Thank you for (inadvertently) giving me the opportunity to get this one off my chest out of the public glare of BlueSky!
On your first part: I so agree with almost all you say about the HoL, but my manifesto would tweak it a little:
1. Break the link between honours and the legislature
Honours should be honours; legislators should be legislators. The HoL is bloated because of so many honours being given. Keep the honours as lords and call the second chamber something else, or keep the second chamber as lords and call the honours something else (top bananas?!), it doesn't matter - but break that link. It would also remove politicians' ability to stack the HoL in their favour.
2. Give HOLAC teeth
It should be independent and impartial, but with expertise in the functioning of the second house. It should scrutinise all membership nominations and have the right of veto. Probably made up of members elected by the Lords from the Lords, but that is easily worked out.
3. Make the second chamber a forum of expertise and wide-ranging perspectives
Unlike you, I would include religious leaders too, but not just CofE - I would include the heads of each major (non-)religion (Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the chair of the Muslim Council, Sikhs, Humanists, etc.). Even as an atheist, I have to acknowledge that religion plays a part in many people's lives - and that atheism is itself a belief - and I think it would be helpful to include that (moral) perspective alongside experts in other fields
4. The second chamber should be appointed, not elected
For all the reasons you mention, elections tend to deliver the best self-promoters (or those with the deepest pockets for the best promotion team), and inevitably put a time limit on members' focus (i.e. the next election/re-election). It also risks losing experts you don't want to lose based merely on public "whim".
Nominations should be scrutinised and ratified by HOLAC (see above).
5. Allow/enable the general public to nominate members as is already the case with the honours system.
This should allow broad public input without the drawbacks (and costs) of elections. It also broadens the talent pool beyond those in the public eye or personally known to whoever submits nominations, and helps limit the risk of nepotism.
6. Don't allow party-political groupings
That's not to say politicians shouldn't be members - after all, they have experience/expertise in law-making, parliamentary process and interaction with the second chamber. But a revising chamber should not be biased or subject to whipping.
7. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
At present, some of the most diligent and knowledgeable members of the HoL are hereditary peers. Find a way not to lose that expertise (nomination in their own right, life peerage, whatever). It's just as unfair for good people to lose their seats through an accident of birth as it is for indifferent people to gain them through an accident of birth.
8. Make active involvement a requirement
Anyone who doesn't turn up for, say, 12 months, should lose their seat and someone else be nominated in their place (obviously unless for compelling reasons)
9. Make decent, honourable behaviour a requirement
Enable HOLAC to expel members as well as appoint them. Obviously the bar needs to be high enough to preclude vexatious attempts to exclude members; but it seems the bar in the Commons is too high to be effective.
I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of, but I hope that would be a good starting point.
______________
On your second part: I do actually worry about this world where it's becoming existential to make mistakes or change your mind. If you (generic) simply can't afford to make a mistake and are expected to know everything immediately with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, the destruction of creativity and imagination that causes has a detrimental effect on government, education, work, personal relationships.... everything.
______________
And on your third part: Happy Christmas and I hope you get a decent rest. I'm really enjoying your substack and Origin Story - they are a most welcome palate-cleanser at a bad time when otherwise all I want to do is go off-grid. Thank you.
What is the purpose of an upper house? In my opinion, it's to provide scrutiny on legislation passed by the lower house.
To provide that scrutiny, what does the upper house require? It requires expertise and independence from influences that might otherwise cloud the application of that expertise.
One such cloud would be the endless round of elections, between which elected officials are required to reduce themselves to performative, crowd pleasing politics to get reelected. This crowd pleasing is the opposite of why the upper house is there. They're not there to please the mob (the Commons can do that). They're not there to be led on issues, they're there to do the leading.
Sure, we want them to be accountable. But does that accountability have to be direct? Having the Commons (first in committee, then in a parliamentary vote) appoint them is accountability enough for me. Also, give them a mechanism by which they can remove Lords who perform poorly. Job done.
Don't get me wrong, I support democracy, it's the best method of government that we have, but it's overrated. It remains a system where two idiots can outvote a genius. Just because someone's been democratically elected, it doesn't automatically make them better at the job.
Nice one. The Lords thing is a long-running debate, and your contributions to it are very thoughtful. I’ve been nerdishly interested in HoL reform ideas since I did A-level British Constitution in the early 70s, so it’s always a treat to read a properly-considered view.
And the mea culpa bit was very impressive. Would that more journos and some politicians were similarly/minded.
I would have thought that Ian would understand that unilateral disarmament doesn’t work in politics, a world where the Torys stuff the lords full of hacks and partisan loyalists and Labour doesn’t attempt to even it up would be the worst of all worlds
I love that period between Christmas and NYE. Proper quiet down time that one must savour. I like doing the weekly planing in my notebook and I took great pleasure in writing out next week and leaving those days utterly blank with no thought as to what might fill it.
loved your analysis of the Lords Wish this Government would get a grip and do some intelligent thinking before they open their mouths on anything else So many unnecessary cock ups so far Happy Christmas to all
“It's the kind of thing someone murmurs over their croissant as they read the Guardian when they don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.”
Oh.
At least I know a little more now, thanks (I think).
We all fell for that CNN clip Ian. I was tearing up here. I love how you can be so frank about getting it wrong. you're great. keep up the great work. you and dorian are brilliant together on the pod too. so well matched.
Thanks for being…a better writer than a lot of journalists…braver in admitting when you are wrong…just thank you. Merry Christmas
Thank you for (inadvertently) giving me the opportunity to get this one off my chest out of the public glare of BlueSky!
On your first part: I so agree with almost all you say about the HoL, but my manifesto would tweak it a little:
1. Break the link between honours and the legislature
Honours should be honours; legislators should be legislators. The HoL is bloated because of so many honours being given. Keep the honours as lords and call the second chamber something else, or keep the second chamber as lords and call the honours something else (top bananas?!), it doesn't matter - but break that link. It would also remove politicians' ability to stack the HoL in their favour.
2. Give HOLAC teeth
It should be independent and impartial, but with expertise in the functioning of the second house. It should scrutinise all membership nominations and have the right of veto. Probably made up of members elected by the Lords from the Lords, but that is easily worked out.
3. Make the second chamber a forum of expertise and wide-ranging perspectives
Unlike you, I would include religious leaders too, but not just CofE - I would include the heads of each major (non-)religion (Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the chair of the Muslim Council, Sikhs, Humanists, etc.). Even as an atheist, I have to acknowledge that religion plays a part in many people's lives - and that atheism is itself a belief - and I think it would be helpful to include that (moral) perspective alongside experts in other fields
4. The second chamber should be appointed, not elected
For all the reasons you mention, elections tend to deliver the best self-promoters (or those with the deepest pockets for the best promotion team), and inevitably put a time limit on members' focus (i.e. the next election/re-election). It also risks losing experts you don't want to lose based merely on public "whim".
Nominations should be scrutinised and ratified by HOLAC (see above).
5. Allow/enable the general public to nominate members as is already the case with the honours system.
This should allow broad public input without the drawbacks (and costs) of elections. It also broadens the talent pool beyond those in the public eye or personally known to whoever submits nominations, and helps limit the risk of nepotism.
6. Don't allow party-political groupings
That's not to say politicians shouldn't be members - after all, they have experience/expertise in law-making, parliamentary process and interaction with the second chamber. But a revising chamber should not be biased or subject to whipping.
7. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
At present, some of the most diligent and knowledgeable members of the HoL are hereditary peers. Find a way not to lose that expertise (nomination in their own right, life peerage, whatever). It's just as unfair for good people to lose their seats through an accident of birth as it is for indifferent people to gain them through an accident of birth.
8. Make active involvement a requirement
Anyone who doesn't turn up for, say, 12 months, should lose their seat and someone else be nominated in their place (obviously unless for compelling reasons)
9. Make decent, honourable behaviour a requirement
Enable HOLAC to expel members as well as appoint them. Obviously the bar needs to be high enough to preclude vexatious attempts to exclude members; but it seems the bar in the Commons is too high to be effective.
I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of, but I hope that would be a good starting point.
______________
On your second part: I do actually worry about this world where it's becoming existential to make mistakes or change your mind. If you (generic) simply can't afford to make a mistake and are expected to know everything immediately with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, the destruction of creativity and imagination that causes has a detrimental effect on government, education, work, personal relationships.... everything.
______________
And on your third part: Happy Christmas and I hope you get a decent rest. I'm really enjoying your substack and Origin Story - they are a most welcome palate-cleanser at a bad time when otherwise all I want to do is go off-grid. Thank you.
8. Shorter than 12 months. Some of the liggers will only turn up once a year
Absolutely agree.
What is the purpose of an upper house? In my opinion, it's to provide scrutiny on legislation passed by the lower house.
To provide that scrutiny, what does the upper house require? It requires expertise and independence from influences that might otherwise cloud the application of that expertise.
One such cloud would be the endless round of elections, between which elected officials are required to reduce themselves to performative, crowd pleasing politics to get reelected. This crowd pleasing is the opposite of why the upper house is there. They're not there to please the mob (the Commons can do that). They're not there to be led on issues, they're there to do the leading.
Sure, we want them to be accountable. But does that accountability have to be direct? Having the Commons (first in committee, then in a parliamentary vote) appoint them is accountability enough for me. Also, give them a mechanism by which they can remove Lords who perform poorly. Job done.
Don't get me wrong, I support democracy, it's the best method of government that we have, but it's overrated. It remains a system where two idiots can outvote a genius. Just because someone's been democratically elected, it doesn't automatically make them better at the job.
Nice one. The Lords thing is a long-running debate, and your contributions to it are very thoughtful. I’ve been nerdishly interested in HoL reform ideas since I did A-level British Constitution in the early 70s, so it’s always a treat to read a properly-considered view.
And the mea culpa bit was very impressive. Would that more journos and some politicians were similarly/minded.
Hope you enjoy your Christmas.
Very funny and honest, Merry Christmas
The BFI are doing a season celebrating Moviedrome next July.
Thank you, Ian, for all the thought-provoking in me and others (spell check preferred “otters”). Have a good Christmas
How can you mention the man doing yoga and ignore the woman practising tight-rope? Her disembodied legs towards the end are surreal.
As for the rest of it, please keep being prepared to be hard on yourself but accept that that is what makes you so good for the rest of us.
Happy Christmas.
I would have thought that Ian would understand that unilateral disarmament doesn’t work in politics, a world where the Torys stuff the lords full of hacks and partisan loyalists and Labour doesn’t attempt to even it up would be the worst of all worlds
I love that period between Christmas and NYE. Proper quiet down time that one must savour. I like doing the weekly planing in my notebook and I took great pleasure in writing out next week and leaving those days utterly blank with no thought as to what might fill it.
loved your analysis of the Lords Wish this Government would get a grip and do some intelligent thinking before they open their mouths on anything else So many unnecessary cock ups so far Happy Christmas to all
And Happy Christmas to you too!
Merry Christmas you fucking cunt
Thank you for being you, Ian.
There don’t seem to be too many places to turn for a caustic gaze, humour and considered commentary.
Have a good break - let’s see if 2025 manages to buck the trend for this so-far cursed decade.
“It's the kind of thing someone murmurs over their croissant as they read the Guardian when they don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.”
Oh.
At least I know a little more now, thanks (I think).
We all fell for that CNN clip Ian. I was tearing up here. I love how you can be so frank about getting it wrong. you're great. keep up the great work. you and dorian are brilliant together on the pod too. so well matched.