Facebook debate about my blog on reform to the House of Lords

• Michael Rubin Interesting! I think the Lords reforms are very good and am personally fully behind them. The 15 year terms are designed to ensure we don't have massive swings from one party to another akin to the kind we have at general elections, and they're non-renewable, so someone will only be a Lord for a maximum of 15 years. As for the electoral system, the proposals leave open the choice between a list system and STV.

  21 May at 18:01 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  Some interesting points. Firstly I know that the list system is not excluded from the legislation, that being said the preference seems to be for STV. On your point regarding the 15 year term I understand that voting for 1/3 of lords at any one time is a mechanism for halting large swings, however the actual time frame is largely irrelevant having a six year term for the lords rather than 15 to me would make more sense. Although as I pointed out in the blog this would only work with a four year term for the house of commons. Finally regarding the provisions to ensure that after 15 years you cannot stand for re-election, surely the whole point of electing the upper house is to have them held accountable to the electorate. Surely then having a long single term does not give the electorate the accountability desired? This being said I have been a supporter of lords reform for a long time, so just with the referendum on AV I will probably begrudging back the change.

  21 May at 20:50 · 
• 

  Matt Jones 

  Robert,
  Am I allowed to make a very obvious point, if we elect a house of Lords in a country where governments sometimes last more than 10years, won't the two houses inevitably end up synchronizing, thus defeating the object of a second house as a balance.........and annoyingly on the flip side, will be entitled to more influence due o being elected, and when the two house are opposed, it gets all American and we can't get anything done.
  So unless you have a constitutional court like in Germany, it could be unworkable. And if you had that, it becomes full of horrible old unelected men who oppose abortion reform.........

  21 May at 22:58 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  I think Matt your points carry merit. That being said I would like to raise a few points of my own. Firstly that yes if you have elections for the House of Lords at the same time as a general election for the house of commons and a governme...See more

  Sunday at 02:05 ·  ·  1 person
• 

  Matt Jones 

  I have had a few pints......so consider this response not to b my best work. But compromise politics annoys me, it means ore back-room deals and less open execution of a mandate.
  If we are going to reform the house of lords, why not look ata regional assembly idea, such as the German Lander system........but then that doesn't always really work anyway.
  Realistically, in a society which overwhelmingly rejected, or were completely indifferent to, a small change to the voting system, is there any hunger for constitutional reform at all.......annoyingly, the answer is no. Its just another case of politicians adding 2 and 2 and arriving at 5........I was in favour of AV......but people didn't seem to care. Won't politics become even more boring and alienating for people if we carry on about this kind of thing, isn't it always "the economy, stupid" in this day and age? Sorry to be pessimistic, but I nobody on the doorstep this year has asked me about lords reforms.......xx

  Sunday at 23:59 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  Firstly I'm sure you are aware the German Lander system has developed because of the geography and history of Germany which of course was not unified until 1871, and is much larger than Britain. Having said that I am not in theory opposed to greater local accountability, however that would fundamentally alter the Bi-camerol British system and as such would be revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
  I don't see how having more accountability would make politics more boring? However as I said in the blog I do think the timing is all wrong for Lords reform precisely because we have other issues to face. This being said 35% of people did not vote in the 2010 General Election. That is one in three people, so how do we re-engage (or sometimes engage for the first time) people who have given up on Westminster? It has to start (and I must stress that word) with greater public accountability over the political process. People have to feel empowered by politics not belittled by it. To me that means breaking down the elitist nature of Parliament and the House of Lords is the starting place. Again I would say that it is just that a 'starting point' but I fundamentally believe it is an important step.
  You are of course right like AV this is unlikely to captivate most people on the doorstep, constitutional reform rarely is, and without other measures in place it won't help people engage in the political process. But I think it is a step toward breaking down the barriers that divide normal people from politics and that can only be a good thing.

  Yesterday at 15:18 · 
• 

  Matt Jones 

  I was a bit stuck on Germany I think.......I was thinking about how cool Obama is and if I could go back, who would i like more between him and Willy Brandt, but then i realised that my knowledge of Brandt is very limited and I just like the idea of him..........that said.....the Lander system is not viable here, but maybe more power to local councils and a way for them to more easily oppose the government nationally in a more meaningful way.....
  I just can't see this debate coming to a close, Lords reform has been on the cards for yonks because its a right old pickle.........all other viable options are either a damp squib or a revolutionary change to the system, and there is hunger for neither of those.
  Is literally anybodym not already involved in politics, sat at home thinking "i wish the Lords was elected".......i think they are thinking "oh shit, prices are rising, i cant find a job, it cost millions to go to uni, benefits are being cut, the economy isnt growing, the defecit is getting worse, and how the hell did it come to the point where the government of this country is associated with people with such disgustinng attitudes towards rape and womens issues". That is my main point, just who cares........I am quite enthusisatic about constitutional reform but this bored me and I can't see any sensible solution.......

  20 hours ago · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  I would add on to that list NHS waiting times increasing, the pension age increasing, public sector pensions being slashes, and a worry about a government that stops and thinks half way through a bill rather than at the start. I agree with you lords reform is not an issue outside of the Westminster village. Your right this won't interest people on the doorstep. However as I said in the last post we had at the last general election 35% of the electorate decide not to vote. So the question is how do we bring people like that back into some kind of political discussion? I believe that parliament has to become more in touch with the values and beliefs of ordinary people, the House of Lords is institutionally incapable of being in touch with the average person. so it needs reform. But it is not just the House of Lords that needs reform, we still have the issue of representation we had an even less eclectic mix of mp's elected back in 2010 with 90% now having a university degree and the vast majority of those coming from the background of a lawyers, we had more Etonians and Oxbridge graduates than before and we had less minority representatives than were elected in 2005. Parliament still looks like an old boys club. An old boys club that is still struggling for legitimacy in the minds of most people after the expenses scandal. So it is not just Lords reform that is necessary, but a genuine look at how to break down the barriers which have been put up around Westminster (probably subconsciously). Which has meant people feel isolated from the institutions which are supposed to represent them. obviously reform to the Houses of Parliament is not enough on it's own, but people have to believe that the they control their representatives not the other way around. So whilst I accept that this debate will largely take place in the Westminster bubble I hope the effects of it will be lasting on the nature of politics in this country.

  17 hours ago · 

House of Lords Reform

It is no secret that I believe in reform to the House of Lords. The idea of a liberal democracy in the 21st century still having an appointed non-specialized chamber baffles me. I am exactly the type of person who should be a wholehearted supporter of the coalitions reform package for the House of Lords. But I have some serious issues with the reforms as set out by Clegg last week. I know during his speech he several times warned against making 'the great the enemy of the good' but I believe if we are going to have constitutional reform, because it is a once in a generation thing it has to be gotten right.

 I am not, by nature a cynical person. However even to me the timing of this announcement looks poor. Partly because it looks like Cameron has given this to Clegg because of how poorly the AV referendum went - people will no doubt comment saying it was in the Coalition agreement, and that is correct however that is not how it comes across. Add to this the fact that we are only two weeks past the AV debacle and it begins to look like a bit of a farce. 

But it is not just the timing that troubles me. It is also the idea that you could elect someone to a post for 15 years. That is quite frankly an absurd amount of time to elect someone for. They got into this mess because they insisted on having a five year fixed term parliament, which is a tricky number to put other elections around because it is prime (so for example election every two years for the new elected House of Lords would quickly get out of cycle) the way to solve this is to have a fixed term of four years, but that is for another blog. I have digressed somewhat from my original point about a 15 year term in office, that means a lord who stood for election today would not have to face the electorate again until 2026. One of the biggest arguments the Yes2AV camp used to justify changing the voting system was to eradicate the so called jobs for life for MP's, why are the same people trying to maintain jobs for life, for Lords?

I am equally baffled by the decision that the voting system (deep sighs all round I know) chosen is STV. The House of Lords has no need for constituencies, that should be the preserve of the House of Commons. This would help to keep the House of Commons as the main voice of the people. It is quite right that MP's questioned Clegg on this as it will inevitably create some confusion around who to go to. Using a list system (whether open or closed) does not create the same problems.  

Other people will have many other problems with the Lords Reform as it stands, for example the 20% of lords who will remain appointed or the fact that this really should be lower down the list of priorities for the government at the moment. So whilst I agree with principle of Lords reform, I am at this time struggling to place my support behind it. As with the referendum I am worried that this will be another failed attempt at constitutional reform.

What is to become of the Liberal Democrats?

What is to become of the Lib Dems? Last may like many people around the country, I sat in a polling booth considering whether to vote tactically in order to try to oust the Conservative MP. Thankfully I did not vote Liberal Democrat and four days later I felt vindicated in sticking to my values.

A year on the Lib dems are undeniably in trouble. They spent a lot of last week 'prospect managing' for the election, so that any result slightly better than expected and could be used as some kind of success. However this tactic backfired, the performance was worse and I'm not sure they quite know what to do.

I've said this many times over the last few days but if I was a lib dem I would be worried. They got hammered across the board including completely capitulating in Scotland. It seems they have a choice. To stick with Clegg who is now toxic and deep in trouble or to attempt to change leader.

Both strategies are risky if they stick with Clegg and a coalition in it's current form then it is likely they will continue to take the hit for the coalition. However if they change and attempt to redefine themselves within the coalition the conservatives could smell blood and let the coalition fall apart to gain electoral advantage. I personally would be tempted to try to rebrand the party, meaning that Clegg would have to go. He is beyond salvation in the mind of the British electorate and sticking with him condemns the Liberal Democrats to electoral oblivion.

We have already seen some movement within the Lib Dems, potential replacements jostling for position. Huhne having his cabinet argument with Osbourne in a bid to look strong and Cable this weekend criticizing the tories. Neither will make the first move for fear of doing a Hesletine and wielding the knife without any reward, but both have positioned themselves just in case. The question now is will anyone be brave enough to attempt to take Clegg down? I suspect not. Though if more party members like the former leader of Nottingham Liberal Democrats continue to call for his head perhaps some MP's will feel pressured into it. Only time will tell.