Secular Café: House of Lords reform

Secular Café For serious discussion of politics, political news, policy, political theory and economics and events happening round the world

House of Lords reform Jun 24th 2012, 06:41 This is the big week. Nick Clegg is going to reveal his proposals to Parliament and all the vested interests will be manning the barricades. Andrew Rawnsley, IMO one of the best political journalists going has this article today in The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-lords-reform Quote: The most obvious centre of resistance is the House of Lords itself, a very self-regarding institution. The esteem in which peers hold themselves is not always without justification. There are subjects – science is a good example – where the expertise in the upper house is palpably superior to anything that can be mustered by MPs. Defenders of the Lords can always point to some highly distinguished individuals who make impressively wise speeches which would be genuinely missed. What apologists for the Lords prefer not to highlight are the many members of the bloated upper house who rarely make any contribution, and the large proportion of debates which are mediocre, complacent, stale, ill-informed and distorted by the inevitable bias of a chamber inhabited by men and women of mainly advancing years who do not have to stand for election. Recent scandals have also reminded us that peers can be just as prone to temptation as MPs – the more so, because, unlike MPs, they do not have to answer to a single voter. As Walter Bagehot observed back in the 19th century: "The cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it."... ...His most difficult opponents are not in the Lords but down the corridor in the Commons. It has been resistance to and division about change among MPs that has repeatedly smothered previous attempts. Mr Clegg along with his Tory partner in this enterprise, the constitutional affairs minister Mark Harper, have tried to learn from this history. The government's proposal is for an upper chamber which is 80% elected, 20% appointed. This will not satisfy everyone. For democratic purists, it ought to be all-elected. For some, that is too many potential party hacks. For others, the continuing presence of some bishops will be objectionable. You can't please all of the people all of the time, especially not when it comes to Lords reform. The merit of the proposal is that it is a decent attempt to find an all-party consensus. It is believed that the new model will still have bishops, but fewer. OTOH there will be other "faith community" representatives. If you're are interested in the campaign to prevent this (a very uphill struggle), have a look at this campaign http://holyredundant.org.uk/ Quote: The Government's proposals to reform the House of Lords will preserve and entrench the influence of unaccountable representatives of the Church of England in our Parliament. At present, the Church of England is granted privileged access to our Parliament. Anglican Bishops sit alongside Peers in the House of Lords, they have the right to vote and debate, they influence our national way of life. They acquired this right solely by virtue of their religion, their gender and their position in the hierarchy of one particular denomination of one particular Church. They are unaccountable to the public. We want fair reform of the House of Lords which does not afford privilege to any special interest group. We urge the Government to remove the automatic right of Bishops to sit there. If there's a reason for them to be there, IMO they can stand for election.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions