baldysblog.co.uk

That would be “Master of the Universe” or a least, his small version of it, Jack Straw is still banging on about reform of the House of Lords when it is the House of Commons that is in most and dire need of reform. It is all rather like a chap who complains about the holes in the toe of his socks and yet adamantly refuses to cut his toenails, it beggars all belief in the idea that Jack Straw has even a handful of functioning brain cells.

“We Have To Be Modern”

Is the cry of Labour since 1997 and yet, a more retarded, lacklustre and backward looking series of Parliaments following the last 3 elections, would be difficult to find, however hard you researched Hansard. The sum total of Labour’s achievements since 1997 have been:-

• Class envy legislation, hand guns, fox hunting and the Lords.

• The total erasing of Civil Liberties: ID Cards and far too many Criminal Justice/Anti-Terrorism legislation that even the Third Reich would have baulked at.

• A profligacy with Public Finances that would make the Emperor Nero seem very prudent or a drunken sailor on a spree, a paragon of virtue and credit to his mother.

• Plus the odd war based upon flawed intelligence – no surprise there then ! But perhaps I’m being harsh here, you need a modicum of intelligence to exist, before it can be flawed.

However and in the spirit of being helpful, let me see if I can construct a suitably ‘modern’ reform programme.

Reforming the House of Lords

In simple terms, whilst you may ‘debate about’ how the the Lords is constituted from the traditional Hereditary, to Life Peers, Appointed, Elected or any combination you like, the real debate needs to go further than that and is unlikely to get anywhere whilst all power resides in the House of Commons and nowhere else. Meaningful reform means also reforming the House of Commons and especially, the relationship of that House to the Prime Minister who actually, has all the executive powers whilst the Monarch and the Lords have none.

Regardless of whether Labour or Tory, either of which is likely to form the Government, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas or Thanks Giving. All the discussions thus far have lacked any realistic grasp of the issues with Labour stuck with their usual inverted snobbery of the word “Lords” and the Tories not wishing to be seen as the nasty party protecting “privilege”, both approaches are totally inept.

What Should a Second Chamber Do ?

In essence any second chamber is a “revising” body with the emphasis on looking at the legislation to ensure that it is sound in principle, clear in its intent, enforceable and does not infringe any fundamental principles of British Legislation. When the “Law Lords” sit, they are experts in the law and experienced Judges but, this is not what you want from the House of Lords where really you are asking the members to apply common-sense and life experience rather like Magistrates have to on a daily basis.

The Composition of the Lords

There is also another important element that arises from the membership of the Commons now being wholly “professional politicians” which means and regardless of political party, they will “fag” and suck a fart out of their Leaders bottom if it advances their careers and offers the hope of a red despatch box at some time in the future. This doesn’t make for honesty and personal judgement based upon conviction, it leads to following the ‘party line’ in all things and on all matters which means a high likelihood of poor legislation not properly thought through or constructed on sound principles.

Regardless of the particular Government, the current version of the Lords has most often shown an independent streak regardless of past or present political views. The key reason for this is that the current composition is made up of people who have no wish to follow a political career now or in the future and therefore tend to speak from personal conviction and not party doggerel and dogma. Often they have had a full public life previously and as the “wages” are hardly attractive, participate because they wish to continuing making some kind of contribution.

How Appointed

The current system is a peculiarly “British Solution” to a thorny problem which is to try and ensure a balance and degree of independence in the Second Chamber but to understand it better, we need to step back in time because by doing so, we can see better where things are right and where they are wrong today. NB. I do not intend to be anything other than “broad brush” in the following:

The Monarch of the day held all executive powers, the Lords represented the landed classes and the Commons, the Merchant classes. Historically, very many English Monarchs were not too choosy as to how they wielded their absolute power and therefore were the “tyranny” to be guarded against. There was no universal franchise, the Commons was elected and it would have seemed quite natural for the Lords to be hereditary as far as membership went as the estates remained in the family from one generation to another.

The situation today has changed radically in that the Monarch has few powers, the Lords can only delay measures, all executive powers rest in the House of Commons and the “tyranny” is now the Prime Minister who has all the powers a monarch had under what are known as the “Royal Prerogatives”.

Now in reality, this situation has existed for quite a number of decades now so what has changed that now requires action ?

A Litigious Society

The respect for Parliament and its processes probably started to crumble within the House itself in the latter years of Maggie Thatcher’s time as PM and John Major’s 5 year stint both finished it off and set the stage for the Blair years. Intellectually, the Labour Governments since 1997 have been distinguished by being hooligans and vandals without a clear thought or plan when it comes to Constitutional change or evolution.

As expressed above, the rise of the professional politician has meant that we the citizens of the UK, can no longer trust our politicians of whatever party, to do “the right thing”, we now need to hedge them around with “rules” that ensure a formal “Separation of Powers”. Whether over expenses, promised referendums not delivered and so on, our elected representatives show no respect or regard for our parliament so we the people must restore it.

Reform Must Encompass…

I will no doubt return to this theme in other essays but for now I will finish with what changes need to take place at the Palace of Westminster.

The real problem as in days of yore is the power of the executive and how best to restrain it. Kings have fallen foul of Parliament in the past when they wanted money raised to fight foreign wars, for example. In principle, this is no different from Gordon Brown wanting to raise taxes to fund some control freak scheme he is personally fond of.

The problem that we have seen in the post 1997 Parliaments where Labour had quite huge majorities, a complete lack of independent thinking from the Labour back benches, they have always acted like sheep and done what the whips told them to do. Now whilst you may think that an odd comment to make, consider it from another angle. If you are part of the party that forms the government and you have a 150-180 majority, obviously any measure can be steamrollered through but all measures need to be scrutinised and some opposed.

The only motivation for doing this lies in love and pride in the very institution of Parliament. The loss of self confidence within parliament and the replacement of pride with a “jobsworth” mentality is probably what has led signing the EU Constitution.

1. We need to place further checks on the office of Prime Minister and reduce the power of patronage that it currently wields. It may mean a Commons Committee to examine and vet all candidates for High Office as one way of doing it.
2. We may need to radically level the playing field with regard to MPs by reducing the number of constituencies to around 200-220 maximum each producing 2 MPs on a transferable second vote.
3. With the Lords, we can only have members elected by the public if, the Lords is given the powers to reject a Bill outright against specific criteria. Interesting times but we should be capable of managing it over a 20 year period.