Well spoken Ian. Obviously there has been so much focus on prime ministerial appointment to the Lords, which are difficult to defend and tend to bring the Lords into disrepute. However, as you say there is a level of experience and expertise which it would be tragic to discard. As a Liberal Democrat I can also say that the Lords is the only chamber where our party is represented roughly in accord with its voucher. however much the other parties may cavil about that. It is actually the common, under the first past the post system, which is unrepresentative. If Starmer were to abolish the Lords and create a new elected chamber, he would have a dilemma. Either he would have it elected by FTPT, to howls of protest from his own party, or he would use PR, in which case people would rightly ask why if it’s good enough for the Lords it is not good enough for the Commons.
I’ve never really agreed with those who say we should do away with the Lords, and you have put good reasons why, we need all the checks and balances we can get in this day and age. As for the recent recruits awarded by ghosts of prime ministers past, let’s hope that they learn from the expertise of the other peers.
I want to keep the Lords. I understood it’s role a lot better after reading your latest book. I wish everyone would read it for that reason. I want PR too but feel neither Conservatives nor Labour will ever want that. Im tired of politicians, Culture Wars, and frankly most journalists. I never really understood what a Liberal was either just saw it as a protest vote and wishy washy. They called Johnson a Liberal Conservative and he makes me want to scream. But I also remember Putin saying “Liberalism is dead”….after Brexit? That stuck in my mind. I will probably get your other book about that now. I will subscribe to you. I mean you’ve earned it.
I agree in principle, although I am surprised you didn’t mention Lords Kempsell and Owen, the 0 experience mates Johnson ennobled. If the Lords is to continue existing as it is there obviously needs to be some tightening up on the appointments process & conventions
This piece isn't really about that aspect, but fwiw I think the solution to that problem is very simple. Just take party appointments out of the hands of the prime minister and give them to the Appointments Commission, which should be put on a statutory footing. Would keep the benefits - former secretaries of state and prime ministers bringing experience - but get rid of the cronyism. And just as importantly, prevent current PMs from using the possibility of peerage to keep people loyal in the present.
This was the point I was going to make. In addition to removing cronyism, should there also be a limit on the number of Lords? It's gotten a bit out of hand over the last few years. And I will read your latest book as soon as it's out in ppbk.
Sorry to be harsh but rather than a term limit I think it should be like a soho upmarket nightclub and operate with one in one out basis and we have a new member when another passes away, like the Pope
Maybe you could retain the HOLAC element in some form but there is no excuse for retaining hereditary legislators at all. Also, those 26 Church of England bishops have no legitimacy to be legislators because the UK is increasingly secular and the C of E needs to be disetablished. There shouldn't be any members of the upper chamber by virtue of a person's position in any religious organisation.
Prime Ministers should also lose the right to appoint people to the Lords... just look at the party apparatchiks and undeserving talentless abd sometimes unprincipled toadies appointed recently by Cameron, Johnson and Truss.
Having been fortunate (?!) enough to see the place from the inside it was a surprise to me to see what a crucial role the Lords play, in stark contrast to the Commons. All points that you make in your excellent book. (Am now onto Rory Stewart's book that seems to echo many of your points).
We tend to hear of the Lords' failings, with dreadful political stooges being appointed, the lobbyists and charlatans, the hangers on. We hear very little about the expertise and the serious debates and analysis in committees. It does not make for good TV or media commentary.
The potential changes are relatively obvious; a serious appointments committee, possible time limits on membership, insistence on regular attendance and participation, an end to purely political appointees, a limit on overall numbers. There are are more changes that could be made, but they could all be made incrementally and over time. The challenge is persuading the major parties who cling to the current model, like they cling to FPTP voting.
Great piece. Democracy is "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". Liberalism entails a rock-solid guarantee of human rights (ovine rights?) for lambs.
100% agree with all of that. Democracy is just voting and voting is not enough. I also get frustrated by the conflation of the word - sometimes it is used to refer to voting or a vote and sometimes is used to refer to the whole system of constitutional government. For example, Brexiters frequently challenged People's Voters as undermining "our Democracy" - basing the statement on their view that a second referendum was not accepting the result of the first, but at the same time insinuating that it was undermining the whole system - which it clearly was not. Rather the referendum itself, as you note, although clearly a democratic process, also sits in conflict with the system of constitutional government. May be you should explore "democracy" in Origin Story?
Modern democracy means not just voting, that's the misunderstanding many yanks often trot out.
Modern democracy is based on human rights, from which the specific system (with several varieties) derive, to implement protection of human dignity and human rights.
That's why EU has Human Rights now in its charta, yet French democracy is a bit different from German, from Denmark, from Belgium etc. (And some like Hungary, have removed essential parts of democracy, like independent judicary).
Fantastic. This perfectly explains what I have been grappling with.
I suspect the right wing propaganda machine actually wants Lords reform so it can get rid of those pesky cross benchers and get its own people elected. Pumping up the outrage at all the ridiculous political appointments is in its own interest.
I don't see any contradiction. Progressives have been grateful to the Lords in recent decades because they have been a bulwark against authoritarian right-wing governments. If we ever had a progressive left-wing government and it was frustrating their will, then the mood would change. The principle is still the same, it's anti-democratic and a new second chamber should be devised that preserves the good bits and gets rid of the bad.
There are still 92 hereditary peers! What experience do they have, aside from incest and gout? It is less than 30% women, and whilst they may not have an absolute majority, the Conservative party is wildly over represented and will be whatever the outcome of the next election(s). Only reason to want to preserve that is if you secretly like the idea that ultimately right-wing men know best and that is good that they rule over us. I think we can do better
Love is a bit strong for me, I would struggle to love any institution that contains Claire Fox personally but I admire it a lot. As a fellow Liberal its good to hear somebody say the truth about democracy out loud it is bloody dangerous Brexit being case in point! I've come around to the Lords (my Marxist 19 year old former self would be horrified) I blame your book entirely for this, the reform that it needs is how people get in it and
the peerage for yes men, mates of the PM and their wives bloody hairdressers?! I say keep the Lords as it is but stop the peerages there is enough in there as it is. The last bit about fancying the Lords made me actually lol
The problem with elections is you tend to get the best salespeople, not the best people for the job. It should be a no-brainer to appoint experts to scrutinise legislation, and in a variety of fields because legislation comes in all spheres. You can argue about how the Lords is made up and how to improve - but fully elected like the Commons would not be an improvement, in my view.
Well spoken Ian. Obviously there has been so much focus on prime ministerial appointment to the Lords, which are difficult to defend and tend to bring the Lords into disrepute. However, as you say there is a level of experience and expertise which it would be tragic to discard. As a Liberal Democrat I can also say that the Lords is the only chamber where our party is represented roughly in accord with its voucher. however much the other parties may cavil about that. It is actually the common, under the first past the post system, which is unrepresentative. If Starmer were to abolish the Lords and create a new elected chamber, he would have a dilemma. Either he would have it elected by FTPT, to howls of protest from his own party, or he would use PR, in which case people would rightly ask why if it’s good enough for the Lords it is not good enough for the Commons.
For voucher read vote share
I’ve never really agreed with those who say we should do away with the Lords, and you have put good reasons why, we need all the checks and balances we can get in this day and age. As for the recent recruits awarded by ghosts of prime ministers past, let’s hope that they learn from the expertise of the other peers.
I want to keep the Lords. I understood it’s role a lot better after reading your latest book. I wish everyone would read it for that reason. I want PR too but feel neither Conservatives nor Labour will ever want that. Im tired of politicians, Culture Wars, and frankly most journalists. I never really understood what a Liberal was either just saw it as a protest vote and wishy washy. They called Johnson a Liberal Conservative and he makes me want to scream. But I also remember Putin saying “Liberalism is dead”….after Brexit? That stuck in my mind. I will probably get your other book about that now. I will subscribe to you. I mean you’ve earned it.
Hahah quite right
Not for the first time, spot on! About the importance of expertise and experience AND about PR. KBO
Brilliant Ian, absolutely on it.
Article Audio:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/its-time-we-learned-to-love-the-lords
Another excellent and well-argued read. So good in fact that it has prompted me to shift from being a free-loading twat to be a paid subscriber.
Hah, thank you - the Lords gifts keep on giving.
Bit unfair calling us freeloaders twats… only some of us are.
I can’t speak for other freeloaders and becoming a subscriber hasn’t stopped me being a twat.
Interestingly terms commonly used for their Lordships.
I agree in principle, although I am surprised you didn’t mention Lords Kempsell and Owen, the 0 experience mates Johnson ennobled. If the Lords is to continue existing as it is there obviously needs to be some tightening up on the appointments process & conventions
This piece isn't really about that aspect, but fwiw I think the solution to that problem is very simple. Just take party appointments out of the hands of the prime minister and give them to the Appointments Commission, which should be put on a statutory footing. Would keep the benefits - former secretaries of state and prime ministers bringing experience - but get rid of the cronyism. And just as importantly, prevent current PMs from using the possibility of peerage to keep people loyal in the present.
This was the point I was going to make. In addition to removing cronyism, should there also be a limit on the number of Lords? It's gotten a bit out of hand over the last few years. And I will read your latest book as soon as it's out in ppbk.
Yes, certainly. We could also give peerages a renewable (or not) 15-year term limit, rather than making them for life.
Sorry to be harsh but rather than a term limit I think it should be like a soho upmarket nightclub and operate with one in one out basis and we have a new member when another passes away, like the Pope
Maybe you could retain the HOLAC element in some form but there is no excuse for retaining hereditary legislators at all. Also, those 26 Church of England bishops have no legitimacy to be legislators because the UK is increasingly secular and the C of E needs to be disetablished. There shouldn't be any members of the upper chamber by virtue of a person's position in any religious organisation.
Prime Ministers should also lose the right to appoint people to the Lords... just look at the party apparatchiks and undeserving talentless abd sometimes unprincipled toadies appointed recently by Cameron, Johnson and Truss.
Having been fortunate (?!) enough to see the place from the inside it was a surprise to me to see what a crucial role the Lords play, in stark contrast to the Commons. All points that you make in your excellent book. (Am now onto Rory Stewart's book that seems to echo many of your points).
We tend to hear of the Lords' failings, with dreadful political stooges being appointed, the lobbyists and charlatans, the hangers on. We hear very little about the expertise and the serious debates and analysis in committees. It does not make for good TV or media commentary.
The potential changes are relatively obvious; a serious appointments committee, possible time limits on membership, insistence on regular attendance and participation, an end to purely political appointees, a limit on overall numbers. There are are more changes that could be made, but they could all be made incrementally and over time. The challenge is persuading the major parties who cling to the current model, like they cling to FPTP voting.
Great piece. Democracy is "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". Liberalism entails a rock-solid guarantee of human rights (ovine rights?) for lambs.
100% agree with all of that. Democracy is just voting and voting is not enough. I also get frustrated by the conflation of the word - sometimes it is used to refer to voting or a vote and sometimes is used to refer to the whole system of constitutional government. For example, Brexiters frequently challenged People's Voters as undermining "our Democracy" - basing the statement on their view that a second referendum was not accepting the result of the first, but at the same time insinuating that it was undermining the whole system - which it clearly was not. Rather the referendum itself, as you note, although clearly a democratic process, also sits in conflict with the system of constitutional government. May be you should explore "democracy" in Origin Story?
Modern democracy means not just voting, that's the misunderstanding many yanks often trot out.
Modern democracy is based on human rights, from which the specific system (with several varieties) derive, to implement protection of human dignity and human rights.
That's why EU has Human Rights now in its charta, yet French democracy is a bit different from German, from Denmark, from Belgium etc. (And some like Hungary, have removed essential parts of democracy, like independent judicary).
Fantastic. This perfectly explains what I have been grappling with.
I suspect the right wing propaganda machine actually wants Lords reform so it can get rid of those pesky cross benchers and get its own people elected. Pumping up the outrage at all the ridiculous political appointments is in its own interest.
PS still trying unsuccessfully to subscribe - no idea why it fails to work. Thanks for not cutting me out.
I don't see any contradiction. Progressives have been grateful to the Lords in recent decades because they have been a bulwark against authoritarian right-wing governments. If we ever had a progressive left-wing government and it was frustrating their will, then the mood would change. The principle is still the same, it's anti-democratic and a new second chamber should be devised that preserves the good bits and gets rid of the bad.
There are still 92 hereditary peers! What experience do they have, aside from incest and gout? It is less than 30% women, and whilst they may not have an absolute majority, the Conservative party is wildly over represented and will be whatever the outcome of the next election(s). Only reason to want to preserve that is if you secretly like the idea that ultimately right-wing men know best and that is good that they rule over us. I think we can do better
Love is a bit strong for me, I would struggle to love any institution that contains Claire Fox personally but I admire it a lot. As a fellow Liberal its good to hear somebody say the truth about democracy out loud it is bloody dangerous Brexit being case in point! I've come around to the Lords (my Marxist 19 year old former self would be horrified) I blame your book entirely for this, the reform that it needs is how people get in it and
the peerage for yes men, mates of the PM and their wives bloody hairdressers?! I say keep the Lords as it is but stop the peerages there is enough in there as it is. The last bit about fancying the Lords made me actually lol
The problem with elections is you tend to get the best salespeople, not the best people for the job. It should be a no-brainer to appoint experts to scrutinise legislation, and in a variety of fields because legislation comes in all spheres. You can argue about how the Lords is made up and how to improve - but fully elected like the Commons would not be an improvement, in my view.