If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Both Kim Cameron (here) and Ben Laurie (here) have picked up on the story about the House of Lords discussing a briefing on pervasive computing.
I’ve written previously in favour of maintaining the Lords as a strong second chamber and this debate seems to highlight that there are many advantages to doing so. One reason why a member of the Lords would “get it” (to quote Ben) is that they are not professional politicians - having an elected second chamber would destroy that advantage (and cause the loss of much real-world experience that sadly seems lacking from the Commons). Particularly in the areas of science and technology (although health, education, the law and civil liberties all deserve a mention!) the Lords has so much more expertise than the Commons. The debate on pervasive computing demonstrates this nicely.
The primary purpose of the Lords is precisely to stop the rest of Parliament from causing damage to the country through lack of thought or foresight - recent scuffles over ID cards show an aspect of how this works - so the members of the Lords need to possess that foresight and knowledge. The campaign to Elect the Lords has a page of myths about Lords reform - Funnily enough they don’t mention the loss of expertise and knowledge that would happen!
On this day..
- Wordpress Upgrade - 2006
Loading ...
You’re quite right - we probably do need to add a section on Elect the Lords addressing this issue.
In short, its nonsense. The “experts” in the House of Lords have vanishingly small influence, and this could easily be countered by appointing people with specific expertise on select committees, as Charter 88 has been arguing for years.
The members of the House of Lords who regularly turn up in large numbers and block legislation are party hacks, who vote on party lines and who got there by flattering party leaders. The reason they are so effective is that no party has overall control - it really is that simple.
Under an elected system you could preserve all that is good about the House of Lords while lending it extra legitimacy. Ultimately, filling the second chamber with “experts” and “specialists” simply means that the chamber will be filled with people with little or no interest in the matter at hand 90% of the time. I’d love to know why you think that would be a good thing.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
There are two basic problems with having an elected HoL (all IMHO, of course) - the first is the sort of people who become politicians and the second is the electorate (who made the famous quote about people getting the Governments they deserve?). I think my basic problem is that I’ve become so cynical about the state of the country that democracy itself seems the problem.
I fully accept the point about the large numbers of “pointless” Lords, but, to me, that would suggest removing the individual’s power rather than scrapping the whole institution, which has, on the whole, served us very well over the past few hundred years. Almost every case where the elected Government of the day has complained about “an unelected chamber getting in the way of democracy” then it has been the HoL that was correct - legislation should be scrutinised, reviewed and delayed where required where it is in the public interest - Even if the public are not aware of it! We have too much sloppy legislation leading to loopholes already.
I’m not sure that the HoL does have a problem with legitimacy - I think there’s a lack of understanding generally about the political process which is enforced by the gutter press (who are wrong about almost everything they print) and the major political parties who they pander to. The only people who seem to have a real problem with it is Blair and co who seem to think they can do anything they want as long as people were stupid enough to vote for it! I’m very interested to know what the HoL has actually /done/ (rather than what it is) to attract this criticism.
The point about experts who have only an interest in their own field is taken, but I don’t see evidence of that in practice either - one thing that is striking is that the level of debate in the Lords is far superior to that of the commons - even where one is not an expert in a particular field then there tends to be an ability to follow an argument and draw conclusions based on facts instead of the whip - this does NOT happen in the “lower” (in every sense) chamber. My own area of expertise is IT (although I did study law), although that doesn’t prevent me from taking an active interest in many other areas - where I can follow arguments and reach conclusions (or not) after listening to many sides. Any opinions I hold are subject to change - based on strong evidence and valid discussion!
Ultimately, I have no problem with an elected upper chamber per se (apart from my natural conservatism - note the small “c”)- but I can’t see it working in practice whilst our electorate is unable to reach conclusions on policy (or even who to vote for) themselves.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:10 am
[…] Paul Squires complains that an elected second chamber would mean a loss of expertise, although it soon emerges from his comments that his problem is not with reforming the House of Lords, but democracy per se. […]
August 7th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
[…] to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!Whilst replying to the comment from James Graham regarding my post on the House of Lords I was thinking generally about my political beliefs. As with everything else I can be persuaded on […]
December 15th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
[…] Sudbury, it’s a shame to lose someone of his calibre from the Lords, which, as I’ve said before, relies on knowledgable and conscientious members to work properly. It’s ironic, in a way, […]
December 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pm