The government has announced it will be launching a review into the powers of the House of Lords
Just one in 10 think the House of Lords should remain unelected, according to a new poll by the Electoral Reform Society.
The findings come after the government announced it will be launching a review into the powers of the House of Lords, led by Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde.
The former leader of the House of Lords told the BBC that the Lords had the “power but not the authority” to challenge the Commons over the issue, adding that they had behaved “deplorably” by seeking major changes to tax credits cuts.
According to the poll, by BMG Research almost half (48 per cent) of the public think the Lords should be an elected chamber, while nearly a quarter (22 per cent) back abolition. This compares to one in ten who back the status quo.
Commenting on the poll, deputy chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society Darren Hughes said the public “want real reform of the House of Lords – not just tinkering around the edges”:
“The time for root and branch reform is now – it is simply wrong in a modern democracy for legislators to remain unelected.
“The government are tying themselves in knots over the question of Lords reform, with George Osborne saying he supports an elected upper house, while this review only looks at the issue of conventions. They shouldn’t be making changes to our constitution out of partisan interest, just because they lost a couple of votes – they have to deal with the crux of the matter: the make-up of the constitutional calamity that is the House of Lords.
“Instead of simply emasculating our revising chamber, they should ensure it has the legitimacy it needs to be a real check on executive power. That can only happen through electing it.”
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.
14 Responses to “Just one in 10 think Lords should remain unelected”
David Lindsay
People abroad must sometimes wonder why we do not riot against the existence of the House of Lords. But we are not much of a riotous lot. And if we were going to have riots, then they would be far more likely over the tax credit cuts that the Lords have just voted down, than over the House of Lords itself.
Why do people think that that House is still full of toffs? That is the House of Commons. Britain is about to complete 35 years of Marxism in reverse: Thatcher and Blair defeated the proletariat on behalf of the bourgeoisie, and now Cameron and Osborne are planning to defeat the bourgeoisie (the businesspeople, academics, and senior public sector managers in the Lords) on behalf of the aristocracy.
We have all mused on potential alternatives to the second chamber, and I myself have occasionally even been paid to do so, when there was no possibility that any of it might ever come to anything. Now, however, the threat is from that which is always the most ruthless section of our body politic, namely the Tory upper classes when they have been denied their own way. This time, therefore, it could happen. Almost certainly, that would mean a county-based House, elected by First Past The Post. An alternative really does need to be in place.
Every six years, let each of the 99 lieutenancy areas elect three Senators, one Labour, one Conservative, and one Lib Dem, with each of those parties submitting its internally determined shortlist of two to the judgement of the electorate at large. A week later, or a week earlier, let each of the nine English regions elect 30 Senators, namely six Labour, six Conservatives, six Lib Dems, six from other parties that did not thereafter contest elections to the House of Commons, and six Independents to sit as Crossbenchers.
Any member of the relevant party would be eligible to contest the first, second and third categories of election. Each of us would vote for one candidate, and the top six would be elected. The fourth category would be elected by party list, and the fifth by the same means as the first three, but open only to people who were members of no party.
On the same day, let Scotland and Wales each elect five Labour, five Conservative, five Lib Dem, five Nationalist, five non-Commons other party, and five Crossbench Senators. And let Northern Ireland elect three from Labour, three from the Tories, three from the Lib Dems, three from the UUP, three from the DUP, three from the SDLP, three from Sinn Féin, three from the Alliance Party, three from non-Commons other parties, and three Crossbenchers.
A grand total of 657 Senators. Quite large, but necessarily so, and much smaller than the House of Lords. Representation of the rural Labour vote, which would pose quite a challenge to many a local Tory oligarchy. Representation of the Unionist majority in Scotland. And representation of Northern Ireland within the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem bodies at Westminster.
The aristocratic wing of the Conservative Party has been crossed, and it is merciless when that happens. It is going to propose some elected alternative, to its own satisfaction. That would not constitute an improvement.
Giford
Very detailed plan David – but on what basis Tory, Labour and Lib Dem guaranteed seats? Would UKIP or the SNP (or, more importantly, their supporters) be pleased to be ruled out of the upper chamber?
Mark Myword
It is all pie in the sky. The Lords will never be directly elected house – there are too many vested interests outside the Lords against that, and there is too little interest in the population at large. Reform of the Lords will come by gradual and incremental change – softly softly catchee monkey. Gradually the size will be capped and compulsory retirement introduced. Next it will remain mainly appointed, but some form of indirect election leading to appointment will be introduced – the model of the Bishops and remaining hereditaries gives an example. I doubt whether the indirect elections will use geographical constituencies; rather they will use constituencies of ‘interest or ‘expertise’. In broad terms – sciences, arts, politics, local government, medicine, religion etc. Finally, I cannot see any Prime Minister giving up his/her power to make appointments to the Lords; it offers too much power through patronage.
David Lindsay
Who asked them? But they wouldn’t be. Although UKIP is a busted flush, anyway. And Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all need to commit themselves to a referendum on Scottish independence during the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament, thereby calling out the cowardice of the SNP. That would also make possible a debate on something else instead. For example, the SNP’s woeful record of public service delivery.
Moreover, the legislation providing for further devolution, legislation that will be purely Westminster, needs to ban parties from contesting elections to the House of Commons if they also contested elections to Holyrood. Everyone apart from the SNP would vote gleefully for that. Would the SNP then be prepared to be seen to be the only party to vote against Third Reading of the Bill giving effect to “The Vow”?
Selohesra
A tad arrogant to dismiss UKIP as busted flush – they got 60% more votes than Lib Dems at last GE – if anyone is busted flush it would be them