Skip to main content

House of Lord’s Reform: Why I’m Not With Nick..


So the government has backed down on House of Lords reform. That is sheer cowardice and may be the beginning of the end of the coalition- agood parliamentary whacking would have been good for all.. Voices within the LibDem party have to start talking about replacing Clegg before the next election if they are to regain any credibility (or in fact keep their deposits).

Anyway- I have to say I am cautious about Lord’s reform. Yes, the Lord’s is too big. It is weird that you can still get born to it. It is a place of massive patronage- its like school inspectors, you got thrown out as a politician so have a seat in the Lords.

But, and I know that I may get thrown out of all sorts of places for saying this. We need an unelected chamber. Look what our random, crazy ass version of democracy (which isn’t democracy its representative government and is far from that) is doing to us. Look at who gets pandered to and who gets ignored. Look at the gerrymandering and lack of voting clout even if people did get up and vote.

We live in a country where its ok to hack the guts out of the welfare state, apart from winter fuel and pensions.. because the people who receive those gifts are the ones who vote. That kind of democracy does not serve the whole people and is frankly dangerous.

The House of Lords is mad! BUT it is the place where someone will from time to time stand up for those who don’t register as important in an election.. you know people like orphans and widows and aliens (or asylum seekers).

The House of Lords is out of touch. But through the Bishops and through some of the appointees its also more in touch. Believe it or not Bishops travel on buses, spend time among the poorest communities and listen to those who live there. We need someone who is there to speak for others not themselves.

So you find me an ‘elected’ system which will speak up for the poor and the marginalised and I’ll go with it. But until then I am not with Nick.


Comments

Ian Nicholson said…
I agree with you here Jude. Democracy is not working at the moment because the politicians are more interested in pleasing their own parties than the voters. David Cameron is now turning his attention on the welfare state while Nick Clegg has gone all bullish about Lords Reform and Same Sex Marriage which he probably thinks are safe targets - where was he on student fees or the really big issues.

Some sort of reform of the Lords might be good but I dont trust politicians to deliver it. I want genuinely independent proven experts who don't have to please their party but can act on conscience and conviction and be a good check to balance the elected chamber
Chris Heward said…
The more I think about it the more I'm against the reform, at least without a proper review of the Lords' function. I mean, it'd be horrendous just to have a pure PR system where people are appointed to the seats and not themselves elected, and, well, it just begs the question "what's the point?". I mean, who's going to join, say, the Labour list, so that they can get a 15 year term, and then just review things and not actually make policy? It's a bit weird.

My suggestion would be to split it up into different themes. Recreation, art, science, philosophy/faith, health, education, and so on. Then those seats are elected by relevant people. So some of the health representatives could be chosen by nurses, some by doctors, some by the public. Education seats could be chosen by teachers, head teachers, NUS members, lecturers, etc. The philosophy/faith ones would have a certain number of Bishops, members of free churches, maybe Richard Dawkins, who knows.

So they would still be appointed by members of the public, but would be experts on the issues, and would be able to give their perspective. It might also be less party-political, because if you're a headteacher you;re going to vote for the candidate you agree with not the one who is Conservative or Labour or whatever. So I would keep it as a revising chamber, but have 5-year terms, and keep it as a revising chamber, that still has power to overrule legislation if necessary.

Until they actually come up with decent plans, along these or similar lines (at least well described and thought out), then I think it's better to postpone than to press ahead in the current format. Nice article! :)
Anonymous said…
Thank you for me to have the honour to read this excellent post. From the glog i know that
in the wedding moment, the host shoule pay a lot of attention in the detail like the bride
should wear proper bridal jewelry set with matchable freshwater pearl bracelet, also shoule carefully choose pearl pendant and the find pearl ring .

Popular posts from this blog

NO MORE MAGIC BULLET- or why I have stopped watching the West Wing

I love the West Wing. It still rates as one of the most well informed and influential series of the genre. Its speeches have been stolen by people who have osmosed its hope for a better way of doing politics. When we watch it today it holds a very particular kind of resonance because it demonstrates a civility that has been drowned in a sea of hate. It has positive images of a wrestled out faith, is rich with camaraderie and pith and is just good telly.
But its bad for me. 
It pains me to admit this, but the West Wing makes me think I can change the world in a way that is simply not helpful. 
It holds out the present hope that the world can turn on a single conversation. With the brave statement or right turn of phrase one might change the debate, and in turn might change the world entire. The moment in the Oval where they realise that if they take no credit they can save social security. The moment where Donna remembers to pay welfare payments. The realisation that all the NATO people a…

Oxpresidentgate and a Crisis of Generosity

Its been an interesting start to the year for the third sector. As we all get to grips with GDPR (more later), we have been subject to increased media attention as first we reeled from President’s Club revelations to the far deeper impact of this week’s revelations about Oxfam (and others).
There is much that can be written. Undoubtedly there are some in media and politics who will seek to exploit the 1/3 of us who don’t think aid should be sent overseas to change policy off the back of bad behaviour by some people. We could face a drop in giving to international development, as supporting Oxfam is no longer seen as acceptable (like buying a plastic bag). I suspect this will recover at some point, possibly in different form.
However, there is a deeper moral crisis for third sector organisations and my fear is that Christian charities are not immune.
To explore this let me go back a month. The President’s Club- where charities were set to receive significant amounts of money from an…

A very dull post about what I do with my time...

Each year I take a calendar month and record what I do in it. I break each day into twenty minute chunks and note down what happens in each twenty minute block. I don’t do the same for designated Sabbath time (nor do I note each bit of time outside of the beginning and end of a working day, no-one needs to know how long I clean my teeth for).
I categorise each thing that I do (an imperfect science) with a view to getting a handle on what I do with my time. 
This year I did the audit in November (as clergy I always avoid doing this in Lent, Advent or August). 
So- what did I discover?
I work around 55 hours a week. (thats up one hour from last year) That work is spread over five and a half days. The only sabbath day that was interrupted by work was about processing a painful meeting.  Of 26 working days, I worked 12 evenings.
In terms of what I do:
In November 17% of my time was taken up with prayer, reading and learning. Thats a slightly false read as I had a 48 hour away time in there. Prayer…