Can anyone end Lords patronage?
Finally some outline of what’s going to be done with the House of Lords. But will the plans outlined by Straw, leaked to the Sunday Times, really reduce patronage?
Although many of the details don’t seem that different to those considered back in 2003, it’s worth going over what’s in the Times. They say that:
Only 50% will be elected, the other half is apparently to be chosen by a 9 person commission whose role is to make appointments to the upper chamber. Each party will have to submit a list to them for approval - A good attempt to end patronage, although what you have to do to get on the list is unclear.
There is a suggestion that the PM will be able to bypass the commission and appoint a few members - so the same system then, just with a commission to rubber stamp the nominations.
The plan suggests using the list system of proportional representation similar to the Scottish system for the elected half. The Scots use PR to elect regional representatives. However this allows patronage because it is the party that decides who’s on the list and who’s not - one feels that the PM will certainly have an influence here.
The best way forward is to make it more democratic (or 100% elected) and adopt the Wakefield report recommendations that:
A majority of the members of the new House will be nominated by the political parties, in proportions intended to reflect the shares of the national vote in the previous General Election.
This is what is required in a liberal democratic state. For too long we have stood by and allowed the authoritarian patriarchal system of government to continue, it must be stopped.
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
A 100% elected House would be bad for democracy in my opinion (let alone the constitutional issues that would arise). The Lords won’t be effective in providing oversight if they have the same make-up as the Commons which would presumably be result of an election run along the same lines as the election for the Commons. The current system is clearly flawed (though the reduction to the number of hereditary peers has improved the situation) but throwing democracy at the issue isn’t going to fix things except in a superficial way.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Yes you’re right, it would’nt be effective if the make up was exactly the same as the Commons. The Wakefield solution reflects the national share- which is quite different to the makeup of the House of Commons. In 2005 Labour won 356 seats in the Commons with about 36% of the national vote. This is a mojority in the Commons, but under the Wakefield suggestions would only be 36% of the Lords. The Lib Dems would have a share, there might even be a Green Lord. Now thats more democratic.