Labour's Lords reform plan is about framing the election campaign not the constitution

SUSAN HILL

People are still under the illusion that the Lord is packed with Toffs whereas it has been packed by NuLabour with its own kind, who hated the hereditaries and yet have adored dressing up themselves and coming in for all the privileges of the Upper House. Cynical does not come near this move which will attract the sympathy and votes both of every old style Labour person riddled with clsss hatred of which the Lords is such a potent symbol, and of those who know no better than to believe it is still full of rich Dukes.

TomTom

The great reforming Liberal landslide of 1906 gave us two elections in 1910 over the House of Lords. The Preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act had Earl Grey's words stating the desire for an ELECTED Upper Chamber.....yet 18 years of Conservative rule 1979-97 brought NO Elected Chamber.

Labour has 13 Years and NO Elected Chamber. Why should anyone trust them on this matter because they do not want to have to repeal the Parliament Acts 911, 1949 and have the Upper House reject a Budget as in proper democracies.

The whole thing is a sham just like Secondary Legislation aka Enabling Act....this is not a parliamentary democracy but an Oligarchy ruling outside parliamentary accountability

Nick

"It is imperative that they prevent anyone on the Tory side from walking into the Labour trap..."

Good luck with that. The recent performance of many Tory MPs demonstrates a remarkable ability to make mistake after mistake.....

Andy Leeds

TomTom,

Not so ! The Hereditary Peers are elected ! It is the only democratic element in the Lords. Rather have them than Blair/Brown cronies.

DavidDP

Well, they could just point out that the last time Labour tried reforming the Lords, they voted for the full elected option while Labour tried, and failed, for a partially appointed one.

So not that hard, really.

Short the UK

It's like watching the Titanic sink whilst the band played and people danced. The MSM seem totally oblivious; here is some proper mental fodder from Bill Bonner:

There are more clowns in economics than in the circus. They invented an economic model that has been very popular for more than 50 years – particularly in the US and Britain. It began with a bogus insight; John Maynard Keynes thought consumer spending was the key to prosperity; he saw savings as a threat. He had it backwards. Consumer spending is made possible by savings, investment and hard work – not the other way around. Then, William Phillips thought he saw a cause and effect relationship between inflation and employment; increase prices and you increase employment too, he said.

Jacques Rueff had already explained that the Phillips Curve was just a flimflam. Inflation surreptitiously reduced wages. It was lower wages that made it easier to hire people, not enlightened central bank management. But the scam proved attractive. The economy has been biased towards inflation ever since. Economists enjoyed the illusion of competence; they could hold their heads up at cocktail parties and pretend to know what they were talking about. Now they were movers and shakers, not just observers. The new theories seemed to give everyone what they most wanted. Politicians could spend even more money that didn’t belong to them. Consumers could enjoy a standard of living they couldn’t afford. And the financial industry could earn huge fees by selling debt to people who couldn’t pay it back.

Never before had so many people been so happily engaged in acts of reckless larceny and legerdemain. But as the system aged, its promises increased. Beginning in the ’30s, the government took it upon itself to guarantee the essentials in life – retirement, employment, and to some extent, health care. These were expanded over the years to include minimum salary levels, unemployment compensation, disability payments, free drugs, food stamps and so forth. Households no longer needed to save. As time wore on, more and more people lived at someone else’s expense. Lobbying and lawyering became lucrative professions. Bucket shops and banks neared respectability. Every imperfection was a call for legislation. Every traffic accident was an opportunity for wealth redistribution. And every trend was fully leveraged.

If there was anyone still solvent in America or Britain in the 21st century, it was not the fault of the banks. They invented subprime loans and securitizations to profit from segments of the market that had theretofore been spared. By 2005 even jobless people could get themselves into debt. Then, the bankers found ways to hide debt…and ways to allow the public sector to borrow more heavily. Goldman Sachs did for Greece essentially what it had done for the subprime borrowers in the private sector – it helped them to go broke.

As long as people thought they were getting something for nothing, this economic model enjoyed wide support. But now that they are getting nothing for something, the masses are unhappy. Half the US states are insolvent. Nearly all of them are preparing to increase taxes. In Europe too, taxes are going up. Services are going down. And taxpayers are being asked to pay for the banks’ losses…and pay interest on money spent years ago. Until now, they were borrowing money that would have to be repaid sometime in the future. But today is the tomorrow they didn’t worry about yesterday. So, the patsies are in revolt.

Several countries are already past the point of no return. Even if America taxed 100% of all household wealth, it would not be enough to put its balance sheet in the black. And Professors Rogoff and Reinhart show that when external debt passes 73% of GDP or 239% of exports, the result is default, hyperinflation, or both. IMF data show the US already too far gone on both scores, with external debt at 96% of GDP and 748% of exports. The rioters can go home, in other words. The system will collapse on its own."

Hawkeye

All the tories have to do is state that this is a cynical election tactic and that it is of no concern to them. At this point only the economy matters.

They can then follow up with an offhand comment that the Lords is stuffed full of Labour peers so they cannot see what Gordon is getting so worked up about.

TomTom

The Hereditary Peers are elected ! OF course, and so are Cardinals and Popes...it is just the electorate is somewhat limited.

They call that "Democratic Centralism" and is exactly how Mikhail Gorbachev was elected President of the USSR and General-Secretary of the CPSU

denis cooper

@ Andy Leeds -

The residual hereditaries in the Lords were elected by their fellow hereditaries, not by the people in general.

I don't know the correct word to describe that process of choosing individuals to have the lifelong right to vote on all of our national laws, but it certainly isn't "democratic" - "demos" meaning "the people" in general, not just the small number whose ancestors found favour with past monarchs and were rewarded with hereditary titles.

Neil Turner

Simple to counter this, surely ?

As you say, all the Tories have to do is highlight
- how many unelected Ministers New Labour have foisted on the British people with particular refernce to Mandelson

- how New Labour have eroded real democracy from Westminster

denis cooper

Of course the Tories are vulnerable on this issue.

Not primarily because of class, but because the great majority of Tory members and supporters have a very poor grasp of constitutional issues and so they have to wait to be told what to say by their leaders, who unfortunately in most cases also have a poor grasp of constitutional issues.

Since 1911 we've never been more than about two years away from the Commons majority being legally empowered to perpetuate its own existence indefinitely by postponing elections; since 1949 the time required to establish a dictatorship, by perfectly legal means, has been reduced to about thirteen months.

Do Tory members know this, understand this, and think that something should be done about it? Not at any point over the last century, during which period the Tory party has been in office more than any other party.

Absolutely bloody hopeless on that score alone - and I haven't even mentioned the EU, and the conflict their party created between the supremacy of Parliament and the primacy of EU law.

Even after thirteen years in opposition during which they could have given some serious thought to these fundamental issues, and come up with some good ideas about the ideal modern role and composition of the second chamber of our national Parliament - rather than sitting on their backsides complaining, and waiting for Labour to run into an economic disaster so that they could take their Buggins' turn to form the elected dictatorship

Pathetic.

Andy Leeds

Elected is by election, no matter how small the electorate may be. Damn sight more than can be said of such as Adonis, Helena Kennedy et al who are Blair/Brown creatures.

Justicia

@ Denis Cooper:

Actually, postponing election deadlines is the sole action that the Parliament Acts CANT be used for.

@ Andy Leeds
That's a stupid argument. As has been said, this is how the Communist Party in the Soviet Union elected its leadership. Also, if you're going to start carping on about how a bunch of hereditary peers voting for their own competence is better than Brown appointing life peers, please bear in mind reality, as Brown actually has a democratic mandate as leader of the biggest party, whereas hereditary peers have nothing.

Publius

@Denis Cooper
Is it not correct, Denis, that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 *still* permit the Lords to veto a bill prolonging the lifetime of a Parliament?

Richard

I can't see why any Tory would want to object to it...after all as many poster have said it is full of Blair cronies anyway?
So the honourables on the opposition benches should love the idea.
Can we have the names of all those Tories who object?.....it's for a poster campaign I am thinking of running...Please!
If you can't fight dirty then don't complain when the going gets rough.
Any idea who it was of the thre Tory MP's who blocked the Anti Poverty bill by going into a huddle and shouting No on Friday night so they could not be identified?
Now that is a nasty trick and one that hurts the poor .....asks the question WHY would they do it?
Because a lobby group who buy poor mainly african countries debts can sue them for default before other nations can help get the banks to write off the debt, thus making a huge profit. They are rightly named Vulture groups for that reason....hold on isn't there a poster called Vulture on here...wonder why he picked that name????

Andy Leeds

You miss the point Justicia. The Hereditary Peers are more legitimate than the likes of Adonis, Kennedy et al because they were elected to their seats. I want a fully elected second chamber, elected on a different basis than the Commons, and I also want repeal of both Parliament Acts. But I want these properly worked out proposals from cross party agreement, not the diktats of Gordon the Moron.

Verity

As the Americans say, with characteristic directness, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Cut out the appointed communist apparachiks and the whole life peers rubbish. That would mean we would lose excellent peers like Norman Tebbitt, but I'm sure we could think of something.

My point is, the hereditary system worked. The hereditaries weren't compulsive legislators and interferers, nor self-seekers. Nor were they compulsive attendees and they certainly weren't self-promoters. They rolled up when a piece of legislation particularly interested them, or when it was on a subject on which they had special expertise they could contribute.

Then they had a drink, a bang-up lunch in the dining room with nice wine and then either rolled back to their pile or spent the night in London, their duty done.

It worked.

God knows we don't want to import elected ferrets to the second house. The hereditaries worked. That's why the communists hated it.

Senor Frizby

This is nutty and irrelevant. The country is in crisis and Labour want to bang on about class. I thought they were concerned with "doing the job"?

Really cannot believe any sane or uncorrupted person would vote for these monkeys.

TrevorsDen

Can you précis that ShorttheUK? And this is a thread about Lords reform.

Mr Cooper you invent an Aunt Sally only to knock it down. You and your fantasies are not as percipient as you think.

My memory is of William hague and the toroies wanting an elected Upper House years ago.

The problem with Upper House reform is deciding what you want - and I do not want the expense of 300 members, nor have them elected on a party list.

I think Mr Straw should do us the honour of showing us the back of the envelope upon which he has scrawled these proposals.

Noa Zrk

Denis Cooper
"Even after thirteen years in opposition during which they could have given some serious thought to these fundamental issues, and come up with some good ideas about the ideal modern role and composition of the second chamber of our national Parliament - rather than sitting on their backsides complaining, and waiting for Labour to run into an economic disaster so that they could take their Buggins' turn to form the elected dictatorship.."

Agreed. The Tory party, in this, as in other key areas of politics, has wasted 13 years of opportunity to plan and prepare for the destruction of the most malicious government in known memory.
We can be assured only that no government of any party will vote for a second chamber with the power of legislative veto over the Commons. As turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas neither will MPs vote for any control or limitation of their power.

Narrow self interest sees Labour proposing a PR based system, making the elimination of the labour infrastructure created over the last 13 years all the more difficult.

No doubt a key part of Brown and Straws secret agenda, as yet not considered, will be the abolition of the role of the monarchy, expressed through the Royal prerogative. With the removal of this ultimate check the final recourse against the possibility of totalitarian government will have been removed.

Comrade Prime Minster Brown anyone?

denis cooper

@ Justicia and Publius -

Yes, but that's the point - under the 1911 Parliament Act a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament was the SOLE case where the Lords retained an absolute veto, and because the Lords could not veto any other Bill the post-war Labour government was able to use the 1911 Act to force through a Bill to amend it, shortening the maximum period of delay available to the Lords from about two years to about thirteen months:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1949/pdf/ukpga_19490103_en.pdf

And when this Labour government used the Parliament Acts as amended in 1949 to force through its legislation on fox hunting without the consent of the Lords, the Countryside Alliance challenged the validity of the 1949 Act, but the Law Lords upheld the 1949 Act:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00675.pdf

endorsing the procedure of using the 1911 Act to force through this amendment to itself.

On the basis of that precedent, the present Parliament Acts could be used by the Commons to force through another Bill to further amend them by removing the Lords' veto on a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament, and that could be done without the consent of the Lords with a delay of about thirteen months.

Similarly there is no reason why an amendment should not shorten the permissible period of delay from the present thirteen months to a much shorter period, a month or even a week, and or why another amendment should not change the composition of the Lords or perhaps even entirely abolish it, in both cases without requiring the consent of the Lords.

Publius

@Denis Cooper
Denis, I believe there are two cases where the Parliament Acts cannot operate and where, as a result, the Lords retain a full veto

1. prolonging the life of a Parliament
2. amending the Parliament Act.

So the Parliament Act could not be used to force through a change to the Parliament Act.

All that said, Labour have so degraded the Lords that I don't think most people care about it in its present form. That is what Labour has done with the Constitution generally -- undermine it, make it despised, and then subvert it or abolish it.

Marcher Baron

"Labour will have a manifesto commitment" Like the manifesto commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which Brown went to court to prove had no worth? Anybody who believes anything in Labour's election manifesto needs their head examined.

Pie

Overall the Lords have done a good job. What about Labour's quangocrats? Who elects them? Aren't they all rubbish? Thousands and thousands of unelected idiots who tell us what to do all the time.

TomTom

Since 1911 we've never been more than about two years away from the Commons majority being legally empowered to perpetuate its own existence indefinitely by postponing elections;

Well Stanley Baldwin was elected PM in 1935, handed over to Neville Chamberlain 1937, who handed over to Winston Churchill in May 1940, who wanted to prolong Coalition beyond 1945 until Labour demanded another GE in 1945 which Churchill lost.

Somewhere Britain had 3 Prime Ministers in a decade between elections.

We do not know how the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 would work if The Commons extended its term and suspended the HoL. The real question in this situation is whether the Army obeys illegal orders as in the Iraq Invasion or whether we get a Curragh Mutiny

St Bruno

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/02/aristocracy-is-dead.html
As many replies try to rationalise some response to the latest barb by Mr Brown, may I suggest that a few moments be spent in reading the above blogspot and dwelling on the links in the text.

Just a thought, could it be the long hoped for wish of Scottish Gordon Brown to destroy the English aristocracy and even the English Monarchy and replacing it with a two chamber system we see in most countries, with jolly Brown as its first ‘President Elect’ All countries profess to being a democracy one way or another but really it is only a fig leaf for the corruption and dictatorial power politics that infest the vested interests of members. Things have not changed much since ‘rotten boroughs’ with or without the respectable umbrella of democracy.

National debt £143,000,000,000 and rising. A lot of money in any language.
More important than the last gasping breath of a Labour prudent twerp?
http://www.debtbombshell.com/uk-national-debt.htm

The truth is not in what he says he will do, but in what he has done, there we can judge and decide on the amount of trust we can give him for the future of Britain.

What I’m trying to say is that all remarks and election manifesto red herrings and other clap-trap should be shouted down by the loud voices of the ‘opposition’ who put forward solid proposals for Britain in the next five years.

Silly old me.

denis cooper

Publius @ 7:24pm -

I've just been reading through the judgement of the Law Lords on the case brought by the Countryside Alliance, where they challenged the Hunting Act 2004 on the grounds that it had been passed using the Parliament Act 1949, and the 1949 Act was invalid because it had been passed using the 1911 Act.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack-1.htm

As far as 2. is concerned, it was agreed that the 1949 Act was valid - ie that in general the 1911 Act could be used to push through amendments to itself. So similarly the 1911 and 1949 Acts together could be used to push through further amendments, eg to further shorten the period of delay available to the Lords.

However regarding 1., which was expressly stated as the sole exception in the 1911 Act, there was a division of opinion whether the courts would allow the Commons to overturn that exception against the opposition of the Lords, in the hypothetical scenario of that being attempted.

So it's an unsatisfactory situation, and one which should be remedied by Parliament passing a new Act to entrench that provision more firmly without having to rely on the vagaries of judicial interpretation.

This also touches on the composition of a reformed second chamber, because if a party commanded a majority in both chambers it wouldn't have to over-ride the second chamber in order to postpone elections.

TomTom

National debt £143,000,000,000

Ha, ha, ha ! If only National Debt were equal to the annual spend on the NHS !

Nicholas

The resident Lefties have flocked to this one.

Just this gem:-

"@ Andy Leeds -

The residual hereditaries in the Lords were elected by their fellow hereditaries, not by the people in general.

I don't know the correct word to describe that process of choosing individuals to have the lifelong right to vote on all of our national laws, but it certainly isn't "democratic" - "demos" meaning "the people" in general, not just the small number whose ancestors found favour with past monarchs and were rewarded with hereditary titles."

Simply incredible. How do you think all the Labour place men and women have been stuffed into the House of Lords? Were they elected? Baroness Trougher, Lord Mandelslime of Slippery Doo-Dah, Lady Do As I Say Not As I Do and all the other ermine trimmed, champagne socialist aristocracy, the nouveaux elite?

The splinter and timber aspect of these arguments is laughable. The Lefty pointing fingers are as unassailable as their eyes are blind to the mirror. It is going to be so good to see them humiliated and humbled in May when their wretched party and worse government is thrashed into oblivion. Maybe then they'll wind their brass necks in and shut their noisy gobs.

The problem with the dodgy "game changer" polling, the resurgent Lefty blowhards here and elsewhere and the BBC's desperate attempt to preserve the soviet union is that it all ignores the visceral hatred for Labour of the ordinary electorate. Boy, are you in for a nasty surprise.

Herbert Thornton

Mr Forsyth is entirely correct - up to a point. The proposal to change the Constitution by abolishing the Lords and creating a new Senate is certainly intended to attract votes by inciting many voters' visceral dislike and distrust of those whom they perceive as arrogant toffs.

But there is much more to it than that. Amending the constitution will give Brown and Straw the opportunity to surreptitiously include in the "reform" changes that have nothing to do with creating a Senate, and that will in fact entrench their own political biases - political correctness in particular - as part of the Constitution itself.

That was what Prime Minister Trudeau did in Canada some 40 years ago when he procured the enactment of the so-called (but in fact fraudulent) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Trudeau was an admirer of Chairman Mao Tse Tung and of the aims of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and set about effecting an equivalent Cultural Revolution in Canada. Both were aimed at destroying the prevailing norms and standards of society. As things turned out, Chairman Mao's destructive ambitions were thwarted by the strength of the Chinese Family system. The Chinese allegiance to family ties remains as strong as ever. But on the other hand Trudeau's destructive aims have been and continue to be very successful: the family has been virtually destroyed, as have many traditional, decent standards of ethics and morality which have been replaced by the injustices and sickness of political correctness.

I fear that if Brown and Straw succeed in changing the British Constitution, they will ensure that their "reform" will include additional elements that will be even worse than those that Trudeau inflicted on Canada. One of their main aims will be to consolidate themselves in power - by whatever means will work. Britain is already moving towards a new Dark Age, and Brown and Straw will, if given the chance, accelerate the move.

Ron - Canada

Agree - this is setting a trap for the Conservatives. It is also an attempt to deflect criticism for Labour's poor handling of the UK economy. The economy has to be the first thing tackled in any new parliament.

Liz Brown

With the arrival of Liebour's appointed Peers has come fraud and disrepute
The country has problems with turnout for General Elections - how will people be persuaded to vote for an Upper Chamber and what sort of person will be eligible? Bring back all heriditaries..............

denis cooper

@ Nicholas -

I've no idea why you're having a go at me over life peers, when:

a) I said nothing at all about life peers, and

b) I largely agree with what you said about life peers!

Hugo van Randwyck

Hum..an elected second chamber? Let's see, the votes of the winning party since 1992.
1992 = 14 million
1997 = 13.5 million
2001 = 10.6 million
2005 = 9.5 million
Anybody get the feeling voters like voting or are impressed with MPs?!
The removal of most of the hereditary peers was an excellent move. It's clear from the useless decisions and incompetence following, that they have been making sensible and operational inputs that prevented stupidity by elected MPs. The problem is in the Commons, where many members have self-promotion and self-preservation skills. The House of Lords would benefit from having more members with 'operational' skills. So having members elected by people who know what they are talking about makes sense. For example, having representatives from different sectors, manufacturing, education, health etc, could be elected by members of associations in these areas, they will know if people are genuine or charlatans, since they have worked with them.
Also reducing the Lords from 700 to 200 or 300 is an idea. Yes, the hereditaries are okay, since they provide a missing element of looking long term and having a historical perspective and learning a 'trade'. There are only, at present, 92 out of 700 Lords, barely 10%, better to improve the other 80%+.
Anyway, how did this become more of a priority to the British people than say a referendum on EU or EFTA? Or ensuring voting is free and fair without abuse from postal votes? Or allowing referendums on any overseas treaty? Or moving from general elections every 5 years to 4 years, and local elections to every 2 years? Or swapping Parliament coverage from the BBC to an impartial organisation, that doesn't have news and current affairs programmes? Or the BBC having 2 news programmes: one for centre/free enterprise/low taxes, and another for centre/collectivist/high taxes?
Does anybody in politics know how to prioritise? and work out which changes will give the most benefits?

Alan Carter

Labour will still get 'Lords' Mandelson & Adonis into the Lords - on the new PR 'party list' - they love this - you can push the Prince of Darkness up the list, as there are no constituencies = very hard to remove, and how would you operate recall? It's all part of a massive stitch up on the constitution as a whole to 'teach us voters a lesson' (because we're not very clever) and ensure the bureaucratic gravy train can dribble on long enough to really mess things up once and for all.