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
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
48 Responses to “Democracy shouldn’t be for sale – Cash for Peerages should unite the left”
Leon Wolfeson
Why? Your vote WILL ensure that your party get very very near the
same % of seats as voters, as long as you’re above threshold. Local
voting determines who the local MP is, yes, but as your list vote
counts…there’s no good reason NOT to use a single, clear FPTP method
for that.
(AV+ has several kinds of issues which have never been resolved)
Range
is an untried and unproven system and there are serious issues
combining it with MMP (since *at best* you have two different types of
ballot on different sides of the paper, for starters…), and it reacts
very strongly to either small or large numbers gaming it – the 50/50
split in your study was designed for minimum impact!
Moreover, it’s trying to solve a problem MMP already mitigates against.
Leon Wolfeson
I’m going to roll my eyes at your attitude.
Things were not as bad before. And trying to persuade satisfied people that change is needed is hard. Moreover, even half a decade ago the channels of communication were not as broad. The internet has democratised access to information.
ClayShentrup
Since you didn’t read that link last time, I’ll try to make a simple explanation of the fallacy you’re making.
Suppose we have game #1, where all players receive $5, and there’s no way to cheat. Now suppose we have activity #2, where honest players receive $6, and cheaters receive $7.
Your flawed logic would say that game #1 is preferable to the honest players. The fallacy is that you’re comparing honest players to cheaters *within the same system*, when what you want to be doing is comparing any given player *to himself in the two alternative systems*.
The goal of a voting system is to maximize net utility. Which Score Voting does.
http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html
And if enough voters are honest, the average utility of the HONEST voters ends up being better than with Approval Voting.
http://ScoreVoting.net/ShExpRes.html
Voting theory is amazing complex and counterintuitive. You should start by reading “Gaming the Vote” before you trust your intuition.
Faerieson
Rolling one’s eyes is always a positive move. You see, I would never stoop to such. In reality, we are probably not so very far apart in our political ideals. I’m just older and more jaded than you are. You should concentrate your fire more carefully!
Leon Wolfeson
I am. You seem to be opting out, so you get some mild sarcasm.
(Also, many of the best and most effective campaigners I know are older, so I’m not sure why you’re saying that one. Jaded, I’ll give you!)