No place for life peers in new ‘second chamber’

[muriel_volestrangler]

THE House of Lords would change its name to the “second chamber” and up to four fifths of its members would be elected under a new reform plan produced by Labour.

Newly created life peers would lose the right to sit in the second chamber, which would be cut from 731 lords, ladies and bishops to between 300 and 400 members serving six-year terms, the document proposes.

Existing life peers would have the option of retiring but would not be forced to quit, because of fears that they would have to be paid compensation.

Labour proposes that 20 per cent of the second chamber be elected at first, to be followed by 40 per cent, 60 per cent and a maximum of 80 per cent — but only after reviews to ensure that the chamber was not becoming too powerful.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1699322,00.html

Maybe depending on what "too powerful" means, this actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. The article says the key was that Blair dropped his insistence on a fully appointed chamber, and after that, they hot a decent proposal together.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. Having over 80 per cent of the upper chamber elected sounds good

but scaling the democratic element up slowly is a bad idea. From The Times article it seems that the government will stall whenever it thinks it won't gain by increasing the democratic element. The worst case scenario would be that it will take decades to finally see an 80%-elected upper chamber.

[cheeseit]

2. Well, I guess the good news is it looks like their coming to terms with...

...the idea that an elected element is neccesary. but if this got up and running I'm sure it would be a long time before that 20% became 40%--and as for the 80% figure, that's got "cold day in hell" written all over it.

It looks like the "independent appointments commission" is still the one thing the government is set on. I guess it would be better than the current system, but I've always been dubious as to how "independent" it would actually be, and extremely dubious as to how far I want to be governed by a bunch of the great and the good chosen by a bunch of the great and the good anyway. I just wish they'd make the whole damned thing elected, restrictions on its power laid out by law can ensure the primacy of the Commons.

And "Second Chamber"? Talk about uninspired...

[non sociopath skin]

3. Okay guys, run past me the reasons why a second chamber is essential ...

.. to the democratic process.

The one common factor, however they're chosen (I'm thinking of the US, France, Germany, Australia) seems to be their innate conservatism. For example, I believe that the US Senate has ONE black member and, previous to his recent election, it had none.

Do we really need the Elderly White Right to keep any loony lefties who might amble into government in good order?

The Skin

[cheeseit]

4. i agree with you in principle

Countries like Sweden and New Zealand with unicameral parliaments strike me as better governed and in many ways more progressive than most countries with second chambers. But I'd only support abolishing the second chamber in Britian altogether if it was accompanied by extensive reform of the Commons, introducing some form of PR and strengthening the commitee system so there could be checks within the one chamber itself against the kind of elected dictatorships we usually end up with on minorities of the popular vote. Unfortunately the likelihood of any government compromising its own power by introducing such reforms is virtually nil, so at this point I'm leaning towards reform rather than abolition of the second chamber.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Agreed - with a first past the post system, a second chamber is vital

(and one that cannot get dominated by government hacks). If we had a really good PR system, that produced a House of Commons that accurately represented British opinion, then maybe we could do without a second chamber.

But I've almost given up hope of getting Commons voting reform. It would take a Parliament in which both Labour and Conservatives had to have the Lib Dems as a partner to govern in any way, and for the Lib Dems to make PR the make-or-break part of a deal (and even then, Labour and the Tories would both try to weasel out of it any way they could). So I'll take a partly, eventually becoming mainly, elected second chamber as the best thing we can realistically get now.

[non sociopath skin]

7. In a similar way, I despair of a reform of the House of Lords ...

... which won't result in a chamber of superannuated party hacks.

And are you assuming a different electoral system for it?

The skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Good point - yes, I have been assuming something other than

single member, first past the post consituencies. But just about every other electoral system produces a more balanced chamber than ours.

[cheeseit]

10. I'd say FPTP for the second chamber is very unlikely

Given that upper house elections would probably follow the usual anti-government trend of mid term elections, i don't think Blair would risk giving the Tories that much power. Plus the other new elected chambers Labour have created (Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, GLA) have used PR.

[demobrit]

11. can you imagine

One chamber dominated by Labour the other by Conservatives a recipe for chaos

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Not necessarily chaos

but maybe deadlock - which can sometimes be good. If there are changes that need to be made, then having one government in power may be good; but if one party wants to 'put its stamp' on things, then having a check on it may be just what you need.

In any case, it's not proposed that the 'second chamber' has anything like the power of the first (just as at present), so it wouldn't get to the point of no-one being in control at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Doesn't it look more like the Eldery White Centrists

keeping the loony authoritarian in good order, right now?

[non sociopath skin]

8. The unreformed House of Lords occasionally stood up to Thatcher ...

... out of cranky contrariness, just as the US Supreme Court occasionally bowls the establishment a curved ball,

But does the capacity for maverick actions justify a patently undemocratic system?

The Skin

[sweetheart]

13. This could be a real mess

given that it would be phased in, i would expect the phasing to stop
before 80%, and prior to this, what is the makeup of the chamber?

I don't agree that a second elected chamber is any improvement, rather
that is what the commons is for already, and they can override the lords
if they need to already. This is about trashing the UK system of
government that has worked for many centuries for a proven failure like
that of the USA... where the upper chamber is a bunch of out of touch
scumbags who leech off corporate money to screw the public at every turn.

Life appointments has made the HOL a very wise chamber looking out for
the long term, and not "whipped" in to shape by the latest political
trend or leadership. I don't agree that electing the chamber will work
at all... it will merely make it a place of partisan hackery... more
blairism, liars and lawmaking based on the daily mail, rather than on
the serious interests of the british public.

Labour has become the party of "oh no, what have they done now." rather
than something inspiring... i hope brown can fix this dreadful
decline in what was once a party representing decent persons.