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.
I fully agree with your comments here Rob. It seems that Clegg really is trying his best to hold back any kind of constitutional reform with the way he goes about these things. The 'Yes to AV' campaign was appallingly managed and a disaster in terms of the methods it used to try and persaude people to support it.
ReplyDeleteHouse of Lords Reform as outlined here would be equally disastrous from what is being said and indeed the culmination of the two could bring the whole need for constitutional reform into disrepute. People cannot be elected for 15 years as that is a nonsense and there is a need for 'experts' in various areas of life to be key members of the Lords although how they are chosen needs considerable thought. The Lords should not be a reflection of the Commons, as you correctly point out, that would cause confusion.
It would make more sense if the elected element of the Lords (the size of that should be debated) should be elected in 2 phases. 50% of the elected Lords members could be selected at the general election and 50% 2 years later so they act in a similar way to the way it does in America and you then have a kind of mid term check or support for the actions of the executive.