The second chamber [Matthew's Journal]

#chiark has been having an interesting discussion/argument about the House of Lords, sparked by news that the government is going to have another pop at reform.

It seems to me that these proposed reforms, like their predecessors, lack imagination. No new ideas are contained therein, just the old saw about wanting a more "representative" House of Lords. It seems to me that actually the Lords do a good job, currently. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they seem to have several good features:

Give government a hard time, by scrutinising leglislation, and actually being able to force the Commons to re-think things
A fair proportion of cross-bench peers
Generally higher quality debates than the Commons
Aren't quite so concerned with the next tabloid editorial/opinion poll

Cynically, that might be why Labour is so keen to be shot of them - they want a more compliant upper chamber.

The Commons is hardly ideal, either - our current voting system (which seems unlikely to change) means that one side can generally force through anything it wants, and debates sadly often degenerate into cat-calling, soundbites, and other such nonsense. Furthermore, there is a shortage of long-term thinking, and MPs can often at least seem to be slaves to the opinion-polls, and the tabloid editorial writers who shape the results thereof. Furthermore, it's almost impossible for independent MPs to get elected.

So, supposing we want a different second chamber, what might we want it to do? I think the ability to scrutinise leglislation is key, and the ability to do so in a slightly less populist way to the Commons is also highly desirable. The current arrangement whereby the Commons can force things through the Lords eventually is also good - deadlock can't last indefinitely, and it seems good that the more "democratic" house has the upper hand.

That's why I think an entirely elected upper house is a serious mistake. I think you would just end up with two Commons, and you'd lose the rather more sedate debating we can get in the Lords now. But, we need some way of choosing the Lords. The current system (either pre- or post-1997) has some flaws, clearly. My heretical suggestion is a lottery of suitable people, and some extras. It seems to me that we still want the Law lords, since their input into leglislation is valuable. Possibly appointing some outstanding individuals, too (similar to the current life peerages) could have value - if someone is at the very top of their profession, their input could be useful. "Suitable?" I hear you cry. I think suitable people would be articulate, and already have some interest in politics; people could put themselves forward and then be vetted by a panal of civil servants (who are paid to leave their politics at home); if successful, they'd be eligable for selection by lottery, and would then serve a longish term.

I don't think this is anti-democratic of me - the Commons would remain the dominant house, and we'd still be voting for them. I think it has less potential for wrecking our current reasonably good system than many of the reforms the government is proposing.

Finally, a poll:

[Poll #922555]

October

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I put down some of my ideas about the matter here a while back. I'll have to revisit this after work.

[link] [reply]

I don't want anyone legislating for me that I didn't get a vote for. Yes the law lords are useful, but if they want to represent us, they should stand for election - otherwise, they should just be advisors.

Being concerned with the next opinion poll is a feature of RE-election, not election. I think the upper house, once elected, should stay in office until they die, choose to retire, or are required to retire by some rule mandating a minimum participation. Also members of either chamber should not be allowed to pursue other careers at the same time!

I agree with your second point - it's crucial that the second chamber are not fussed about getting re-elected.

It's also crucial that they know their stuff so maybe they should be appointed/elected out of a suitable choice of people i.e. ex- cabinet ministers, law lords, police chiefs etc so they have in some way earned their chance to be selected. So quite like the current system but without hereditary peers, or any other automatic entitlement.

[link] [parent] [reply]

How does being a police chief necessarily give you a good knowledge of government?

(For that matter, how does being a cabinet minister necessarily give you a good knowledge of government ? ;-) )

Seems brain-deadness comes and goes... ;) (cf. different thread, for the bemused).

I don't think being top of your field gives you a good knowledge of government, but in principle if you get enough people at the tops of enough diverse professions (and I use these terms loosely, as I would like to see other walks of life also represented) then they might have a fighting chance of collectively being good AT government (similar principle to that which applies to appointments as magistrates, prison inspectors and the like).

I agree that the upper house always being seeking re-election would change the nature of their decision making for the worse.

Hopefully it gives you an understanding of what works in terms of policing. The trouble at the moment is people go for sound bites that get them popularity rather than things that work -- so we get `bang em up' rather than restorative justice and end up with overfull prisons and high recidivism rates.

Yes, but policing is only a very small part of government.

I would like to see people who have actually done a real-world job of some sort responsible for looking for problems with intended legislation. Now that politics is a career option, it seems to me that some (many?) of the commons don't actually know or care how the "little people" cope with the legislation they make. Have most of them ever done an honest days work, I wonder?

My pet peeve is that when there is a minister for science, it never seems to be someone who has done any scientific or technical study or work.
- "If we just reverse the polarity of the neutron flow the reactor will be quite safe minister"
- "Jolly good, get on with it and write me a press release"

Define "career". Are they allowed to do anything other than sit? Or are they just not allowed to get an income from it? If the latter - where does managing investments fall?

How about a requirement that they must spend a minimum amount of time in the house and a minimum amount of time listening to constituants?

It falls in the category of *yawn*.

Double ;)

I can see the attraction of your no-re-election idea.

I don't want anyone legislating for me that I didn't get a vote for.

But why not?

Also, it's worth pointing out that at present, you only get to vote for one MP, whereas the other 600 odd all legislate for you. Do you want some system of MTV where we all get as many votes as there are seats?

It's worse than that: large amounts of legislation come pretty directly from Europe, where all sorts of people legislate for you and you only get a small influence over some MEPs.

I'm not able to see how that's "worse" I'm afraid. I at least get to vote (I think) for several MEPs, whereas I only get to vote for one MP.

The problem I see with two elected houses, unless the method of election of the second is somehow much better, is that an ability to appeal to a large population during a few soundbites probably does not correlate either with the ability or the intention to scrutinise legislation to find the problems that the government of the day did not notice or hoped nobody else would notice.

Something like the way a jury is chosen, but with a weeding out process to prevent the people incapable of doing the job from being chosen, might work. There would need to be few acceptable excuses for declining the job - being someone's only carer might be one - and the financial compensation would have to make sure nobody was worse off, because the appointment would need to be for a long time. Maybe a third of the house gets changed every four years or something?

It would cost a lot in salary, but cheap at the price if it avoided a few serious blunders by the gov of the day.

A wholly hereditary second ("upper") house, possibly with some bishops.

Any chance of a cut for some of that, BTW?

I usually only cut things that are images, TMI or NWS. Is it just the length of the text that irritates you, or the poll, or ... ?

My view is that anything longer than a screen should be cut in order to ease navigation of readers' friends' pages.

I have now cut the poll, which satisfies this requirement on my display.

I'm not one who is all that bothered by length in the grand scheme of things, but otoh your post is much more than one screen as I am looking at it & therefore perhaps for others. Most people cut for more than about a paragraph tbh.

Just the length. I get mildly irritated by un-cut length; more than some, not nearly so much as others.

"NWS"?

Not work safe - e.g. naughty pictures that would be embarrassing if a colleague saw them.

I'm with you on those bullet points. Labour want a simple second house that they can stuff or otherwise bully (see how often they've used the legal tools to push badly drafted laws through compared to any other administration). Allowing for the venality of most human beings the Lords actually seem to be somewhat above being bullied by the lobbyists and newspapers, although that may be the older ones (who won't last too many more years). The general impression is that they are less likely to follow party dictats whereas many MPs seem to be lapdogs of their party.

I'd like to see the Lords back at '97 but with it enshrined as part of the job that they are there to check things on behalf of the country as a whole and over the long-term. Especially when the Commons seem to be easily bullied by the papers into wasteful short-term solutions.

It seems, by observation, that to become an MP these days you have to spend years toeing the party line and fighting unwinnable seats whilst staying on-message. This probably impacts upon the behaviour of our MPs.

That's one route, usually used by those who want to get to the top fast. Strong and long-standing participation and support in a particular constituancy can get you a solid backing from the constituancy party. These people are generally refered to as "local candidates" and I believe they still make up the majority of MPs.

over the long-term

This is where hereditary peers have an advantage. They are much more likely to think of the long term.

The House of Lords isn't a legislating chamber, it's an anti-legislating chamber and I think that's what it should remain. However, I don't like the old system, because it was, to my mind, too reactionary and too representative of established interest.

I'd like a chamber half appointed by an independent organisation picking people who have a record of public service (which can include business people, obviously) and half elected, but elected on an eight year term, rather than a four year one.

So, supposing we want a different second chamber, what might we want it to do? I think the ability to scrutinise leglislation is key, and the ability to do so in a slightly less populist way to the Commons is also highly desirable. The current arrangement whereby the Commons can force things through the Lords eventually is also good - deadlock can't last indefinitely, and it seems good that the more "democratic" house has the upper hand.

The current system of avoiding deadlock is bad in many ways, because one government can force a bill through with no intervening election.

My heretical suggestion is a lottery of suitable people, and some extras. It seems to me that we still want the Law lords, since their input into leglislation is valuable.

The Law Lords do not typically sit on debates because most of them are switched on enough to believe very firmly in separation of the judiciary from the legislature.

I think an elected house along the same lines as the current lower house is a problem because it ends up becoming party political - the parties put up campaign funds and voters tend to vote a straight party ticket in most cases as they do not know the individuals. This means that anyone elected is going to be subject to the party whip system and will in general just vote the same way the lower house did.

Any of the more controversial election methods, such as PR, would be a bad idea as long as the upper house can stall legislation, as it will tend to lead to a hung upper house and a powerless government which is usually a bad thing for the country.

People appointed for a fixed term will have the same problem - it will just reflect the make up of the current government and as long as they're in power they'll tow the party line to get reappointed.

Elections for a lifetime position probably aren't a good idea as the electorate have no way of really knowing who will make a good member of the house or who is likely to stick at it.

Which brings us back to lifetime appointments...

Personally I'd prefer a Proportionally representitive main house which was responsible for the running of goverment and the majority of legislation with a second house being elected on a constituancy basis with the powers to delay and propose a minority of legislation. (The majority and minority would be built into a requirement of a proportion of time in both chambers be given over to legislation from the respective houses).

I'd also have the proportionally elected house elected every 4 years with the constituancy house elected every year on a rolling basis so that members sat for 10 years at a time with the possibility of recall from local constituancies. I'd also ban constituancy MPs from sitting consecutive terms.

A lottery is generally considered more democratic than an election, I believe, because those chosen by election are going to be those who are electable, whereas those chosen by lot are truly representative of the people as a whole (this is how opinion polls work).

See here, for example.

I've long been in favour of them being drawn by lot, or on a system like jury service; to serve terms of about 7 years, with a large salary and suitable staff (equivalent to MEPs). On rolling renewal so there's always some old guard around to maintain continuity.

Of course, this question would be good for GROGGS.

I might well raise the issue there once things have quieted down here; I can attempt to summarise points made here then.

What is needed in the Lords is
(a) people with some level of understanding of how legislation works, and
(b) a body which is extremely unlikely to be completely compliant with the overnment of the day.

What would be additionally nice from my point of view to have in the Lords is
(c) a democratically elected body
(d) a better chance for minority opinions to be represented than in the single-member-constituency Commons
(e) a body whose members know that they cannot act with impunity (i.e. there is a clear removal procedure and/or re-election / re-appointment capability), but that they are not as subject to the vagaries of public opinion as the Commons (e.g. longer terms).

It may be a question of my familiarity with certain other electoral systems, but I don't see any option which fulfils (a)-(e) better than that of an upper house fully elected on some proportional representation basis (if there is a need for it to be more of a brake, impose a supermajority requirement for passing legislation similar to the US Senate's cloture rules). The proportional representation could be at the national or the regional level, provided that the chamber is large enough to ensure that any substantive party is likely to get at least a member or two in.

Yes, I like the Australian version of the Senate. Not surprising really.

Hello,

Have just friended you (bit slow on the uptake, me). Anyway, I voted in 3 categories, which technically doesn't make sense, but what I would like (at first pass of thinking about it) is a prop. rep system in the lower chamber, and an appointed, but not mostly by the governing party, upper house which continues to function as it does now. I liked the term "anti-legislation", it's often (although not always) the voice of reason.

I pretty much like what emperor suggested. It sound better than the version of what the government suggested that I heard on the news, which I can't properly remember now, but I recall not being particularly impressed with at the time.

I quite like the idea of improving the Upper Chamber, but I think we need a somewhat better suggestion than that provided so far. If the government can't come up with a better suggestion than this then I think we're better off with the current system, or reverting to the previous one. The best form of government is always going to be a benign dictatorship: most people get what they want / need and it doesn't cost lots of money. But we're human, so it ain't going to work that way. :-(

I think the primary function of the Lords is to act as a brake on the Commons. This is especially necessary given that we don't have a proportionally elected Commons -- it's far too easy for one party to get a landslide majority and force any old rubbish through. If anything, the current Parliament Act arrangements give the Lords insufficient braking ability, since if the government has the time and patience they can get their way.

Given that, the Lords should definitely not be a group of people elected in the same way as the Commons. Its members should ideally be:

representative of various professions, opinions and age groups
not too concerned with re-election
independent or semi-independent
unlikely to end up with a majority being from the same party who has the Commons majority
generally considered as at least vaguely representative (this is where the hereditary peers fail badly; the consequence is that the Lords feels it doesn't have much legitimate right to block Government legislation, and the braking function is reduced)

I think most arrangements which aren't either (a) all hereditary, all the time (b) current PM's cronies (c) duplicate of the Commons will be acceptable. I like the 'jury service' arrangement suggested by some other commenter.

(NB that I tend to feel that governments of either colour do too much rather than too little; I'd rather have deadlock than "strong government".)

I agree that a 2nd electable house would be a bad idea.

I think it might be good to have some people who are elected for a period of time totally at random, sort of like jury service. Comparing it to the justice system: it's generally considered good that the final decision on convicting someone is left to the "common person" rather than an appointed or elected person, but a fundamentally important part of this that the jury have to sit through and listen to the evidence presented by both sides. A system where justice was decided by letting anyone vote on the matter would be seen as rather bad...

The current arrangement whereby the Commons can force things through the Lords eventually is also good

It's good in that I believe a requirement is that it must have been in the Government's manifesto - but the problem is that a Government can (and usually does of course) get elected on a minority vote, so anything can be forced through the lords simply by waiting through an election. This only really protects against really dire laws which would cause them to lose an election if announced.

I think an improvement would be that it also requires a higher number to vote for it in the commons - say 2/3s, or perhaps an amount which on average roughly corresponds to MPs voted in by at least 50% of the public.

I also think there shouldn't be positions for Bishops (as in, it's fine if a member of the Church of England happened to get a seat for other reasons, but they shouldn't get a seat just for that reason). Alternatively perhaps it could be made fairer by giving out seats for other religions as well as representatives of non-religious ethical systems, but I'm not sure it's necessary at all.

To be honest I think the way a lot of people view the Lords (dimly, or as some sort of bad thing) is perhaps in no small part due to the way various governmenst have whinged about legislation being blocked. This has got misrepresented in the media and thus people think that the Lords sit their stopping the elected representatives from doing 'good things' when actually the Lords may well have been saying "hang on if you want the law to be like this what happens when ...?".

I also think that, given the fact that government can push stuff through despite the Lords saying 'No', sometimes the elected buggers have used this to make out that the Lords are stopping things which actually could have been pushed had the government really wanted it badly enough. This seems especially true of certain emotive subjects (fox-hunting perhaps?) where the government at the time didn't really want the hassle but felt they should be seen to be doing something ...

I think that one of the big problems with the debate on HoL reform is the fact that we do not know what it is we want a second house for at which point how can we decide who should be in it.

Your post is fairly similar to what I said earlier today!

May I propose a compromise? Many of us recognise the benefits of appointment (to ensure that the second chamber is of good quality and has diverse skills and experiences). However, a lot of people believe that there should be a democratic element.

Why cannot the chamber be fully appointed, but with the appointments committee being elected?

I think a self-appointing house might work well.