We need to bring democracy back to life. Let’s start with the House of Lords

The events of this week were yet another reminder of how far behind Westminster is in adapting to the new world.

The events of this week were yet another reminder of how far behind Westminster is in adapting to the new world

In a parliamentary democracy, the idea of a second chamber to revise primary legislation and to take a longer view than the main chamber sounds good in theory. And indeed, in the UK we are served by some distinguished legislators who sit in the House of Lords.

The problem is that no matter how hard they work and how effective their interventions might be, none of it can mask the lunacy of the way the House of Lords is constituted.

We’ve seen it again this week on two fronts. Firstly, the prime minister appointed an additional four peers. So as not to upset the gender balance, he was careful to choose three men and a single woman – thus ensuring the 75:25 split in favour of men in the Lords was preserved. One of his appointments appears to have been made in response to the politics of the day – in this case, immigration issues.

So a lawmaker is ennobled to help with the ‘optics’ of current politics. It’s all high-principled stuff.

Next we saw one of the more quirky aspects of an institution with more than its fair share of quirks: an election for a hereditary peer. There are still 90 places in the Lords reserved for people who have as their qualification for a peerage the mere fact of their birth.

So a micro constituency supplies the only people who are actually elected to the second chamber. To be a candidate one must descend from the aristocracy. It would be impossible to make this stuff up.

Despite the heroic efforts of the political class to thwart reform, changes to the House of Lords are inevitable for two reasons.

Firstly, size. In its report The Super-Sized Second Chamber, the Electoral Reform Society pointed out that the House of Lords was second in size only to the People’s Republic of China, who on last checking had a slightly larger population than the UK With so many political appointments of life peers having been made, the number of people eligible to sit, vote and claim the £300 tax-free allowance per day is 849 (minus a small number on leave of absence).

Not only are there not enough seats or office space for this huge number of lawmakers, but as former Conservative constitution minister Mark Harper has noted: “If we have one more change of government it is going to have over 1000 members.”

The truth is it will nearly nudge that number anyway when the Dissolution appointments are made at the end of this Parliament. David Cameron’s first three years as PM saw him appoint four times the number of peers than Gordon Brown did in his three years in Downing Street. And pro-rata Mr Cameron has appointed significantly more than Tony Blair.

The second reason why reform cannot be avoided comes from the impact the Scottish independence referendum has had – and will continue to have – on politics. The Westminster club in its current form is no longer seen as holding any credibility for the new politics needed to re-engage citizens. We need a citizen-led Constitutional Convention to bring democracy back to life right across the UK.

All the parties (and we are now in an age of five- if not six-party politics) have signalled their support for such a move, with the exception so far of the Conservatives. And it is difficult to see how the House of Lords can be left out of that conversation.

Scotland showed us that where the issues are relevant and real and where every vote counts, citizens have a deep desire to be part of their democratic future. The events of this week relating to the House of Lords were yet another reminder of how far behind Westminster is in adapting to the new world.

Darren Hughes is deputy chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. He was a New Zealand Labour MP and minister in Helen Clark’s government

33 Responses to “We need to bring democracy back to life. Let’s start with the House of Lords”

  1. Leon Wolfeson

    Let’s see;

    Wikipedia – Second line; “AMS is sometimes confused with the mixed member proportional representation system”

    So…nope.

    Your propaganda is just that, there’s plenty of arguments on both sides, but the reality is that MMP tends to be selected when there’s a move to PR in other countries for very good reasons.

    You are pushing a one-sided propaganda site, rather than having a debate, as you make empty statements without backing on STV, and I find your proposal that party leaders etc. must also tend a constituancy (or rather, to be to busy to do so) is a drawback which we already see, and which I would fix.

    Nobody worries about “two-class” MP’s in Germany or New Zealand, it’s not on the radar of political issues.

  2. AnthonyTuffin

    The “very good reasons” that countries have tended to adopt mixed list systems like MMP and AMS are that political parties have supported them because such systems increase party power. STV decreases party power and increases voter power.

    With STV, citizens can vote for any candidate they wish without fear of wasting their vote. The transfer system ensures this.

    With STV, Conservative voters can show whether they prefer (for example) a pro-EU or an anti-EU Conservative MP without voting against the party.

    Having two classes of representatives in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly has been very controversial issue. There is only one class of representative with STV.

    You are right that my site, http://www.stvAction.org.uk, exists to promote STV. That is because STV is the best voting system yet invented.

  3. Leon Wolfeson

    STV does nothing of the sort, of course, it leads to complex forms of tactical voting which are pointless under MMP.

    Your constant copy/paste propaganda, blind of any of the drawbacks and your unwillingness to engage in debate really is defining you here.

    STV keeps the current “coalition” parties, where nobody is very happy with policy, and MP’s of course tend to end up voting as their party demands. MMP leads – as seen in Germany and New Zealand – on the other hand to the major political groupings being reflected in the parties, and giving the left and right a coherent voice rather than being small and usually irrelevant wings of Coalition “Parties”.

    And your constant insistence that people be badly represented locally by busy party leaders…well…

  4. AnthonyTuffin

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I nail my colours to the STV mast just as you nail yours to the MMP mast.

    I am trying to debate with you but you seem more interested in insulting me.

    I am not advocating proportional representation generally. I advocate a form of choice voting (STV) that happens to be proportional and is best for voters for many reasons, but especially because it maximizes their choices. MMP restricts their choices

    I don’t know whether you misunderstand STV or deliberately misrepresent it. The fact is it makes representatives far more responsive to voters than MMP or any other system does. Therefore, they are less – not more likely – to vote as their parties demand.

    As for tactical voting, it is virtually impossible with STV so, far from being a disadvantage of the system, is an advantage.

    Your accusation that I constantly insist that people would be badly represented locally by MMP is totally false. I don’t usually think MMP is worth discussing so I don;t spend much time on it. I am discussing it now only to educate other readers who might otherwise be taken in by your propaganda.

    I don’t doubt that citizens could be reasonably well represented by Councillors or MPs elected by MMP, but they would be much better represented if we had STV.

  5. Leon Wolfeson

    You are not debating, you are copy/pasting and linking to a one-sided site.

    Of course you’re determined to get your way and are not willing to accept any PR is better than FPTP, I get it. Stopping reading now, this is pointless, since you are determined not to see any of the drawbacks to STV, which is THE system for tactical voting.

Comments are closed.