A favourite subject of mine.
The House of Lords is an arcane relic of yesterday. It needs to be destroyed in every way.
Whether now is the right time to do it is a moot point.
I do not deny that there are many hard working, intelligent and committed peers desperately trying to do their best for the country.
It is also arguable that the House of Lords is currently doing a better job than ever before.
Still, it sucks.
It sucks because it is stuffed full of the retired political elite, political donors and sidekicks of the powerful, bishops and judges. The House of Shame can claim no mandate from the British people for any of its actions. Nor can the British people hold any peers accountable for their actions.
So lets start again.
Do we even need a second chamber ?
You will hear lots of arguments about the House of Lords being a revising, reforming chamber stuffed full of expertise that the House of Commons doesn’t have. Another favourite is that MPs have such a massive workload that the real scrutiny of proposed legislation is carried out by peers. And of course party politics plays no part in these forensic activities ?
Imagine if there was no House Of Lords, would we be so worse off ? A majority government would be able to pass/repeal any legislation it wants. Only Europe and the courts could pose any challenge. Now think about the behaviour of our MPs over the last few years in relation to expenses, the media, broken manifesto promises and downright lies and if you have any sense you will consider that the more checks and balances that exist on MPs the better.
So I support the idea of a second chamber as long as its primary function is to hold MPs to account and to represent the people.
The first reform should be to stop calling any second chamber the House of Lords. The name is already sexist and supports the class system. Peerages have no place in a democracy in the context of exercising power and making law.
To be honest I don’t care what a second chamber is called but for reasons that will become apparent, I would choose " Congress ".
Every political party had House of Lords reform as part of their manifesto at the last general election. We are yet to hear the firm proposals but the consensus seems to have a majority or wholly elected chamber.
I have heard many a politico refer to these ideas and then follow up with the phrase " Of course we have to ensure that the House of Commons remains the primary chamber ". Why ?
If both " chambers " are elected, why does the House of Commons have to be the primary and ( in power terms ) the supreme chamber ? Constitutional experts will argue forever on this point.
In fact by having an elected second chamber are we not just asking for trouble ? The mandate of both houses would be identical and are we not just going to get more of the same ? The existing political parties will have their machines select their candidates, run the campaigns and win the elections.
What would the position be if we currently had an elected second chamber now ? A coalition government in one chamber but would that be reflected in the second chamber or would one party have had a majority ? Your heading to political deadlock or fiasco on a massive scale.
So I’m against an elected second chamber.
There IS a radical, empowering alternative. We have a second chamber made up from ordinary citizens who are selected at random. Sounds mad doesn’t it !
For hundreds of years we have selected jury’s on exactly this basis. This cornerstone of the British legal system is built on the principal that your are tried by a selection of your peers. Your peers are intelligent and honest enough to provide a fair , balanced and necessary element to the judicial process. Why not the political process ?
Why cannot members of the second chamber be selected in exactly the same way ?
There are many potential benefits :-
1) The chamber would reflect the gender, social and ethnic make up of the country.
2) Every citizen would know that they have a chance to affect the future of this country which will improve social engagement and political interest.
3) Social mobility at its finest. I propose representatives are paid a salary allowing them to have to be able to afford to fulfil this public service.
4) The House of Commons would have a serious and permanent thorn in its side constantly reminding it of who it serves.
5) The second chamber cannot be stuffed full of the chosen few of the existing political parties
6) If a 5 year term of service was selected then substantially more and more people will get engaged in the " Congress " and through their social circles more and more voices will be heard.
7) If the list for selection was based on people volunteering their names, you are by its nature going to get motivated, campaigning and committed representatives.
This idea is radical and most certainly wont be supported by the professional politician. But it would be true representation and a massive leap forward from where we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment