The background
A Conservative rebellion looms over Liberal Democrat-championed plans to reform the House of Lords. The planned changes include reducing the number of peers in the UK’s second chamber from 816 to 450 and making 80 percent of members elected, instead of appointed, for 15-year terms rather than for life.
Parliament is set for a key ‘programme’ motion vote on 10th July 2012, which would limit the amount of time for debating the bill in the House of Commons. The BBC reported that 100 Tory MPs are expected to vote against the motion, which could spell the end for the reform: “The lack of a time limit on debates means the House of Lords Reform Bill could be “talked out” by MPs making long speeches, so that it might never get a chance to pass into law.”
Commentators are divided as to the necessity of reforming the House of Lords. But, unfortunately for deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg, the majority are united on one point: the proposed bill is seriously flawed.
Read more about the controversial journey towards Lords reform at The Periscope Post.
The Lords reform bill is ‘constitutional vandalism’
“The Lords reform Bill is a piece of the purest constitutional vandalism. This is unsurprising, given that it is the work of the leader of the Liberal Democrats,” wrote Iain Martin in The Telegraph. Even those who agree with the principle of Lords reform must recognize that the Lib Dem plan is flawed, as it is based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the role the House plays. The fact that senators would be elected for 15-year terms would lead to “swaggering behaviour”, said Martin; “Costs will rise. The Lords will lose expertise.”
Lib Dem reforms risk ‘constitutional gridlock’
The proposed reform “will give a varnish of legitimacy to an institution that had been emptied of the personnel that made it work well,” said a Times (£) editorial. The result: the new House of Lords “would surely in short order begin to want to assert its strength, thus risking the constitutional gridlock between the Houses of Parliament that the British system has always prided itself on avoiding”.
Lords reform is about democracy
“No other modern democratic country has a second chamber quite like ours. The House of Lords is an anachronism,” wrote Labour MP Peter Hain on The Guardian’s Comment is Free. Hain argued that reform is not about getting rid of current peers, as many of them do a good job; nor is it about whether the Lords performs an important role. “This is not a about personnel change – it’s about accountability and democracy,” Hain insisted. The bill is not perfect in its current form, but this may be this generation’s last chance to change the system: “If this bill is not passed, fundamental reform won’t come around again in my lifetime, if ever.”
Lords ‘a democratic outrage’ but reform is flawed
“I find the House of Cronies a democratic outrage,” said Kevin Maguire in The Daily Mirror. “The unelected chamber is fundamentally wrong, packed with creeps and snobs. Lords and Ladies fighting to retain jobs for life is stomach-churning.” But this does not mean Maguire is entirely in favour of the Lib Dem proposals proposals: “I would hold my nose and vote for Clegg’s shoddy solution because, though bad, its still better than what currently exists.”