The ruckus over Lords reform
Peter Hoskin 1:38pm
Both the Tory and Lib Dem manifestoes promised to reform the House of Lords, as did the
Coalition Agreement, but the gulf in enthusiasm between the two parties is enormous. For many Lib Dems, this is of course — as Nick Clegg put it in December — ‘one boat that urgently needs rocking’. For many Tories, it is
something to be ambivalent about, or to oppose.
Which is why the politics around the ongoing Lords Reform Bill are likely to be so fraught. James has already written of how there are ‘more than 81 [Conservative] MPs prepared to vote against it.’ But today the Tory Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper challenges those potential rebels outright, with comments made to the Daily Mail:
‘Mr Harper — Nick Clegg’s deputy at the Cabinet Office — insisted that the Government intends to sweep away centuries of history by replacing it with an elected chamber.He warned fellow Conservatives, who are threatening to rebel against the plans, that the party committed to Lords reform in its election manifesto.
He also revealed the Prime Minister is prepared to use the Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords, to force changes into law even if the Lords refuses to agree.’
All of which suggests that No.10 has decided to weigh in heavily behind the Lib Dems in their struggle for elected peers. I imagine they see it, more than anything else, as a matter of keeping the coalition together. After all, Clegg & Co. are determined not to let political reform join the list of major losses, on their part, that already includes voting reform, tuition fees and Europe — and are prepared to get angry about it in the meantime.
But after Ebdon, and with Lib Dem opposition to the Health Bill threatening to boil over, I doubt those 81-plus Tory backbenchers will see it quite the same way. There is already much grumbling about the Lib Dems' assertiveness this year. That will only get louder if Cameron and George Osborne don't offer up some pacifying measures in next month's Budget.
Previous
Rhoda Klapp
February 25th, 2012 1:51pm Report this commentThe libdems demonstrate on a daily basis that they are only emotionally capable of opposition, not government. Call their bluff.
Jim and Tonic
February 25th, 2012 1:59pm Report this commentI'm confused. Why are the LibDems opposed to an unelected House of Lords but so keen to kowtow to an unelected European Commission?
Russell
February 25th, 2012 2:23pm Report this commentWith pigs like the Kinnocks, former speaker Martin, Prescott and a few hundred more troughers who contribute nothing useful to our law making, I don't think the people who pay for these 'thieves', the taxpayers, give a damn how they are put in the House of Pigs, we just want a lot less of them, certainly less than in the House of Commons.
The American system can teach the so called mother of all parliaments a lesson in terms of numbers of freeloaders.
The taxpayer currently has MP's, MEP's, MSP's, plus The Irish whatever and the Welsh whatever plus Councillors, Quangos, a multitude of so called voluntary sector groups (who are paid for by us through taxation), the BBC.......
All in addition to the House of Pigs!
Too much for the taxpayer to carry, and in need of drastic culling.
Fergus Pickering
February 25th, 2012 2:50pm Report this commentAn elected second house will be a disaster full of placemen, and OLD placemen at that.
Fergus Pickering
February 25th, 2012 2:53pm Report this commentI like a man in a wig, tights and a frock.
Tarka the Rotter
February 25th, 2012 2:57pm Report this commentAs a matter of principle, I believe any change to the constitution should be referred back to the people and not carried out by politicians to suit themselves. What worries me is the whole system of checks and balances has been whittled away.
telemachus'
February 25th, 2012 3:31pm Report this commentFor many Tories, it is something to be ambivalent about
Aside of syntax for ambivalent about read downright hostile
The tories only spot democracy when they see a benefit as in the boundary changes
They love the conservative drag of the aging hereditory rump and mostly end of career life peers
Oh the fear of some elected young turks
Mr. Bubbles
February 25th, 2012 4:02pm Report this comment'I imagine they see it, more than anything else, as a matter of keeping the coalition together.'
What a fantastic basis on which to, as Mark Harper puts it, 'sweep away centuries of history'. I wonder if we'll get a referendum on it?
They're clearly as bad as Labour when it comes to wrecking the constitution for the sake of political expedency.
TrevorsDen
February 25th, 2012 4:17pm Report this commentSince the House of lords would be poinjtless i see no reason why it should be a problem.
It was in the manifesto and it could be de reformed at any time, preferably abolished.
Let the LDs have their orgasm - it is of no consequence
David Lindsay
February 25th, 2012 4:19pm Report this commentEach current life peer, at least who attends very or fairly regularly, should name an heir, a political and a wider intellectual soul mate. That heir would become a peer upon his or her nominator’s death, and would thus acquire the same right of nomination.
David Lindsay
February 25th, 2012 4:20pm Report this commentIf there must be an elected second chamber, then ... well, buy the book here. A copy has been sent, albeit more in hope than in expectation, to the Reviews Editor of this magazine.
It doesn't add up...
February 25th, 2012 4:54pm Report this commentIt is plain the politically appointed peers are the ones bringing the Lords into disrepute. Get rid of them, and don't let them back via "elections" dominated by list selection by party apparatchiks.
Publius
February 25th, 2012 5:11pm Report this commentThis is a LibDem plot to slip in PR by the back door, to entrench LibDem power, and thus to entrench the power of Brussels.
Once there is a PR-elected HOL -- which will of course have a permanent LibDem hold on the balance of power -- how long before we hear cries of how the "undemocratic" Commons is hindering the "democratic" PR-expressed will of the Lords?
(Do you not see any of this TrevorsDen, or have your minders told you to spin the usual party line regardless?)
Bill Brinsmead
February 25th, 2012 5:32pm Report this commentIn a democracy we the people elect our legislators.
A fully elected Lords [Senate] - BUT no more than 240 who serve 6 year terms [not the silly 15 as proposed] with one third of seats elected every 2 years.
Nickle
February 25th, 2012 6:31pm Report this commentDavid Beamish is the Clerk of Parliaments.
He's been a busy boy signing secrecy certificates to hide what the Lords knew, and probably aided and abetted fraudsters such as Uddin (still not paid back the cash), Hanningfield and Taylor.
RKing
February 25th, 2012 6:32pm Report this commentHouse of Lords........ Selected by the few - not the electorate.
Bankers bonuses....... Decided by a few - not the shareholders.
BBC................... Represents the few - not the majority.
The Press............. Controlled by the few.
The EU................ Controlled by the unelected.
Wars.................. Started usually by liars (Iraq being a prize example)
and I'm sure there are more.
Why do we bother with general elections anymore.
William Blakes Ghost
February 25th, 2012 6:57pm Report this commentThe House Of Lords is long past the day it could be reformed. With the likes of Tonge, Archer and Prescott now sullying its ranks it is nothing more than a corrupt embarrassment. It needs abolition not reform.
UKIP seem to be the only party offering such an outcome and providing the electorate with a real democratic alternative.
What we don't need is a typical establishment party 'fix' that only suits their self-interest and I'm pretty sure that is what Clegg and Cameron intend to deliver.
Verity
February 25th, 2012 8:55pm Report this commentLords reform should consist entirely and only in kicking out the appointees and returning The Lords to what worked: the hereditaries, who had a vested interest in the continued good governance of the country.
They didn't hang around making nuisances of themselves and trying to get on the News. They came up a couple or three times a week, had lunch, sometimes stayed on overnight and buggered off home to manage their own business. They had a vested historic interest in the wellbeing of Britain from an ancestral point of view and the point of view of their heirs.
When you have ambulatory pigswill like John Prescott seeping into a red bench by right, instead of mopping the floors, you have taken the wrong turn.
Return The Lords to what it was and appoint a very occasional lifer, like Lord Tebbit, for example, for extraordinary services to the nation.
taraxacum
February 25th, 2012 11:55pm Report this comment>>>
Both the Tory and Lib Dem manifestoes promised to reform the House of Lords, as did the Coalition Agreement
<<<
Not so.
Conservative manifesto: "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords"
Not really a full-blown promise.
Coalition agreement: "We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation".
Again, not a promise to to do anything other than set up a committee. Nothing about time-scales for any actual reform.
So plenty of room for Tory MPs to oppose anything specific - especially if it is seen as DC making a political decision just to keep Clegg safe/happy.
Ruby Duck
February 26th, 2012 3:17am Report this commentWhat Verity said.
And if we can't have that, let's have random selection, for life, from everyone eligible for jury service and over the age of 50.
Fergus Pickering
February 26th, 2012 5:00am Report this commentPickering2's propensity to cross-dress is yet another irritating thing about him. Perhaps a senate of a hundred bods elected but without party labels would do. Ex MPs or indeed ex-holders of any political office would be barred. I see it as including people like Joanna Lumley and Terry Wogan. Nobody under fifty allowed. It's a Senate, for God's sake, not a kndergarten. Bishops welcome, well not exactly welcome but allowed. Archbishop Sentamu, if I've spelled the name right. Melanie Phillips? Why not? Mick Jagger? Oh god...
Publius
February 26th, 2012 8:45am Report this commentAgree with Verity. And for those who say you can't turn the clock back, I remind you of Chesterton's words:
'There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they are always saying, ‘You can’t turn the clock back.’ The simple and obvious answer is, ‘You can.’ A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstituted upon any plan that has ever existed.'
daniel maris
February 26th, 2012 9:26am Report this commentThe main consideration is that it shouldn't be a rival to the House of Commons - it should be a revising chamber.
gina dean
February 26th, 2012 12:18pm Report this commentThey should only serve for 2yrs after they are made up. Also they should be made to retire once they reach 75, we have been told that they will reach nearly 1000 very shortly why do we need that many in the house. It should be kept to a level of 250 no more are needed. It would be more than enough for the checks and balances required.
Verity
February 27th, 2012 12:07am Report this commentGina Dean and others - Stop fidgeting around with what worked superbly. As a revising chamber, you could not beat the hereditaries because they had no need to pander to anyone, including vested interests or even the electorate. They did as thought best for the country - partly, I am certain, out of deep attachment and loyalty to the country, and also because the instinct of the hereditaries is to preserve. Not to pander to an electorate that wants change and exciting personalities. They came up to London for debates that specially interested them, or in which they had some special knowledge or expertise or experience to contribute, had lunch in the dining room, a couple of drinks in the bar after the debates, maybe stayed on for dinner with friends and the theatre, had hit the road home early the next day.
There were no slum Lords. We imported the rubbish and we can dump it, and keep the Lifers who have proved their worth and loyalty to the country. Betty Boothroyd, for example, springs to mind.
Hose the rest of them out, out, out!
Verity
February 27th, 2012 12:24am Report this commentWhy are you people so fidgety and prescriptive? The Lords worked for hundreds of years. It was destroyed with malice. We can get it back. The template, and the lords, are there.
Back to top