity. However John Prescott’s failed attempt put an end to that one.

          Instead I think the best bet is just to remove all of the Lords, and elect 100% of the members by some form of PR in proportion to population. I see what you mean about STV. The regional list system could be used instead I guess.

          • Brumanuensis

            As a staunch anti-federalist, I don’t think you and I are going to agree on the constitutional position of the Lords ;-)

            I see equal weighting as a means of counter-acting the tendency towards federalism actually. By giving Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish voters a significantly greater share of parliamentary power, we’ll be binding them in to the union. Obviously this doesn’t solve the West Lothian question, but on that point I think the English will have to decide whether they value the union less than their own petty national pride. That goes for the likes of the SNP and Plaid Cymru too (as you can probably guess, I despise nationalist parties of any sort; I think of myself as British first and foremost, which seems a minority view these days and probably comes from having grown up abroad). On the California v Vermont issue, that’s true, but in the House of Representatives, Vermont has 1 seat and California 53. The problem there is that the Senate is the more prestigious body and has relatively greater powers. In my arrangement, it’s the other way around.

            On the nationalists having 50%+ of the seats, I don’t think the major parties are quite that weak. Plaid Cymru are third in Wales after all and the Westminster polls for Scotland, in March, showed Labour with a sizeable lead over the SNP. 

            I’m an anti-monarchist too, but I don’t like the idea of an elected head-of-state either. I’m a parliamentary man myself, as you’ve probably guessed, and I favour fusing executive and legislative power in one body. That’s another constitutional discussion though. I also think written constitutions are overrated. ‘Institutions not constitutions’ after all. As long as our institutions are open, democratic and governed by the rule of law, we should be fine. 

            On regional assemblies, I favour greater powers for local authorities and the re-creation of metropolitan councils like those abolished in 1986. Devolve powers to existing institutions, rather than create new ones. In fact, local elections are one area where STV would be an excellent reform, imo. A reduction in the number of councillors would be good too, if objectively justifiable.

            Thanks once again for the interesting response.

          • Brumanuensis

            Just to say, I thought of this before Carwyn Jones talked about it! :-)

            http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/02/09/carwyn-jones-looking-for-a-national-senate-to-replace-the-lords/

          • Brumanuensis

            Another point is that given that my proposal is for a revising chamber, a system that is less likely to give one Party a majority is more desirable.

          • derek

            STV, didn’t hold true for the Scottish parliament, the SNP blew the concept out of the water by gaining a majority session.

          • Brumanuensis

            The Scottish Parliament uses an Additional-Member System, in this case ‘First-Past-The-Post + Regional MSPs’. It’s not a form of proportional representation, although it is more proportional than pure FPTP that Westminster uses.

          • derek

            Second preference votes and list members all designed to deliver a rainbow parliament until 2011. I merely pointing out that full proof systems can be shot down. I’d agree about the need for a second chamber to scrutinise legislation but the complexities are bigger than the will power, Alex Otley does make a very good case though.

          • Brumanuensis

            Ok, I see what you mean. Fair point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715486331 Alex Otley

            I fully accept that federalism is not really on the cards because as soon as you start talking about English devolution the role of the Westminster parliament has to change completely, and if it survives it will be with greatly reduced powers. The genie is out of the bottle with devolution, but it does create an anomaly that personally I don’t really approve of and none of the options available to tackle it are really acceptable to me.

            When it comes to California v. Vermont, the number Congressional districts is also disproportional. California should really have 60 districts compared to Vermont’s 1 at-large district. This has a knock-on effect at presidential elections, where Vermont elects 3 delegates to the electoral college whilst California elects 55, disenfranchising Californian voters to some extent. This is something that effects all larger states and of course was intentionally built into the system regarding the senate, and therefore also the electoral college for presidential elections.

            As for your view of no party holding a mjaority in the second chamber, I completely agree. In fact I’d quite like to do away with any government v. opposition role in the reformed HoL and focus on co-decision and consensus to a far greater extent. I think many forms of PR would achieve this, even when assigning seats across regions or nations in proportion to population. On a technical point, if you were to use the list system of PR, which I presume you are advocating, it would make sense to use the existing European Parliamentary constituencies. A proportional result in England alone would not deliver a Tory or Labour majority of English seats, and when you factor in the other 3 nations with their nationalist parties (or distinct party system in NI), I do not believe you would have any one party dominating, though of course it would be possible for a coalition to fairly easily form a majority. On a pragmatic level that is inevitable almost no matter what, but there are ways they could try to reduce it by promoting select committees and doing away with government ministers in the HoL, as you say.

            How do you feel about electing the HoL in thirds, as was suggested when Lords reform was big before? For me, if it did happen then the primacy of the Commons would need to be enforced rigorously as the HoL as a whole would have a weaker mandate than if it were elected in one go.

          • Brumanuensis

            That’s an interesting insight about California v Vermont. I happen to believe the electoral college system ought to be abolished, in favour of the national popular vote, but that’s by-the-by, although it would address some of the disparities.

            The European Parliament system suggestion is an interesting idea that might fit in. Obviously I concur with the idea that the whole ‘government v opposition’ dynamic ought to be minimised in the new House. 

            Now, on election by thirds, I think in terms of administrative ease it has something to recommend it, but as you say the Commons’ mandate would need to be policed. I’ll have to think about it, to be honest, and do some more research on likely consequences, but it’s an interesting idea.

    • Peter Barnard

      That’s a fine contribution, Brumanuensis (“HoL reform”) and thank you for taking the time to prepare it.

      I’m not going to nit-pick it with alternatives to your separate points – only suggestion, perhaps, (along US Senate lines) is that each administrative authority at county/metropolitan county level (in E, W, S and NI) should be able to send two representatives to the second chamber?

      • Brumanuensis

        That’s an interesting thought Peter. I’ll have to ponder it for while, but it might be an interesting alternative electoral model, if equal national weighting proves truly unacceptable.

        I think that system would definitely work well if the House of Commons was to elected by either FPTP+ or AV+, as the Jenkins Commission recommended.

      • GuyM

        But those authorities are not evenly matched population wise.

    • Slakah

      I would just like to point out that a) would probably not hold up in court (not a lawyer, just know theres an act against ageism 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism#United_Kingdom .
      Also I find it impossible to support the idea that each Country should have a equal say when the population disparity is so large. The population of England outnumbers those of the rest of Britain by 5:1. It’s incredibly arbitrary, out of date, and doesn’t represent the diverse range of opinions in England today. For many people historical County pride comes before England, Yorkshire and Lancashire being a fine example.

      • Brumanuensis

        I have dealt with the ageism argument below. Currently the voting age and candidate age for the House of Commons are the same, but there is no legal impediment to that being altered for another House.

        Similarly, I have argued the point about equal weighting to death. I think the suggestion that England is somehow disadvantaged, does not stand up, given the huge numerical superiority of English MPs in the House of Commons.

        • Slakah

          What numerical superiority? I just did a quick calculation of MPs per million population (thank you wikipedia) and the list is as follows
          Wales: 13.3
          Scotland: 11.3
          NI: 10.0
          England: 10.4

          So I fail to see your point England as well as NI appears to have a minority of representation. Passing that by, you also seem to suggest that the English are a homogeneous block, I would certainly question that as the consensus can change drastically from a movement of less than 20 miles down the round. Look at the voting patterns of those from the SE to that of London, lets not even mention the North/South divide.
          On your ageism point (again not a lawyer) but because there are acts in law against discrimination both in the UK and EU statute books, then I would be interested to see how well the 45< age limit would stand up in court

          • Brumanuensis

            Right. So Northern Ireland is homogenous then? And North and South Wales are completely identical?

            I would just like to iterate that 533 out of 650 MPs in the House of Commons represent English constituencies. If England is disadvantaged under this set-up, then the word ‘disadvantaged’ has lost all meaning. I am perfectly aware that the English are not a homogenous block, but neither are Wales, Scotland nor Northern Ireland. Electoral systems sometimes have to simplify matters for the sake of functionality. 

            Besides, my proposal is for a revising chamber. A few people on the thread seem to have missed this. I am not proposing a replica of the House of Commons. The new Upper House would be a very different body and would be clearly constitutionally subordinate, under statute, to the House of Commons. So those Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs will not be able to conspire against the English!

            On the ageism point, I apologise for being pompous and high-horsey, but I have a legal education and there is as far as I can tell no legal impediment to having different candidate and voting ages. I refer you to the case of Italy, that I mentioned down the thread. The ECtHR has never struck down, so far as I am aware, a national law differentiating voting and candidate age, on those grounds. Only for European Elections do they be the same. I would be flabbergasted if a regulation along the lines I propose, were struck down by a court, especially if the regulation was enacted by statute. 

          • Slakah

            Thanks for the clarification on the ageism point.
            Firstly I brought up my homogeneous point to show that for the most part I believe the Country boundaries to be mainly historical, and many Counties can have an equally strong cultural identity, Cornwall being another example. In some areas that link can pass the Country boundaries, Liverpool and North East Wales.I think the issue I have with your weightings, is that to me at least seems to run against my interpretation of what constitutes a democratic body. One of the cornerstones of which is surely “one person, one vote”, and it certainly seems that under your proposals we have one person, one vote for the English and one person, five votes for the rest of Britain. Surely you can understand why I would come to the conclusion that if you believe bringing democracy to the second house is a good thing. Then surely it would be best to at least do it properly.

    • Chilbaldi

       Some top ideas there. Not loony at all! Excellent food for thought and a few points that hadn’t occurred to me.

      • Brumanuensis

        Thank you Chilbaldi. That’s very kind of you to say.

    • GuyM

      Sorry can’t accept equal split between England and other three for a revising chamber. Any Tory government in the commons would be eternally running into problems.

      Labour would always be the biggset group, even on a lower UK vote.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715486331 Alex Otley

         I agree. When you have such population disparities it just isn’t fair.

      • Brumanuensis

        Guy, the powers I propose are virtually identical to the current powers of the House of Lords. No veto over Money Bills; power to delay ‘normal’ legislation for up to a year – as is the case under the Parliament Act 1949 – and a veto over some constitutional aspects. 

        Rest easy, a Tory government would only be temporarily impeded by an assertive version of my proposed Upper House.

        • Bill Lockhart

           The fact remains that your plan would be monstrously unrepresentative. If voters-per -epresentative are roughly equivalent,the only possible fair system, your 25 English representatives would be joined by 3 from Scotland and 1 each from NI and Wales. Under your proposals, the influence of the regions compared to England would be disproportionately large in terms of representatives per voter by factors of approximately 10x (Scotland), 17x (NI) and 29x (Wales). It would be the greatest gerrymander in history.

        • GuyM

          Sorry, but temporarily or other wise it simply isn’t equitable.

          The Tories have most of their vote in England and by boosting Wales and Scotland far above their relative weights you help Labour.

          Seats in any chamber should reflect representation based upon population for geographic areas.

          The 2010 election if done your way would leave Labour with at least 28 seats of the 100 and Tories on at least 22, despite the Tories being 7% ahead in the polls.

          We already have a skewed HoC in favour of Labour, now you want a 2nd chamber as well?

          I’m sick to death of England and in particular the South and London getting insulted by the rest of the UK. Lets have regional government instead of a 2nd chanmber and cut down on the subsidy from south to north and let your Labour areas govern and fund themselves.

          • derek

            Don’t be daft, 2 million Scots live in England and it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England and indeed had the title rights to Scone place?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            So?  They still only get one vote, not one where they live in England and one back home in Scotland.

            Perhaps some of the postal voting figures for Glasgow may prove me wrong, however.  Is this a can Labour wish to open?  It may be full of worms. I think I can see lots of SNP activists with can-openers.

          • derek

            Not sure if that was a swipe at the Glenrothes by-election but we Scots are a cannie race although we prittle and prattle on a bit we’ll square the thumb and level the spirit if need be.

          • Brumanuensis

            Guy, the current House of Lords membership is skewed against Labour. Given you favour preserving the status quo, why is that preferable?

            Amusing as your sudden passion for ‘equity’ is – I thought only socialists cared about that? – in reply to your complaint that the Tories are only strong in England, maybe if the Conservative Party had put more effort into appealing to Scotland and Wales, they wouldn’t be in this mess. Besides, you overstate your case. The Tories are currently the second Party of Wales, both at Westminster and the Assembly elections.

            I have to laugh at your ‘poor us’ complaint about the SE and London. I can assure you that up here in the West Midlands, we get a bit pissed off with constantly being the butt of stupid jokes about the Brummie accent, as well as being dumped on by central government for much of the past 30 years. The way Londoners talk about Birmingham, you’d think we all lived in mud huts and communicated through grunting. The fact that London/SE growth helped generate a property bubble, and an overvalued pound that destroyed our factories, rather balances out the ‘subsidy’ you pay us. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            “subsidy from south to north…”

            Hardly. The Barnett formula favours the south, and in any case, much of the south simply consumes and makes nothing for the country itself. 

            Regional government would need to receive grants from the centre commensurate with need in any case. Which means the golf club lizards should get far less than they do already

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      Rather than 100 seats divided into 4 nations of 25, which others below find great fault with (as do I, but they have already made my point), would it not be easier to have 2 representatives from each historic county, and a similar if larger representation from the metropolises?  I confess I do not know how many historic counties there are, but each of the four nations have them.

      Say there were a total of 50, so there is your 100 county senators, joined by say another 25 from the big cities.  Perhaps London has 10, Birmingham 4, Glasgow 3, etc.

      As I understand it, there are very few constituencies that cross county boundaries, so it should be easy enough to allocate county senate seats on proportions of votes cast.  Some counties would have 2 senators of the same party if they are particularly red or blue or yellow, most would have senators from different parties.

      I’d like to see a mechanism for experts to serve in the new House – people like Lord Winston.  Perhaps there could be a role of “co-opted” with voting rights on specialist areas of legislation and places on committees, but not on all votes.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        “Co-opted” senators should be cross-benchers, and to sort out which business they can and cannot vote upon should be appointed by the Secretary of State for each Department – say 2 per Department.  All legislation is sponsored by a Department, so that indicates what they can and cannot vote upon.

        To ensure political balance, the initial pair for each Department should be nominated by the Secretary of State and the Shadow Secretary – one each.  Thereafter, they are reappointed or not by the Secretary of State on a five year term, to coincide with each new Parliament.

      • Brumanuensis

        As I think I wrote elsewhere, your suggestion on county representatives would be excellent for a reformed House of Commons, using an Additional Member System. I believe the Jenkins Commission came up with something very similar. However, for obvious reasons, I differ with regards to the Upper House.

        The recommendation you make on ‘co-opted’ members, is a worthy one. However I think as long as the House has proper consultation procedures that enable it to call expert witnesses to inform the deliberation of its committees, then it should be possible to sustain a fully-elected chamber. I am also suspicious of experts getting too much of a direct say over legislation. The role of experts is to inform, but elected members must decide. The rather chequered record of the economics profession in the run-up to the GFC, is a salutary warning.

  • Mike Homfray

    In the wider picture this issue is of minor interest and importance to, I think, most people. I don’t support referenda, ever, but anything which continues to enable the Cons to fight the FibDems is fine by me

    I’d have a unicameral chamber and proper regional or city region devolution

    • Chilbaldi

       Completely agree with you, Mike.

      I’m totally in favour of localising powers and having the Commons as a national overseeing body.

      I’m in favour of localised powers in principle, and feel that governance is best executed at a local level.

      In addition, regional devolution would solve once and for all the constitutional difficulties posed by Scottish devolution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

        I think its the logical outcome, particularly as political preference is becoming more skewed all the time – the south-east is getting more Tory, whereas here admitting to being Tory is barely heard of

  • ThePurpleBooker

    I think Ed Miliband should go a step further now he’s made that critical intervention. What he should do is work with Nick Clegg in the House of Lords, to reform the Bill (or get a shadow minister like Wayne David to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill), which will make the Lords 100% elected, remove hereditary peers, seperate the bishops from the House of Lords but would ‘acknowledge’ a referendum. We could challenge the Lib Dems to back the proposals, because if they vote with Labour in favour of a 100% elected upper house then it will get through Parliament without the Tories’ consent. We could allow Labour peers to amend it to allow a referendum, which is what most Tories (and rebellious Lib Dems will support). That way we drive a wedge between the Coalition. Also, seen as no one really cares about Lords reform – pro-reformers will be likely to lose the referendum and the Coalition is damaged so the boundary changes
     The Lib Dems won’t back it, they will stick to their draft bill and it we can vote against arguing they don’t really support Lords reform and then it doesnt get through.

  • Brumanuensis

    Just to appear to completely contradict what I’ve written below, I think the other viable path for the Lords is simply to abolish it, provided that:

    a). A more proportionate voting system is adopted for the House of Commons.

    b). Powers, particularly royal prerogatives, are transferred away from the executive and to Parliament as a whole.

    c). There are more powers for backbench MPs and the Commons agenda is set by a cross-party independent committee, rather than the Leader of the House.

    d). The procedure for considering legislation is amended and extended, so as to compensate for the loss of scrutiny resulting from abolishing the Lords.

  • Winston_from_the_Ministry

    Yes, because our elected chamber has provided such a plethora of honest individuals.

    • Brumanuensis

      I’m sure oligarchy or aristocracy are much better. Hell, maybe there’s something to be said for Enlightened Despotism.

  • Brumanuensis

    (Once more, with feeling)

    On equal weighting…sigh.

    IF, I were proposing a replacement for the House of Commons, I would understand the objections raised. I AM NOT. I am proposing a:

    -Revising chamber

    -With no powers to propose legislation

    -Very limited powers to delay legislation

    -That is intended not to replicate the power dynamics of the House of Commons, but to foster a more deliberative model

    -Which will have a sensitive constitutional role, at times

    -And which will be constitutionally SUBORDINATE to the House of Commons

    Given these facts, it is not a matter of great controversy that equal weighting be employed. The UK will retain a body that proportionately represents its population: The House of Commons. The House of Commons will have primacy. The new Upper House, will not. The new Upper House will have a very different role.

    Replicating the House of Commons would be a waste of time and just further entrench power in one part of the Union – England. That is why I proposed something different. England is going to dominate the main chamber of Parliament. This is not some socialist plot to destroy England. It is an arrangement designed to reflect the different role of the new Upper House, whilst giving it some democratic legitimacy.

    Horses for courses, people. Horses for courses. 

    Sorry for the Caps Lock, everyone, but there are times when I get the impression that people aren’t reading what I wrote.

  • Gadgie

    At present unelected peers are deemed non geographical and non English peers are able to vote on English only affairs. An elected Lords invokes the west Lothian question. The Lords should become a British grand committee leaving the Commons as an English Parliament.

  • Vseddon

    No it isn’t Mark.  Referenda that are imposed on us from above are not about the popular will;  often, they are a way of opposing what is proposed. 

    However, a mechanism that says  “if 5% of voters say they want one, then they must have one”  would be about responding to the people.  That kind of trigger mechanism being available to people could really have an impact on our democracy. lt 

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    By Mark Ferguson

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    By Mark Ferguson

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →