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
Range voting can be of course be gamed tactically using mix/max rather than intermediate scores, and anyone not using the same is disadvantaged. Moreover, Range Voting simply is not proportional and would trend towards two parties even more than FPTP.
Really, anyone who claims that we need a “prerequisite”, when plenty of countries have gone to PR, is simply anti-change. RRV is completely unproven, no country uses it, and it almost demands the usage of highest/lowest scoring.
Plurality voting for local seats under MMP keeps the constituency-voter link (which is important in the UK), but parties over the threshold of list votes are reprisented proportionately – ensuring that the drawbacks of plurality voting are negated. You’re telling scare stories.
Range voting might have some advantages compared to STV, but I don’t advocate STV.
Ringstone
Each to their own – I’m wedded to the idea of MPs having a distinct electorate who can sack them. What’s cerain is that the status quo can not stand.
Leon Wolfeson
I’m not. The reality is that the blind ideologically-based voting in safe seats mean it’s only theoretical that they can be sacked anyway!
I’d rather have parties lose out entirely on list votes if they can’t get 4% of them – and I point to the fate of PASOK as what awaits Labour under MMP (and cry me a river for them!).
And quite – voting reform is needed. The exact form can be discussed, but the existing system is broken. I simply don’t see your proposed system as much different in practice ><
(Also, I prefer a system which is already in use and has been tested. The only difference I'd have from Germany – which is one used in several other places – is to allocate overhang seats at national and not regional level, meaning FAR fewer!)
sarntcrip
i thought labour were going to scrap the lords
sarntcrip
sadly i have a tory MP THEY TOTALLY DESTROYED ANY CHANCE OF THE ELECTORATE BEING ABLE TO SACK THEIR MP’WITHOUT A VETO