Execute the Lords - Independent Election Coverage

Execute the Lords – (reform that is).

By Kent Barker

            It’s a while since I sat in the Press Gallery looking down on the red leather benches of the House of Lords. But I doubt if much has changed. In fact, I doubt much has changed since Edward III--and he died in 1377. But it was in his reign that Parliament divided into two chambers--the Commons and the Lords.

            Today we are the only western industrialised country (other than Canada) with a wholly unelected upper chamber. And we call ourselves a democracy!

No wonder Russell Brand’s call to eschew voting found such a resonance. There’s precious little point if your vote has no effect on half your parliament. Actually it’s more than half because Britain’s upper chamber has 140 more members than the bloated Commons. Only two other countries have second chambers larger than their first - Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso. Which should tell you something.

Mind you it could be worse. And it was. Up until 1958, each member was there only by dint of being born into the aristocracy. Earlier in the century the Liberals didn’t like that much, since the inbuilt Conservative majority voted down their 1909 ‘People’s Budget’. So what did they do? Abolish the hereditary system? Create an elected chamber? Not a bit of it. They just curtailed their Lordships’ powers the following year, making it impossible for them to veto Commons legislation; just to delay it.

It was actually the Conservatives who made the most radical change by introducing life peers in the 1960s. Every Labour Government since has tried--and pretty much failed--to reform the Lords. Tony Blair had a go at getting rid of the hereditary peers and bottled it.  A rump of 92 was allowed to remain. (Why on earth 92?) Then, in 2008, a Commons vote amazingly backed a wholly elected upper chamber. A week later, the Lords responded by backing a wholly appointed one. And Labour simply dropped the hot potato.

Three years ago, Conservative backbenchers actually voted against their own Government’s reform Bill and so that was instantly abandoned.

What a shambles. Members of your 21^st century upper chamber are appointed by political patronage, cronyism or--it’s widely rumoured--hefty payments to party coffers. Everyone appears to agree that reform is required. Most seem to want an elected upper chamber. No-one seems to have the guts to push it through.

So when the parties’ manifestos are published here’s the commitment I believe you should look out for:

An upper chamber wholly elected by proportional representation on the popular vote/party list system.

            Critics of the ‘first past the post’ system have good arguments. Only 36% of people voted Conservative in 2010, yet we got a (largely) Conservative Government. Some 29% voted Labour and got nothing--except 258 opposition MPs. But nearly as great a proportion--23% of the electorate--voted Lib Dem and got just 57 members. That’s right: 29% gets you 258 seats; 23% can get you only 57.

            So let’s have our upper chamber of, say, a manageable 400 members, elected by popular vote. Concerned about regional representation? Well, have 100 elected from each of the regions, so Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh parties would be properly represented.

OK, so how do you choose who is elected? Well, you take them from a party list. Labour proposes up to 400 names in descending order and, on the 2010 results, the first 116 (29% x 4) are elected. It means the party could choose old political hands, or experts in a particular field, or a trade unionist or two. The Tories could bung in a couple of bishops if they wanted along with their various city chums. The Greens would end up with four seats instead of their one in the Commons. Yes, you would get a few members of the far right in too. But, hey, that’s democracy.

There’s another reform I’d propose. Secret voting.  Abolish the whipping system for the upper chamber. Let your elected representatives decide issues according to their conscience. I know it a pretty radical idea, but it’s one we adhere to for OUR vote at the ballot box. Why not for our Parliamentarians?  Actually I’d advocate it for both chambers, but that might be a bit much to start with.

The argument usually made against an elected upper chamber is that it would give them too much legitimacy and they would demand increased powers.  Well, frankly, so what? For the moment, leave their powers exactly as they are: primarily a revising chamber that can delay, but not veto, bills from the Commons. 

Oh, and one other thing. Once you have a proper democratically elected Parliament, how much longer will you be able to justify a head of state who is there solely by dint of aristocratic birth?

ends