The Rowntrees backed Power 2010 coalition for the renewal of politics launched yesterday (see Guy's post). Helena Kennedy had an article in the Independent with the headline "This is our chance to seize power - it may be the last one we get". They are calling on everyone to send in their ideas for reforms that will make a difference. Over 100 came in on the first day. You can post your ideas and proposals HERE on the new Power 2010 website and back it up with a video too. I'll be writing more about this important development. But here is the proposal I just sent in:
No More Lords - no more peers to be appointed to the Lords. None. Busta! Because people want to see an end to corruption and backhanders and the crony appointments to the Lords is the main source of corruption in British politics. Unless we stop them now there will be a tranche of Blairite riff raff all saying they have to serve out the rest of their lives there or get compensation. It is a simple demand with big implications and would provide a clear expression of public contempt for the status quo.
Comments
How would you have Lords selected, though, Anthony? Do we really want a 100%-elected Lords or Senate, making it another preserve of party politics? Perhaps we should make it a precondition of being (s)elected for the Second House, in whatever form it continues, that members should relinquish membership of any political party and should absolutely not re-create party politics unofficially within the Chamber by things such as whipping, factions and the like. Possibly, we should ban former MPs from standing, too, so it doesn't become the place where they're put out to grass while still lending support to their colleagues in the Commons.
Surely every parliamentary chamber should be openly elected. The logic that party politics corrupts applies to the Commons too, and would you have that unelected or membership restricted in some way? Hard to see how that would improve things. The US-senatorial model, with long terms, rotated in sequence on fixed dates, for elected members with real constituencies, seems a good starting point for the second chamber. But beyond selection, the question of the house's powers and constitutional role is, I think, the real battleground.
Hi there Britology! I'm for a large element of sortition and unblushingly recommend The Athenian Option I wrote with Peter Carty published by the brilliant Imprint Academic. You can't just reform the Lords - it is 50 per cent of parliament which must be treated as a whole. The point of my suggestion is to put a foot down and say: no more carrying on as usual.
Just as an interjection the French senate is elected by France's Mayors. The Cornish Democrat
Although I agree with your principle about the house of lords I have a problem with your suggestion. Throughout the last decade of labour governing, it has only been the house of lords which has stood against some of the draconian and terribly drafted laws passed by the Commons. Wouldn't making the lords chamber elected result in yet another elite class who will do anything unwise to grab headlines? The house of lords in principle offend me, but they have served us remarkably well in guarding our constitution and liberty against the elected chamber.
Maybe there is space for an unelected set of politicians, where vanity doesn't affect their actions!
Post new comment