And another thing…

It seems a mighty coincidence that of the ten peers approached, the only four that agreed to take money in return for amending laws were Labour peers.

I agree that reform isn’t needed. The Bribery laws already seem to cover what these people agreed to do.

Er, I think you’ll find it is the HOUSE OF COMMONS that called for a fully elected second chamber and it was voting on the basis of a white paper from the Ministry of Justice which made it clear that the election would have to be by proportional representation.

But keep up your role as apologist-in-chief. It makes entertaining reading.

For once, I disagree with you here Tom. The lack of accountability of the Lords leads to suboptimal performance. I doubt if even you would hurry out of bed in the morning if you didn’t think that someone was on your case to do it.

You’re right about the likely lib-dem kneejerk reaction, but I think there are some legitimate questions that need to be asked – not least, how can a decision be made on this by a chamber of people who would inevitably have their powers curtailed by a more powerful and effective Lords.

Labour had the bottle to do it in Scotland, Wales and London. Now’s the time to step up to the mark and show that this government’s ambitions for constitutional renewal aren’t spent.

PS, just posted on this myself – here: http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2009/01/house-of-lords.html

Actually Tom it wasn’t that long that Labour were also talking about reform of the open chamber. Now the fact that after almost 12 years thar reform has been minimal and posts such as this does show that this is exactly all this was – talk.

There have also been times that the Government have been irritated with the way that the Upper Chamber carries out its business as it gets in the way of them smoothly dictating policy. However, at such times some government representatives have been known to bemoan the lack of accountability for exactly the same place.

I’ll admit the current system serves a purpose. I also would argue that it can yet serve it better.

Stephen: “…after almost 12 years thar reform has been minimal and posts such as this does show that this is exactly all this was – talk.”

Fingers crossed, Steve, fingers crossed…

I am a dirty liberal type. I support further moves towards independence of Scotland (though, it must be said, not complete independence…). I can’t stand much of the current government, nor, for that matter either the LibDems or Tories. Frankly, I don’t think any of the three major parties could organise a drunken night out in a brewery without getting caught up in arguments about (a) licensing laws, (b) who will keep them safe and secure while they’re drinking, or (c) whether the Internet is the root of all evil and what would happen if a paedophile overheard their heated discussion. But I digress…

However, I completely agree with your sentiment with respect to the Lords. Reform of some kind is needed, and I’m pretty sure this was one of Tony Blair’s great initiatives… except that nobody—and I do mean nobody—has proposed a workable alternative to anything we’ve had in the past 100 years. The fact is, the Lords were the bastion of British clear-headed thinking by way of not having to *care* what anybody thought of their decisions, least not the Daily Mail hacks to whom much of the debate in the Commons seems so beholden. We’ve already moved too far from that for my liking without offering a clear direction to take the upper House (the fact that some Lords demonstrate clear party allegiances defeats their purpose somewhat).

The simple fact is, as you rightly say, that the Commons collectively panders: if not to the constituency, then to the the party. The Lords didn’t, and that degree of conservatism (in the classical “cautious” rather than “moronic” sense) has saved the bacon of the n+1 Government on numerous occasions.

I must say, though, given some of the horrific legislation that’s been passed over the past five years, either some of the Lords *are* being paid off, or all of the good ones who kept the Commons in check have moved on to pastures new and left the last bastion of legislative sensibility in the hands of a collection of pandering monkeys who wouldn’t feel out of place getting whipped on the Commons backbenches.

Quite honestly—and I do mean this entirely genuinely—I don’t know which it is. For the sake of the country, I’d actually rather it was the case that some of them were being paid off. The alternative is an upper House that’s utterly impotent for no nefarious reason at all, and that’s harder to fix.

“Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer — except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Tom, what a pity you didn’t give Tony Blair that advice in 1997 when he embarked on a reform process he had no idea how to conclude.

I don’t see how any democrat can argue for a system of patronage and against an elected second chamber.

I don’t see the problem with reforming the Lords myself Tom? Why not have a directly elected second chamber by proportional representation? Pay them a good annual salary and ensure that they are elected for 10 year terms. It will ensure that their make up mirrors the political make up of the country, and will ensure that they are able to stand up to the commons when needed.

Can you really say that’s a worse system than the government appointing them based on recommendations and political deals?

I agree with Iain Dale. We had a bad system before, but since 1997 the system is a disgrace and open to abuse now. The people should decide who represents them not the government.

@James Graham
“But keep up your role as apologist-in-chief. It makes entertaining reading.”

As opposed to your less than entertaining role of ill informed ranting mostly centred around bashing Nick Clegg every single chance you get?

I know which i’d rather…….

John – I worry about the PR aspect – not the proportionality, but the power it gives to political parties.

All of the major parties claim to promote ‘decentralisation’ – I’d like to see progress towards decentralisation – in it’s fullest meaning – be the yardstick by which all political reform is measured.

All the same allegations are being levelled at Labour(incompetence, sleaze, hypocrisy) as were levelled at Major’s government in its final days.

2010 is looking distinctly like a mix of 1979 and 1997…

People who are not elected by anyone should not have the right to make or amend laws.
I saw the way the Lords held up the Hunting Act for so long as they were so keen to keep their friends sadistic ’sports’ legal.
Please lets be shot of this feudal nonsense.

This “feudal nonsense” is the reason we exist in a society of law today and enjoy some measure of freedom from the tyranny of an elected autocracy.

To brush aside a thousand years of history (not neglecting to mention that, for the most part, it actually works as intended) to satisfy the whims of the day is simply foolish.

“…freedom from the tyranny of an elected autocracy.”

Paleotory rubbish.

@ Paulie.

Abuse isn’t debate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

Ah something about the lords.

This is possible breaking the law not playing the stock market.

I don’t want a House of Lords that stands up to the government. The government is elected by the people and having a second chamber whose role it is to block, delay and obfuscate is anti-democratic (whether elected or not – that’s a red herring).

Get rid of them entirely.

I agree with Paulie, Richard. To say we’re better off relying on the patronage of an unelected chamber wholley unanswerable to to the people of this country is a point so bizzare that it can’t really be debated.

@ Tim f
“The government is elected by the people and having a second chamber whose role it is to block, delay and obfuscate is anti-democratic”

No, the government is appointed by Her Majesty based on which party has the most seats in the Commons. Generally UK governments don’t enjoy a majority of those who voted, let alone a majority of those eligible to vote. The idea that an elected government’s power should be infinite and that there should be no system to delay or scrutinise whatever cack-handed legislation they want to push through is thoroughly dangerous. That’s why pretty much every stable democracy has a second (revising) chamber.

@ John. I agree that the chamber is an anomaly but that’s no reason to remove it. Simply put, it works. It has worked for quite some time and the alternatives are likely to work less well.

David Steel put it best in 2007 when he said “For the great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience from the worlds of commerce, medicine, the services, the civil service, academia, the unions – the list is endless – none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election. In addition, appointments to the Lords have been judiciously used to correct imbalances of gender and race in the Commons”.

For Chris Gale and anyone else who thinks the Hunting Act was a good piece of legislation, I can report, thankfully, it has made little difference. During the season you can still see the same people gathering in their red jackets, (actually worn for visibility rather than to inflame anti-hunt protestors), to ride around the countryside following a pack of dogs.

I say, thankfully, because after hunting deer with dogs was banned in the 1920s, deer in this country were almost wiped out. I’m sure the anti-hunt protesters would not want to see foxes wiped out too, or is their protest only fueled by a hatred of horses.

For those who are ignorant of the facts, foxes only natural enemy, wolves, were also wiped out a long time ago. Fox numbers therefore have to be carefully managed, (in the same way as rat populations are controlled). A hunt season ensures that the fox population is manageable, but more importantly, because it is done in the winter, only aged or sick foxes are ever caught. (A young fit fox can and do easily out-run a pack of dogs controlled by a man on a horse.) Also the season ensures that pregant foxes are never caught.

If the ban had been successful, fox populations would have to have been managed by shooting, gassing and poisoning. These methods can be used any time of the year and, (as with the deer in the 1920s), are far more efficiant, (although almost guarantee a longer and more painful death than by a bite to the back of the neck, (which is how almost every predator in nature kills it’s prey)). So any fox can be killed, young, old, pregnant, or with new cubs relying on it for food.

For those still opposed to a ban, the good news is a lot of foxes are moving into the cities, so the hunts will naturally die out anyway…

@John

I’m sure Tom can live with my disappointment and I can certainly live with yours.

But “ill-informed”? You wish.

I don’t often agree with you, but I do believe the House of Lords needs to exist because lets face it, the people of this country can only hold the government to account once every 5 years. However, if their Lordships have been naughty, then they need more than a slap on the wrists, because if we start to lose confidence in the whole of government, then we are on a slippery slope to nowhere. Then again…!