Matthew's Journal

Readers interested in politics (and the House of Lords in particular) might like to read Lords of the Blog, a collaborative exercise by about a dozen peers. It's an engaging blog about goings-on in the Lords. For your reading convenience, I've set up lordsoftheblog, although I think commenting on their site rather than the syndicated feed would be wise.

Hat-tip to makyo, who mentioned this at dinner yesterday.

#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:(  (under the cut) )