« First Election Results In | You Cannot Waste Your Vote » |
Constitution Changing

Image © Parliamentary Copyright.
A slight destraction from the election before counting begins tomorrow, as MPs today voted for a completely elected upper chamber of Parliament to replace the House of Lords.
At the risk of sounding anti-democratic, I have a few problems with the idea of an elected second chamber, but I'm pleasantly surprised to say that the government proposals actually look like they might, just might, manage to reduce the potential impact of what I see as the problems - namely dominance of party-politics and career politicians and a loss of expertise.
Follow up:
Legitimacy
One initial concern over an elected chamber would be that such a group would be able to claim equal legitimacy with the House of Commons which could lead to a demand for equal powers and therefore create the potential for deadlock in the legislative process. Thankfully, the method of election might help overcome this. According to the BBC one-third of members would be elected every 5 years, at the time of the EU elections. They would be elected for a fixed term of 15 years and standing for re-election would not be allowed.
I think this would still allow for the new chamber to demand more powers than that of a 1-year delay, which can only be a good thing because the current situation renders the Lords more or less impotent as far as being a check on a Commons majority goes. However, with more infrequent elections and restrictions on re-election, it's probably going to be difficult for them to claim equal status. Sounds too good to be true so far, I'm sure I've oversimplified it but I remain optimistic.
Expertise
Another advantage the Lords has over the Commons at the minute is that it is made up of people who are experts in their field, usually having had long, distinguished careers in the military or the arts etc. I'm curious as to how this will be continued into the new reformed house and to be honest, unless the government go for the other option approved by MPs, ie a chamber with 20% appointed members (which I don't particularly think they should, or could given the cash-for-honours scandal).
Party-Politics
Finally, the inability to stand for re-election might help to retain, at least partially, what I beieve is the most important benefit of the House of Lords. At the moment, because the Lords don't have to worry about being re-elected, they are not reliant on their party to fund and help with their campaigns. This means they are not as beholded to their political party, hence the presence of many cross-benchers. One of my major concerns is that an elected chamber would simply become packed full of another 500 career politicians beholden to their respective party. Hopefully the inability to seek re-election will help to counter the dominance of party-politics, at least to some degree.
Of course with good news there's always bad. It'll be a shame to have to lose the "House of Lords" name, but it's hardly appropriate for an elected chamber and unfortunately one proposal for the new name is 'The Reformed Chamber' - oh dear. Also, bishops and archbishops will get to keep their seats, and I'm not sure I like that idea at all.
