Politicians must not be allowed to again kick reform of the Lords into the long grass
New findings from three political scientists which are revealed in today’s Observer suggests that the main parties at Westminster are selling peerages – that it is no longer something many suspect occurs, but is something of a statistical fact. Under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 this activity is also illegal.
Given the drip of stories around sleaze and hollow commitments made to clean up politics over recent decades, it should be little wonder that there is a low level of public trust in government and politicians. Its corrosive long term effect on society and the impact of big money in politics however should concern us all.
We can’t build a country of active citizens if people don’t engage in politics; we will struggle to forge commitment to moral values that emphasise the common good if political leaders live otherwise; the quality of our politicians will suffer if those remaining in the talent pool are just after a career. And on the left we will struggle to counter the current stagnation in wages and proceeds of growth accruing to asset owners if big money continues to buy influence – the devolution of power and wealth surely go hand in hand.
If the political class is to build and sustain greater trust it has to change how Peers are appointed (the House of Lords Appointment Commission has clearly failed), but it must also be open about the consequences of the current system. As long as selecting Peers rests in the hands of a select few then the appointment process will remain open to abuse and patronage. As long as parties go touting for big donations they will remain open to the influence of big money.
The latest scandal provides an obvious opportunity to complete the process of centuries of democratic reform by finally making the second chamber elected. Parties should also receive greater state funding, because our democracy is worth it. Some voters are sceptical of greater state funding of Parties, but this is in part because the standing of political parties is so low that they are considered an inappropriate source of public funds.
But we cannot allow this misguided and ultimately contradictory perspective to dictate public policy; otherwise it will be only a matter of time until future scandal fuels more public disengagement.
Forming a constitutional convention, like that which preceded the creation of the Scottish Parliament, could be very helpful – but nothing must be allowed to yet again kick reform of the Lords into the long grass, and such reform provides a useful cause to bring together all left-wing parties.
Political reform is sorely needed, it will lead to greater reforms (political and economic), and can help give the left a common purpose. It should be high on the left’s political agenda in the next Parliament, which looks very likely to be hung.
Paul Pettinger is a Council member of the Electoral Reform Society and member of the Liberal Democrats. He voted against his Party entering a coalition with the Conservatives and writes in a personal capacity
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
48 Responses to “Democracy shouldn’t be for sale – Cash for Peerages should unite the left”
littleoddsandpieces
…We can’t build a country of active citizens if people don’t engage in politics;…
Citizens are not active in engaging with politics and have not been for decades now.
It might be nice if the Electoral Reform Society kept up with public perceptions.
But with the fewest voters due to turn out on Thursday 7 May
in UK history, this gives small left wing parties
their best chance in UK history.
…future scandal fuels more public disengagement. …
The Lib Dems are the ones who will be the gone party,
having lost worst than any other party ever in the last by election,
losing their depositi like some micro party,
gaining not even a mere 400 votes.
But Tories, UKIP, Labour and Lib Dem are all equally suffering this candidate attrition by scandals.
We are in full electioneering mode.
Lib Dems are not a party of the left, but of th right, proved by coalition with the arch-right wing party The Tories, the party of the
1 per cent with income above £125,000 a year.
The sitting Lib Dems MPs would do better to run as different party in marginals in England
(with the largest number of marginals with slim majoritie).
Give up in Cornwall and support the Mebyon Kernow candidates, running in all Cornwall voting areas,
with the most slim Tory and Lib Dem marginals, helping MK gain Cornish trade union campaign funds.
In England, convert to:
TUSC – TRADE UNIONIST AND SOCIALIST COALITION
Running over 124 MP candidates and so in 1/6th of the seats, which should give the right of fair media coverage, but gaining none.
Most members of TUSC are ex Labour who left or were expelled from the Labour party for going against Labour’s austerity policies, or trade union officials also anti-austerity cuts.
The Lib Dems could assist TUSC by gaining an equal amount of donations from the trade unions to TUSC, to that gained by Labour’s campaign fund. At least Lib Dems would be ensured of where donations are coming from.
DON’T BOTHER WITH THE CELT NATIONS
The Celt parties already ensure supply and confidence coalition partners.
THE EXPERTS SEEM UNAWARE ENTIRELY OF HOW THE PUBLIC THINK
The public would not care less if the House of Lords was abolished.
Easy to put forward over 900 less politicians on expenses, with a champagne budget.
The public in London – where this upper-house of parliament is located – are suffering entire housing association estates being sold off to developers planning to build luxury flats, and being re-housed in Birmingham or Stoke-on-Trent, where work is harder to come by.
So evictions are not only because of the hated Bedroom Tax, with upwards of 4000 evictions a year (and therefore cost to cash strapped councils), but whole housing estates in London more and more.
Ask Russell Brand.
http://www.anastasia-england.me.uk
notimpressed
“Political reform is sorely needed, it will lead to greater reforms (political and economic), and can help give the left a common purpose. It should be high on the left’s political agenda in the next Parliament, which looks very likely to be hung”.
The left, And the right, Have a common purpose, and when that purpose comes light, they will both be hung. In the web of their own deceit.
RobertDavidSTEELEVivas
I am so very glad to see electoral reform being discussed in the UK — we in the US are starting to gear up for an eight-point confrontation, and I would be glad to see our peers (pun intended) in the UK and Australia embrace this eight-point program because the evil ones will try to distract you with change or progress on one or two of these, knowing that unless you achieve all eight, there will be no transformation. The eight are, in this order: 01 free & equal ballot access; 02 tight-drawn districts ending gerrymandering; 03 equal public funding and no more corporate funding for all qualified candidates; 04 free & equal access to print and broadcast media for all qualified candidates; 05 debates to include at least three other caniddates beyond the two-parties controlling the debate commission; 06 paper ballots counted publicly onsite ending the
prevalent electronic fraud; 07 end winner take all plurality voting and institute new voting system (e.g. instant run-off or range voting); and 08 all legislation to be posted in advance so citizens may instruct their putative representatives on how to vote. Readers can learn more at http://tinyurl.com/OpenPower.
Guest
Let’s see;
2. Gerrymandering can be achieved by over-tight drawing.
3. Equal regardless of prior support? Can’t agree. Also helps the existing parties too much.
4. Equal access for candidates with little to no support? Er…
5. Numbers is not what makes a debate useful
6. You’re not aware of how votes are counted in the UK then.
7. IRV and Range have singificant flaws, support the existing parties the most of any proportional system and are ideal for tactical voting. Other systems like MMP have significantly more support in the UK.
8. You’re not aware of the UK system, again, and indeed don’t appear to be aware of representative democracy.
Leon Wolfeson
The ERS campaigned for AV and now wants IRV, they’re a hindrance more than a help, tbh.