Reform of the House of Lords: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Lords Reform''' |
'''Lords Reform''' |
||
==Introduction== |
|||
<Very much under construction and not checked> |
|||
For many years British governments have attempted to find a way to reform the House of Lords. Finally in 1999 the Labour party appeared to be spurred into action and did a deal to remove most of the hereditary peers leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of Peers who were elected from within the old Hereditary Lords until "the second stage of reform was completed". |
For many years British governments have attempted to find a way to reform the House of Lords. Finally in 1999 the Labour party appeared to be spurred into action and did a deal to remove most of the hereditary peers leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of Peers who were elected from within the old Hereditary Lords until "the second stage of reform was completed". |
||
In November 2001 the government launched a consultation |
In November 2001 the government launched a consultation presumming either an appointed, elected or part-part house. Over 1000 responses were received, including a number suggesting various other methods of selection including allotment. |
||
However, the government were unable to obtain a consensus amongst MPs and no option gained sufficient support to proceed. Despite the very low support for an all appointed chamber, in 2003 the government decided to proceed with an all appointed house and undertook another consultation for the method of selection of the appointments panel - assuming it too would be appointed. |
|||
==The Official Position== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
On the main point (issue 2) "87 percent of respondents dealing with issue 2 (a) were in favour of a Commission composed of representatives of the three main political parties and the cross-benchers and a number of independently appointed members." Despite this apparently high support for the government on the 18th March 2003 the government chose not to proceed further. |
|||
Amongst the various suggestions were:- |
|||
==The Unofficial Position== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | A closer examination of the respondents showed a large number extremely unhappy with the consultation. An examiniation of the respondents showed that only 35% of respondents were in favour of the governments proposal. Furthermore wide variety of highly innovative ideas were omitted from the consultaiton report despite a UK government code of conduct on consultation requirement for such ideas to be reported. |
||
==The Range of options== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
* All members allotted from the general electorate to form in effect a large jury based on that in Athenian Democracy |
* All members allotted from the general electorate to form in effect a large jury based on that in Athenian Democracy |
||
* Based on the democratic nature of allotment, a small would be chosen which would take the place of the appointments panel. This has the advantage that it retains the best aspects of the present house but makes the system of selection democratic in nature. |
* Based on the democratic nature of allotment, a small would be chosen which would take the place of the appointments panel. This has the advantage that it retains the best aspects of the present house but makes the system of selection democratic in nature. |
||
== [[Election]] == |
=== [[Election]] === |
||
Supporters of election largely believe that the chamber will not be democratic unless it is elected. Opponents were against more political representatives and pointed to the potential of low turnout at |
|||
Contrary to what many believe, the original democracies elected very few officers, however many believe that it is impossible to be democratic without having an election. |
|||
* Electors have two votes, one for their MP in the commons and one for the upper house. A variety of systems are possible but most propose that the total votes for each party would be counted and members allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of the vote. |
* Electors have two votes, one for their MP in the commons and one for the upper house. A variety of systems are possible but most propose that the total votes for each party would be counted and members allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of the vote. |
||
* At the general election after the votes have determined the MPs by simple majority, the votes would be recounted determining the total votes across the whole country for each party. Members are then allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of votes cast. |
* At the general election after the votes have determined the MPs by simple majority, the votes would be recounted determining the total votes across the whole country for each party. Members are then allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of votes cast. |
||
=== Combination === |
|||
Many combinations are possible, the main one that needs to be listed is: |
|||
* Part appointed, part elected. This was the main original proposals. |
|||
== [[Appointment]] == |
=== [[Appointment]] === |
||
The reason the UK still retains an appointed House of Lords is that although it is clearly undemocratic it works. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems. |
The reason the UK still retains an appointed House of Lords is that although it is clearly undemocratic it works. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems. |
||
* A panel chosen by the Prime Minister or via Noland procedures appoints the members of the House |
* A panel chosen by the Prime Minister or via Noland procedures appoints the members of the House |
||
== Indirect Election/appointment == |
=== Indirect Election/appointment === |
||
* A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society, Charities etc. are able to elect or appoint a member |
* A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society, Charities etc. are able to elect or appoint a member |
||
== Hereditary == |
=== Hereditary === |
||
A large number of hereditary peers were cross benchers with a wide range of interests outside politics which was a valuable asset to the House. Unfortunately, their inherent bias toward the conservative party and bias on other issues means few now support this form of selection. |
A large number of hereditary peers were cross benchers with a wide range of interests outside politics which was a valuable asset to the House. Unfortunately, their inherent bias toward the conservative party and bias on other issues means few now support this form of selection. |
||
* A hereditary House of Lords where members pass on their right. |
* A hereditary House of Lords where members pass on their right. |
||
== No House == |
=== No House === |
||
* Some maintain that there is no need for an Upper chamber. |
* Some maintain that there is no need for an Upper chamber. |
||
Revision as of 13:17, 10 December 2005
Lords Reform
Introduction
For many years British governments have attempted to find a way to reform the House of Lords. Finally in 1999 the Labour party appeared to be spurred into action and did a deal to remove most of the hereditary peers leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of Peers who were elected from within the old Hereditary Lords until "the second stage of reform was completed".
In November 2001 the government launched a consultation presumming either an appointed, elected or part-part house. Over 1000 responses were received, including a number suggesting various other methods of selection including allotment.
However, the government were unable to obtain a consensus amongst MPs and no option gained sufficient support to proceed. Despite the very low support for an all appointed chamber, in 2003 the government decided to proceed with an all appointed house and undertook another consultation for the method of selection of the appointments panel - assuming it too would be appointed.
The Official Position
On the main point (issue 2) "87 percent of respondents dealing with issue 2 (a) were in favour of a Commission composed of representatives of the three main political parties and the cross-benchers and a number of independently appointed members." Despite this apparently high support for the government on the 18th March 2003 the government chose not to proceed further.
The Unofficial Position
A closer examination of the respondents showed a large number extremely unhappy with the consultation. An examiniation of the respondents showed that only 35% of respondents were in favour of the governments proposal. Furthermore wide variety of highly innovative ideas were omitted from the consultaiton report despite a UK government code of conduct on consultation requirement for such ideas to be reported.
The Range of options
Allotment
Allotment or selection by lot was the form of selection used in the first democracies in Ancient Greece, and is now used to select juries. Advocates maintain it is inherently democratic. Opponents point to the need for some expertise for members of the chamber.
- All members allotted from the general electorate to form in effect a large jury based on that in Athenian Democracy
- Based on the democratic nature of allotment, a small would be chosen which would take the place of the appointments panel. This has the advantage that it retains the best aspects of the present house but makes the system of selection democratic in nature.
Election
Supporters of election largely believe that the chamber will not be democratic unless it is elected. Opponents were against more political representatives and pointed to the potential of low turnout at
- Electors have two votes, one for their MP in the commons and one for the upper house. A variety of systems are possible but most propose that the total votes for each party would be counted and members allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of the vote.
- At the general election after the votes have determined the MPs by simple majority, the votes would be recounted determining the total votes across the whole country for each party. Members are then allocated to each party from a list according to their percentage of votes cast.
Combination
Many combinations are possible, the main one that needs to be listed is:
- Part appointed, part elected. This was the main original proposals.
Appointment
The reason the UK still retains an appointed House of Lords is that although it is clearly undemocratic it works. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems.
- A panel chosen by the Prime Minister or via Noland procedures appoints the members of the House
Indirect Election/appointment
- A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society, Charities etc. are able to elect or appoint a member
Hereditary
A large number of hereditary peers were cross benchers with a wide range of interests outside politics which was a valuable asset to the House. Unfortunately, their inherent bias toward the conservative party and bias on other issues means few now support this form of selection.
- A hereditary House of Lords where members pass on their right.
No House
- Some maintain that there is no need for an Upper chamber.
A New Name
A variety of names have been proposed for the new chamber:
- House of Lords
- Senate
- Second Chamber
- Upper Chamber
See also
External Links
- Official Information on Lords Reform
- Allot - Campaign for a House of Lords democratically appointed by citizen's jury
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.