To see both side of this argument and both sets of comments on one page, click here
Gavin Ayling believes that we should elect the House of Lords. I don't and I'll explain why ...
The House of Commons is elected. To be elected to the House of Commons, you have to stand for election, publish a manifesto and win more votes than your opponents. This, for me, is where my opposition to an elected upper house lies and can be summed up in two words - Career Politicians.
Career politicians are in the job because they want to be, they have ambition. They have chosen a career path that involves them securing and using political power. They will do whatever it takes (usually within reason) to ensure that they get elected and stay elected. If that means abandoning one or more of their principles then more often than not they will make that sacrifice.
With the exception of a few independents, career politicians rely on their party to get them a seat and fund their campaign. In order to be chosen to represent their party in an election they must comply with party policy. In order to keep their seat they must continue to comply with party policy. When Traitor Blair first stood for election he stood on an anti-European manifesto and lost. Next time round he won and has since professed to be a committed European "always have been, always will be". Being pro-European is part of being Labour and even the Prime Minister, the leader of this country, has sold out on his principles to curry favour with the party.
Anyway, this is in danger of getting slightly off topic.
The House of Lords, prior to the election of the Liberal government at the turn of the last century, was entirely hereditary with the exception of Lords Spiritual that represented (and still do) the Church of England. Nobody in the House of Lords was elected, they were all there by virtue of birth and they had the authority to veto legislation coming from the Commons.
The Liberal government tried to pass a budget in 1910 that included a land tax that would have been especially detrimental to landowners. The Lords opposed the budget and the Liberal government conceived the Parliament Bill which would establish the ultimate supremacy of the Commons over the Lords. The Lords opposed the Bill until King George threatened to create 250 new Liberal peers to dilute the Conservative majority in the upper house. The Lords conceded and the bill was passed into law.
The Parliament Act of 1911 and the subsequent revision of 1949 conspired to allow the Commons to disregard the opinion of the Lords if they opposed bills proposed in the House of Commons.
The Parliament Act of 1911 was infrequently used but its most significant use was to pass the Parliament Act of 1949. The Lords, mindful that the Commons were giving themselves yet more power and removing more opposition, opposed the revised version of the Parliament Act. The Labour government of the day, under Clement Atlee, followed the example set by the Liberal government in 1911 and used king for political gain.
The 1911 Parliament Act specified that the Lords would have to oppose a bill over three sessions of parliament before the Parliament Act could be used to force the bill into law. The Labour government had the king engineer a short session of parliament so that the clause would be artifically met and they could use the Parliament Act to force through the revised Parliament Act giving themselves more power.
The 1949 Parliament Act was also used infrequently until the current Labour government came to power since when it has been used more times than every other previous government combined to over-rule the will of the upper house.
The problem here is with the desire for power which career politicians naturally crave. It was a Liberal government consisting of career politicians that first nutured their overseers in 1911 and a Labour government of career politicians in 1949 that further removed the checks and balances to their power.
Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." He said this 24 years before the 1911 Parliament Act came into being, I wonder if he had a vision of the future?
Ok, that's the history lesson over and done with.
The most important thing to remember about hereditary peers is that they sat in the upper house by virtue of birth. Their political affiliation was irrelevant. It was quite conceivable to have a Labour peer in the House of Lords that opposed policies of the Labour government despite being a member of that party. This could rarely happen in the Commons and certainly for no longer than the time of the next election when they would be replaced with a party faithful candidate.
There is, of course an issue of accountability with hereditary peers. Who keep an eye on them? Who can oppose them if they do something that isn't considered to be right? Well, without an impartial (as impartial as it can be) upper house, who will keep an eye on the Commons? The electorate? Sadly, most people would vote for the same party if they fielded a goldfish as their candidate so as bizarre as it sounds, the elctorate cannot be relied upon to protect their own interests!
A key part of the appeal of hereditary peers for me is the fact that they are more likely to do what is "right" than a career politician. A career politician will do what they think their constituents think is "right" or what their party tells them is "right". If something is "right" for the country but wrong for their party and/or political future they are unlikely to make that decision. A hereditary peer will still be in a job whether they are popular or not.
Since the current Labour government "reformed" the House of Lords and did away with most of the hereditary peers, they have appointed themselves a majority in the upper house. If the Lords were to be elected, it is simply not imaginable that the people would elect opposing parties to each house. The dominant party in the Commons would be the dominant party in the Lords so where is the opposition and oversight that is required?
Effective oversight of the Commons requires impartiality of the Lords. The only way to ensure that the make-up of the Lords is random enough to make this conceivable is to have hereditary peers.
Finally, I have a proposal that will resolve the issue of hereditary Lords over-ruling the Commons and the requirement for laws to be passed without the consent of the Lords. The answer, I feel, lies not in handicapping the upper house but in arbitration. I would like to see the Parliament Act further amended to replace the clause that allows the Commons to pass a law without consent of the Lords after it has been delayed for three sessions of parliament with a clause that provides for a binding referendum, thus allowing the people to decide on matters that both houses cannot agree on.
Apologies for the scrappy nature of this post but it was a bit rushed. Comments for this arguement
Wonko`s World
As long as you think it was worth it.
I think it was worth it!
With your penultimate paragraph you destroyed my beliefs... A binding referendum would solve my concerns at a stroke -- it is democratic and fair.
But, and this I think damages your argument, if the people (the electorate) cannot be trusted to "protect their own interests" and would vote for the same party whether they fielded non-mammals or humans, why should they ultimately be trusted with a referendum?
I like the idea, but why do you!?
Well, what can I say? You caved in easier than I expected. 
I can answer your concern for you. The people will vote for a party in an election but voting on an issue is different. Sure, one party will often be supporting the issue more than others but the crucial thing is, the bill must have been passed by a majority in the Commons to come before the Lords so there must be a consensus in the Commons between all parties. Therefore, most people would vote on the merits of the issue in question rather than the party that originally introduced the bill.
Personally I have a lot of faith in the power of referenda. I don't think I've caved in!
Do you know why referenda are not allowed in the German constitution?
yes, its because Hitler used referenda to gain powers, so the German government don't allow them anymore.
I can see problems with both ideas, an elected lords leads to the problems wonk mentioned about party loyalty, but there is a lot of problems with hereditary Lords.
For example:
* The changing demographics of this country. We might be only 10% ethnic minority at the moment but there is a huge disparity for people of different age groups. In 20-40 years when a lot of the older whites have died, the highly mixed race country that then exists wont want to see a 95% white hereditary lords chamber.
* Unaccountable, we had a loyal and patriotic Lords in the past but what if that was not the case and we couldn't get rid of them? What if they have radical Islam sympathies for example.
* I am conservative, but is it fair that a Conservative revising chamber continually blocks changes from a left liberal government if that government won overwhelmingly at the general election? I don't think so. By your rules how could this be stopped?
* What if the hereditary peer just wasn't smart enough, what if a peer dies but had no children? It means more appointment of some kind..
There are other ways of electing that might not produce the same party loyalty you are worried about, perhaps we could have a PR system as Gavin said but instead of being over the last elections results being over the last 3 or 4, and only changing a few Lords each time so that they were not connected to the main electoral cycle and had a long period of time in the house maybe 10-15+ years so they couldn't easily be manipulated by the party leadership.
To stop career politicans I think if the Lords is only revising and doesn't have powers to alter laws it won't be a big enough thrill for that kind of people? They want more than that.
If there was a Tory majority in the Lords and a Labour majority in the Commons and the Lords blocked a Labour policy 3 times in line with the Parliament Act then a public referendum would be called and it would be up to the electorate to decide. This means the political makeup of both houses is irrelevant when it comes to deadlocks as it will be the people that decide. Allowing the Commons the right to pass a law blocked by the Lords 3 times is like allowing a criminal to commit a crime after being caught 3 times. Ok, not entirely like that but a similar principle - it has been decided that stealing a car is wrong so the criminal has been told not to steal a car but if the criminal thinks it's ok then after being caught 3 times he can continue to steal cars with impunity. You see the parallel? The Lords block legislation for a reason and who is to say that they are right or wrong? In these cases the people would decide what they want.
Re a peer dying with no heirs - there are laws in place already that deal with succession of peerages so that's a non-issue.
The Lords should be elected - absolutely no doubt about it. I can't see how we can rein against the legitimacy of unelected regional assemblies on one hand and tamely aquiesce to a benevolent legislatative club where entry is via an accident of birth on the other.
It has to be elected - but I would time the elections to be held at the mid term time of a Commons Parliament. That way a balance will be achieved because cynism and weariness of an incumbent leader will have taken its toll on the electorate..... They do it in many other countries, and it works - most notably in the States - were the incumbent President is subject to the natural checks and balances between the House of Representatives and the Senat -.both of which quite often have majorities from the 2 main parties at the same time.
This way, you are more likely to get say a Labour majority in the Commons and a Tory majority in the Lords - and thus a natural balance is achieved. Making the Lords a PR project will increase the representational mix even more.
To combat the 'career politician' concern, I would stick an age limit on entry. Say 35 years of age - so the candidate will already have had a career in industry/commerce etc.- and they would therefore be able to bring a knowledge of note to the Lords.... - rather be just another Tory boy or Blairite clone.
BUT - all this is in an ideal world, obviously. When England gets its own legislature, what happens to it then?
What would be the point of having two elected chambers??
If you want an elected House of Lords (as well as an elected House of Commons) then you're basically calling for a wasteful duplication. Waste of time, space and money.
Instead it would be better to have a single-chamber Parliament.
Better still would be to go back to how things were. A House of Lords - hereditary (and of course there would be the occasional awarding of new peerages) - and a House of Commons - elected (and the chamber where most government ministers would come from).
Let me just say that democracy is okay, but in moderation. You can have a democratic system of government without having all its institutions democratically elected. Our government is democratic, yet we have an undemocratic chamber of Parliament and a monarchy at the top.
I therefore oppose a fully-elected House of Lords. I suspect a compromise will be the eventual result of the reforms. A 60% elected house, with appointments given to non-political (and meritocratic) membership.
wonk, your referenda idea doesn't solve the problem of the Lords abusively blocking legislation because if had to block it 3 times before the referendum, they could slow down the parliament so much that the elected government couldn't get much done.
And what is your answer to the changing demographics of this country? not a small issue.
A hereditary white Lords will not be acceptible when whites are no longer the majority in the country, as predicted by 2100 by the current rate of change.
Humpf.
I still don’t know what I believe. Both arguments are compelling, but both have flaws.
Can’t I just stick my head in the sand?
Alfie, Labour are in their third term - we'd have seen a Labour majority in both houses for at least two terms by now. Also, putting an age restriction on MP's means you're always stuck with older people in the Commobs, no fresh blood. Also, to leave your job at 35 to become an MP is worse, career politician-wise, than someone who is in politics from the start of their working lives.
Salopian, a single chamber parliament means you are removing a (potentially) valuable oversight and check on the power of the Commons. It would be better to go back to hereditary peers, that's my preferred approach along with the amendment to the Parliament Act I mentioned at the end of my piece. Your final suggestion has one major flaw - non-politically motivated appointments to the Lords is supposed to happen now but it doesn't and won't.
Dave, the current Parliament Act has the 3 sessions of parliament clause already - my suggestion was only changing what happens after that has happened. If a law is that good that it is worth pursuing for 3 sessions of parliament then a delay isn't going to be an issue is it?
AJD, of course you can bury your head in the sand. Be my guest. 
No, I said only people going to the House of Lords would have the 35 year old age limit. MPs would go into the Commons as happens now - so all those budding 18 year old William Hagues out there would be safe. Also - I think the Lords is currently populated with people that have jobs as well as a seat in the Upper Chamber. The Lords, after all is a reviewer and discusser of legislation - hardly ever an instigater of it. And regarding the voting - well if it the Lords elections were timed for a Commons mid term time, then the most recent one would have fallen right around the Iraq War, David Kelly, etc, etc. Somehow, I just don't think Blair would have won a majority in the Lords then....
Sorry, misread what you wrote about the age limit. Um, well I suppose I don't see much of a problem with putting age restrictions on the Lords.
I can see what you're saying about the war and David Kelly damaging Labour but they gained popularity between the last Tory win and their first term so they would have taken the House of Lords a couple of years prior to taking the Commons.
Until the Lords can enact legislation that imposes the burden of taxation upon me, I don't care who they are and how they got there.
The Lords can introduce a bill imposes taxes and send it to the Commons. Also, the Commons don't get to over-rule the Lords on money bills.
When you have finished posting your comment, please click here for the most up-to-date version of this blog.
Commenting by HaloScan
#1 by Wonko on April 19th, 2006 - 9:05 pm
Yes, I concede that PR has the potential to elect an opposition in the House of Lords but it still results in a party political outcome and the members are still career politicians chosen by, and representing, their party.
#2 by Gav on April 19th, 2006 - 9:10 pm
I agree — which is why I didn’t contend those points in my comment on your post!
I think we’re both agreed that the HoL needs reform (and serious, democratically sensitive — though not necessarily democratic — reform).
#3 by Wonko on April 19th, 2006 - 9:13 pm
Reform, how I detest that word!
Yes, I agree that major changes are needed and (not wanting to appear to be blowing my own trumpet) I really think my idea about referenda has legs if only the career politicians could be convinced of its merits.
#4 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 1:21 am
My biggest concern of an elected Lords Chamber, is that previously the Lords have been very loyal defenders of British traditions and way of life.
If they are elected, people who don’t have the same loyalty to traditional Britain might get into the Lords Chamber and not fight to maintain our culture as much as the old generation. At first that wouldn’t matter, but over a period of time we could see big changes.
How long before we get quotas, for women, blacks, muslims, asians, etc. As no doubt Dave Cameron would support.
I’m not saying I want the Lords to remain whites, I know we have a changing country, but I do want the Lords to be a revising chamber with an eye on the traditions, history and culture of what made this country, and not become some new game for the ‘politically correct’ to play identity politics with.
#5 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 6:56 am
Most of the PC policies will be included in the manifestos of the main two parties at the next election so the Lords won’t block it anyway. The biggest problem with the Lords is that they are often, by convention, impotent.
#6 by wonkotsane on April 20th, 2006 - 8:39 am
Using by proposal for binding referenda when the Commons and Lords can’t agree then the issue of quotas would be decided by the electorate. The Commons would introduce a bill to provide quotas in the Lords, the Lords would obviously reject it, they wouldn’t agree so a referendum would be held and the electorate would decide.
#7 by Sarah on April 20th, 2006 - 9:52 am
Gav if the HoL was fully elected do you think it should have the power to block legislation indefinately? I do, IMO, it would have as much legitimacy as the commons then.
On a related note what do you think of fixed/rotating/different length election terms for an elected HoL?
#8 by alfie on April 20th, 2006 - 10:21 am
The Lords should be elected – absolutely no doubt about it. I can’t see how we can rein against the legitimacy of unelected regional assemblies on one hand and tamely aquiesce to a benevolent legislatative club where entry is via an accident of birth on the other.
It has to be elected – but I would time the elections to be held at the mid term time of a Commons Parliament. That way a balance will be achieved because cynism and weariness of an incumbent leader will have taken its toll on the electorate….. They do it in many other countries, and it works – most notably in the States – were the incumbent President is subject to the natural checks and balances between the House of Representatives and the Senate -.both of which quite often have different majorities from the 2 main parties at the same time.
This way, you are more likely to get say a Labour majority in the Commons and a Tory majority in the Lords – and thus a natural balance is achieved. Making the Lords a PR project will increase the representational mix even more.
To combat the ‘career politician’ concern, I would stick an age limit on entry. Say 35 years of age – so the candidate will already have had a career in industry/commerce etc.- and they would therefore be able to bring a knowledge of note to the Lords…. – rather be just another Tory boy or Blairite clone.
BUT – all this is in an ideal world, obviously. When England gets its own Parliament, what happens to it then?
#9 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 4:59 pm
Gav, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, I was not saying I wanted the house of Lords to block PC legislation from the Commons, although I would like that
.
I was saying with an elected Lords I can see the main parties fighting over who has the most Black Lords, Asian Lords, Muslim Lords, Gay Lords, etc, I don’t want to see the Lords become part of this politically correct identity politics game.
I don’t think we will get the best revising chamber under some kind of affirmative action.
Alfie, I really wouldn’t like to see a system of constantly swapping Labour majority in commons vs Conservatives in Lords, or the other way around, both ways around the Lords would try to frustrate the will of the commons.
Anyway, I think the Lords, the revising chamber should not be on the same short term electoral cycle as the commons but should be over a longer period of time.
Maybe PR over the last 3 election results.
1, C:30 L:50 D:20
2, C:50 L:30 D:20
3, C:45 L:35 D:20
Lords = C:42 L:38 D:20
This would mean the Lords had a more stable long term make-up rather than being subject of short-term reactionary electorate changes.
#10 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 5:07 pm
Dave, PR on other election results provides a conflict of intentions for the electorate. Votes in First Past the Post should not be analysed and reused in a PR context because people vehemently do vote differently in PR. Also, [titter] I cannot believe you found a legitimate excuse to say “Gay Lords” — my mentally-about-twelve-years-old sense of humour has been awakened!
Sarah, Alfie and Dave, I do think a longer term and non-coinciding election date would be a good idea…
Alfie, Maybe this would be the way the post-independence English Houses should be!
#11 by Dave on April 20th, 2006 - 7:00 pm
Yeah, you are right about voting intentions of the electorate it always annoys me when the pundits start claiming to know what the results would have been under a different system.
But the problem of a seperate voting system would be apathy, people might not bother turning out for a vote to the revising chamber..
Maybe we could vote for the Lords under PR at the same time as the general election, but voting only for one third of the Lords at a time, so they last around 15 years.
Would it also be good if party membership could elect who was on the list? So that there was a check on what the leadership was doing.
#12 by AJD on April 20th, 2006 - 8:04 pm
Humpf.
I still don’t know what I believe. Both arguments are compelling, but both have flaws.
Can’t I just stick my head in the sand?
#13 by Wonko on April 20th, 2006 - 9:10 pm
Dave, inter-marriage and sales of peerages (legitimately, not Labour-style) would ensure an ethnic balance of some description in the Lords as the “native” population of the country dwindles. If it doesn’t and the people decide that something needs doing about it then they will petition their MP’s to do so (who would presumably be more “ethnic” than “native”) to do something about it and you would no doubt have both houses at odds with each other in which case the public would decide.
I just can’t see any eventuality when amending the Parliament Act to replace the Commons’ right to pass laws without the Lords’ consent with a binding referendum wouldn’t be better than what we have now or, in fact, work.
#14 by Gav on April 20th, 2006 - 10:28 pm
Wonko, It would definitely be better than currently, but probably not as good as a PR elected second house incorporating Alfie’s, Dave’s and Sarah’s amendments
Mr Daily Sir, Sticking your head in the sand never works. Unless you are attempting to locate something under the sand. Even then, I would still suggest you move the sand out of the way — it’s a real pain in the eyes otherwise.
#15 by Dave on April 21st, 2006 - 3:18 am
wonko, do you seriously think people should be able to buy and sell peerages/power? sounds outrageous to me.
#16 by Libertus on April 21st, 2006 - 2:14 pm
If electing the Lords is cheaper than buying them, count me in.
#17 by wonkotsane on April 21st, 2006 - 3:19 pm
Dave, it’s possible already. There are more black and Asian peers than the Labour Stazi have appointed. Not all peerages can be bought and sold but some of them can. There are peerage brokers!
Libertus, elections cost money and who’s going to pay for the election campaigns? The taxpayer already foots part of the bill for elections.