House of Lords Reform Proposal

General and Other Policy
1

While my preferred option for House of Lords Reform would be to simply restore the pre-1999 status quo, we have to admit that even then the Upper House was not perfect, though not because of the hereditary peers.

If we have to move forwards, my idea would be as follows:

Create a hybrid model designed to satisfy the need for the “dignified” the “expert” and the “democratic”.

The bulk of peers under this model would consist as follows:

1/3 hereditary peers selected as now from among the pool of hereditary peers but with a minimum age requirement of 35. This retains the “dignified” part of the constitution. After all; is it really the House of Lords without the hereditary peers?

1/3 appointed peers selected by an appointments board with nominations from the general public as well as politicians - again, minimum age of 35.

We could also deliberately build a few “rotten boroughs” into this appointments system with certain ancient universities and other organisations (like the Royal Society perhaps) having an automatic seat which they can fill in whatever manner they decide.

Finally, 1/3 would be decided democratically by regional PR. Each region should roughly mirror an ancient kingdom/region of the United Kingdom (Mercia, Wessex, Strathclyde etc) to provide some historical basis and each of the regions would have an equal number of peers regardless of population.

This would give power to geography and prevent metropolitan dominance. Under this system London would not become its own region. The different parts of the capital would simply fall into whichever geographical region they are in. Again, there would be a minimum age requirement of 35.

This final part of the system would hopefully scratch the PR itch but without jeopardising the FPTP system of the Commons. It would inject different viewpoints into Parliament and occasionally shake up the political order in the Commons itself as MPs adjust to take account of insurgent opinions and causes.

We should retain the Bishops and restore the Law Lords.

3 Likes
2

I have an issue.
I consider all institutions near fatally infected by leftism (at best) and marxism.
This makes it very hard for me to endorse the use of giving lords positions to heads of historic institutions.

That being said in an ideal world that would make complete sense.

I would prefer the 1999 approach, imperfect true, but an improvement.

The 1/3 elected I could see as an issue, I dont really like the idea of parties in the lords, the lords should have no parties.

The institutionally earned seats is very interesting. Something similar to the guilds used in the city of london election (for the right honourable lord mayor of london, not the mayor of london).

I do have an issue with the most influential institutions are very “establishment” at the moment and I cant imagine adding to their power is a great idea right now.

I’ll have to think more about this and come back to it.

2 Likes
3

I’m with you - my preferred option would also be to return to the pre-1999 setup, but I think that ketchup is already out of the bottle.

I can see this system making the most sense in the current climate, along with drastically reducing the number of seats back down to a more manageable number. 300? To keep the maths simple. The Bishops and Law Lords would be counted among the 100 drawn from esteemed positions.

1 Like
4

There’s a lot of room for discussion here as to the composition of the house of Lords and appointments to it, and I have no particular ideas to advocate on this topic, beyond being generally supportive of it being drawn from a variety of sources to bring in the best talents and experience. However, it is too large at present and filled with too many cronies of past prime ministers.

I have never been comfortable with the idea of abolishing hereditary peers: they do have one overwhelming advantage in that their position depends on no-one; they are in a position take an entirely disinterested view of things. Human nature being what it is, some may not respect the privilege accorded to them but there will be others that do.

Indeed the main benefit of the second chamber is that it has a degree of detachment from party politics, and is not as much affected by the short-termism that comes with the electoral cycle.

2 Likes
5

I completely agree, we do need a component at least that is above party political concerns.

1 Like
6

Clergy and hereditary position should not exist. Have a national vote ever 5 years along with the general election to vote in new members to replace those who have died or left for other reasons. Need a short list of applicants suggested from a local level.