The stench emanating from the cesspit into which the Mother of Parliaments has fallen is now so great that even an arch-conservative (small 'c', please note) like me is gradually coming round to the idea of change. The small changes are relatively easy, for example, MPs are entitled, like any employees, to expenses but henceforth each and every claim must be published on the internet for us to examine and to make clear our feelings. However, I think the change that is required needs to be very much more radical. Cameron has already made clear that he will reduce the size of parliament which is an excellent idea but I think he needs to turn his attention to the Lords which is, thanks to Blair's messy compromise, neither one thing or another.
Any parliamentary democracy needs a second chamber which should, in my view, eschew as far as possible 'whipped' party politics. In other words, the 'Lords' (or Senators, as I prefer to call them) should be free to be members of a Party caucus but should not suffer any retribution if they vote against the Party line. They should be a mix of the appointed and the voted. However, the appointed should be in the 'Senate' by virtue of the job they held prior to retirement, for example, top military 'Brass', retired Permanent Secretaries, retired judges, religious leaders, TUC and CBI office holders, retired leaders of regional parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Ulster, retired heads of professional bodies, former Chancellors of universities, and so on and on. The point is that these people would take their seats by right not by appointment of the current prime minister. They would serve a maximum of 6 years before giving up their seat.
Some 'Senators', perhaps a majority, would be elected but they would only be permitted to stand for election after having secured the signatures of 'x' hundred (or thousand) supporters. Having done that, all their election expenses would be paid by the state and it would be illegal for any candidate to spend money from another source - particularly any political party! The 'Senate' would sit for bi-annual terms and any elected 'Senator' would be able to sit for 3 of those terms (ie, 6 years) before having to face re-election, in other words, one third of the elected 'Senators' would face re-election every two years. All 'Senators' should receive a generous salary and pension according to the number of years served.
So, we have a mix of elected and non-elected 'Senators'. I insist on the non-elected element because it would be utterly foolish to ignore the expertise of these experienced men and women. But what would be their power? I think it should be three-fold and take the form of increasingly severe delaying power. First, they should have the power on a majority vote basis to send a Bill back to the Commons for re-consideration, much as the Lords can do today. This will be an irritation to the government but will force MPs to re-examine. Second, on a higher majority, the 'Senate' should be able to send a Bill back for reconsideration in the next Parliament which will be a very real setback for a government timetable. Thirdly and finally, their last power would be a 'nuclear option', that is, on a fairly hefty majority, say, two thirds, one third, they should be able to send a Bill back which can then only be decided by the Commons produced after a general election. They should have no power to initiate measures.
Those of my readers of a 'pox-doctor's clerk' mentality will instantly pick away at my lack of stringency - how many 'Senators', what's the mix between elected and non-elected, exactly how big should the majorities be, and so on. Well, I leave that to others, I am only concerned to limit the powers of 'elected dictatorship' under which we have suffered in recent years and this is simply a general, not detailed, approach to the problem.
Good in principal- it ensures that the Lords (I prefer the old name) are elected in the main at a different time from the general election appointing the commons- which should get in the way of temporary bandwagons. The electons should also be on some other basis than first past the post (assuming that system is retained for the commons)- STV perhaps- again to prevent bandwagons being created.
Not so good is the idea of non elected members voting- it would be simple for a government to appoint people favourable to itself and hence obtain a lasting majority in the Lords. Their presence as advisors would of course be very useful.
I can't see anyone introducing this though- its far to tempting for the government of the day to simply take over the powers of patronage beque3thed by its predecessor.
Posted by: Pat | Friday, 16 October 2009 at 21:25
Hello, Pat, and welcome to D&N.
I remain confused and therefore doubtful concerning PR voting systems. I think you miss my point concerning the non-elected people who would not be appointed by government but by nature of the jobs they held previously, ie, head of the TUC, or the CBI, etc. And I would give them a vote because they should represent a swathe of experience. However, what the exact ratio should be between elected and non-elected I leave to others to fine tune. My feeling is roughly 2 thirds elected to 1 third non-elected.
And, no, I can't see anyone introducing it either!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 16 October 2009 at 23:20