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
48 Responses to “Democracy shouldn’t be for sale – Cash for Peerages should unite the left”
Leon Wolfeson
Ireland?
Canada?
Germany?
Netherlands?
Switzerland?
Come off it. Yes, Unicameral legislatures are more common, but in that case you need another form of check and balance – and the only ones which seems to work are either an independent military (unacceptable to Western democracy) or a strong constitution (which is even riper for abuse by the rich).
You absolutely CAN’T have a Unicameral legislature and Parliamentary Sovereignty…not if things are not to go off track very badly.
Faerieson
Pehaps you have more faith in achieving any form of political or voting reform, than I do. Currently ‘our’ second chamber has precious little in common with any aspect of democracy.
Also regardless of what various government representatives might be saying in public, Europe has surely and steadily been ushering in an ever greater and disparate division of wealth, very much in the interests of a faceless 1%, and shrinking.
Grasping at scant straws, we might look towards one of the better Scandanavian models.
theLoneRanger
Every voting system is susceptible to strategic voting. The question is, which one is least affected? The case you give of some voters voting strategically and gaining an advantage over honest voters is studied on the following page:
http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html
As you can see, Range voting and its variants outperform other systems when dealing with this problem.
You also claim that RV would tend towards two parties even quicker? Doubtful. With range, voters aren’t punished for having choices. You can have twenty candidates and it is still well behaved, unlike many other systems which suffer from vote splitting, teaming, cloning, etc…We would field more candidates under range.
Leon Wolfeson
You mean I support it, and am working for it? Yes.
Either you do or you don’t, afaik.
The Lords is a distraction from the important bit – changing the voting system for the commons.
And that’s because of Capitalism. Which we can do something about /here/ IF we get voting reform and hence some left wingers in Parliament!
Faerieson
I think we’ve been here before.