Time to stir the pot a little. I noticed that Jeremy Corbyn raised the aspiration to turn the House of Lords into a second elected chamber, so I thought I would throw my view into the ring.
If we take the potential negatives of an elected second chamber, the most obvious is that you end up with the sort of legislative stagnation that has created real financial, social and administrative problems in the USA. By turn, this has led to the anti-political eruption that brought Trump to the fore.
The second, and equally problematic concern, certainly in the UK, is the political disconnection of large swathes of the population. It is a huge struggle to get people to vote in the number of elections, both national and local, that we have now, without adding another to the list. We have been governed for far too long by governments elected on significantly less than 50% of the electorate, and nothing convinces me that will change dramatically anytime soon.
As to the positives, removing the ridiculous presence of hereditary peers gaining political influence through their genes, rather than capability, seems the clearest reason. As does the removal of the terminally unjustified appointments by political leaders, on either side, in an attempt to pack the chamber with supporters, or as favours for services, and more often monies, rendered.
I would also like to see the removal of the religious presence, as our legislation is not based on a particular religious ideology. If it is, then you better pick the right one!
If we assume that the House of Commons is the singular source of legislation, then, ideally, the second chamber should be there to assess, question, recommend, criticise and hold to account that legislative process.
That is why the presence of experienced, accomplished and committed members from a wide variety of careers – away from the political bubble – is always going to be an asset as the basis for chamber membership. The question is, how they are selected. If it is on value added to the discourse, then political affiliation is secondary, and that is as it should be.
The problem then arises as to who does the selecting. It would be ideal to have a totally independent selection process, but at some stage there would be party political input, so here is my initial suggestion.
Firstly, the election is done on-line. There are very few eligible voters who do not have access to the internet, and there can always be processes to pick up the remainder, which will reduce very quickly numerically.
Secondly, it is on the basis of career and capability, not political allegiance. So, no indications of party loyalty will be included. And no electioneering on behalf of any candidates by any politicians.
Thirdly, there is a need to reduce the total number of members, so there would be no replacements for hereditary peers – or they can have their membership removed immediately, which seems fairer – and, based on the agreed maximum number of members required, replacements would be selected once a sensible number of spaces existed. For example, if there were 5 required, you can choose from a list of 10. Unless there was a specific shortfall in an area of expertise.
This structure may well change, but as a means of creating an alternative chamber for assessing and questioning proposed legislation, it’s not a bad place to start.
cherokoffdotcom 