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”
Guest
Oh right, only your far right are good.
Leon Wolfeson
Lords reform is a diversion. Recall is a diversion. State funding is a diversion. Lots of diversions.
They can be fixed later. What matters is voting reform for the commons.
IRV has little to no support, systems like MMP did far, far better in polling before the AV referendum.
And you’re still a LibDem, and via cabinet collective responsibility…
Ringstone
A simple, though imperfect, solution lies in adopting AV for the lower house. This would require MPs to obtain at least the aquiescence of 51% of their electorate to get the gig, and end 35% strategies as political parties have to widen their appeal beyond their comfort zone. The next big gain would be the first preference votes which could be used to introduce an element of PR by populating the upper house on the basis of first preferences cast – though I’ve always distrusted party lists as candidates are answerable to the man who writes the list and not the “demos”. The issue of split legitimacy could be addressed by requiring a supermajority in the upper house for Government business to fail a second time – which would then also become a confidence vote.
The issue of finance could also be addressed by attaching it to first preferences, so I could give my money and maybe a seat in the Lords to the Monster Raving Looney Party and then use my second preference to pick the least worst of the main contenders for office: even better if there was a box to withold my share altogether if I wished.
Every vote would count, even in a “safe seat”, and parties would be incentivised to a) engage voters to vote and b) fight for the first preference, instead of going for “who gets most seconds”.
And if the people choose not to financially support our political parties? Well who says they have a divine right to exist? If they no longer have legitimacy they should fade away and make room for new ones.
Not a perfect solution in the view of many no doubt, but you could grow old and die waiting for that – as could our democracy.
Leon Wolfeson
I don’t think that’s a good solution at all. A marginal lowering of safe seats is offset by fairness issues – for example, AV would have in the past been massively unfair to the Tories, basically wiping them out (to below-Lib-dem levels). In fact, it makes parties risk-averse because they can’t afford to annoy voters. You’d get the same bland neoliberal choices as today, with competition – as today – for outdoing each other on near-identical policies (“like them, BUT with a cherry on top”)
I have heard the “upper house” one before, but I don’t think it’s a good idea (I did at one point, then changed my mind). You really can’t use first preferences under AV for that, though, or you’ll end up with a lot of people just voting once – making it far more like FPTP for local seats.
If you then cripple the second house, you’ve crippled the PR element. You end up with pretty much today’s situation under your mix of ideas. Parties will just go “don’t waste your first preference on gimmick parties”…and they’d actually be right to do so!
No, sorry, I support PR – MMP – for the commons.
I agree party lists are not ideal, but to be entirely honest the core party people are going to be in safe seats anyway under either system, and I’d rather have the core people who will be busy running the party and paying little attention to their constituents…not have constituents.
Basically, Parties should be distinctive. They should not be afraid to have strong policies which offend some voters. And they should, in the end, not be penalised too heavily for that.
ClayShentrup
> IRV and Range have singificant flaws, support the existing parties the most of any proportional system and are ideal for tactical voting.
These are common naive intuition-based fallacies.
Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is actually extremely resistant to tactical behavior.
http://www.electology.org/tactical-voting
It improves voter satisfaction drastically.
ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html
It is very doubtful that proportional representation can compare to that, although we have no way to calculate Bayesian regret for multi-winner systems.
ScoreVoting.net/PropRep.html
Additionally, Score Voting may be a necessary *prerequisite* to PR, particularly in countries dominated by Plurality Voting.
asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
Score voting also has a proportional multi-winner form that is arguably superior to MMP.
ScoreVoting.net/RRV.html
Bear in mind that MMP still uses the horrendously bad Plurality Voting for selecting the local representatives.
Clay Shentrup
Co-founder, The Center for Election Science