Labour to axe House Of Lords for 'people's senate'

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
The British Government has drawn up plans to axe the House of Lords and replace it with an elected "senate" (though let's not hope it acquires that horribly republican name).

Justice Secretary Jack Straw wants to kick out the 704 peers - 92 of whom are hereditary - and replace them with 300 elected politicians.

These would consist of 150 men and 150 women who will be allowed to serve no more than three terms.

All members would have to be resident in the UK and live in the UK for tax purposes.

At each General Election, a third of the peers would be replaced in a vote under the proportional representational system.

Labour to axe House Of Lords for 'people's senate'

Exclusive By Vincent Moss
14/03/2010
The Sunday Mirror



The House of Lords will be abolished and replaced with a wholly elected "senate" under plans to be unveiled this month.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw wants to kick out the 704 unelected peers - including 92 hereditary peers - who make up the Lords, which has been plagued with scandals over allowances and expenses.

They would be replaced by 300 paid politicians elected by the public, according to details of his plan leaked to the Sunday Mirror.

The 300 members - who would scrutinise laws before they come into force - would have a salary expected to be close to £65,737 and be allowed to serve for three terms - up to 15 years.

The new Lords would have an equal balance of men and women. All would have to be UK residents and live here for tax purposes.

Under the plans, a third of the peers would go at each of the next three general elections. They would be replaced by members in a national vote under a system of proportional representation. Crucially, future "senators" would only be drawn from members elected by the public.


Anglo-Saxon king with his witan (11th century)

Instead of calling the new House the "Senate", which sounds too republican, an ideal name would be the much more quinessentially English, and non-republican, "Witenagemot" or "Witan." This was a political institution in Anglo-Saxon England which operated from before the 7th century until the 11th century. The name derives from the Old English ƿitena ȝemōt, or witena gemōt, for "meeting of wise men." The Witenagemot functioned as an assembly of the elite whose primary function was advisory to the king and whose membership was composed of the most important noblemen in England, both ecclesiastic and secular.

The term "Witanagemot" has also been put forward by campaigners who want England to have its own Parliament (it hasn't had one since 1707). They want the proposed new English Parliament to be called the Witanagemot.

The move would stop prime ministers packing the Lords with their unelected cronies.

Peers will furiously oppose the plans amid fears that an elected second chamber could rival the power of MPs in the House of Commons.

But Labour believes the plans will end an unfair Tory weighting in the Lords. A senior party source said: "David Cameron keeps claiming he supports change. Let's see if he supports kicking all his chums with hereditary peerages out of the House of Lords."

HISTORY OF THE 'GREAT COUNCIL'


Queen Anne addressing the House of Lords, circa 1708

Today's British parliament descends, in practice, from the Parliament of England, though the 1706 Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union (which saw England & Wales unify with Scotland) that ratified the Treaty created a new Parliament of Great Britain to replace the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland. This new parliament was the continuation of the Parliament of England with the addition of 45 MPs and 16 Peers to represent Scotland.

The House of Lords developed from England's "Great Council" which advised the king during medieval times. This royal council came to be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the counties. The first English Parliament is often considered to be the "Model Parliament", held in 1295 during the reign of Edward I, which included archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and representatives of the shires and boroughs. Edward's paramount goal in summoning the parliament was to raise funds for his wars, specifically planned campaigns against England's nearest neighbours, the French and the Scots, for the upcoming year.

In the middle decades of the 17th century, England was plunged into civil war when the armies of the King fought the armies of Parliament. The Parliamentarian army, the New Model Army, was victorious, and 1649 saw King Charles I beheaded and England become a republic and a military dictatorship, ruled by Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army.

On 19 March 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England [find] by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England."

The House of Lords did not assemble again until the Convention Parliament met in 1660 and the monarchy was restored, with the coming to the Throne of Charles II. It returned to its former position as the more powerful chamber of Parliament—a position it would occupy until the 19th century.

During the reign of George III (1760-1820), the Lords was greatly increased in size due to the king creating peerages, but the more members of the Lords there were, the less power each individual Lord had. Thus, the Lords declined in power whilst the Commons grew in power.

The Lords now sit in the Palace of Westminster, built after the Great Fire in 1834 which destroyed the original building. Various Acts of Union in the 18th Century paved the way for the current set-up of the Houses of Commons and Lords.

In 1909 the Lords rejected the Liberal government's budget, which led - in 1911 - to peers being banned from blocking laws proposed by MPs in the House of Commons.

Moves to curb the power of hereditary peers began in 1958, and in 1999 the number was slashed to just 92 by Tony Blair.

Repeated efforts to reform the Lords since then have failed.
*************************************************

Vincent Moss on why it should go

Everyone agrees the House of Lords needs sweeping changes to drag the scandal-hit institution into the 21st Century.

The place is stuffed with doddery time-servers. Many rarely speak in debates, often only turning up to do little more than trouser lucrative attendance allowances.

There are a few honourable exceptions - former military top brass, senior judges, ex-Cabinet ministers and captains of industry.

But for many, the Lords acts as a subsidised day-care centre for old cronies of the party leaders.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw will start to push through the shake-up against the opposition of David Cameron this side of the General Election.

The trouble is that the peers he wants to abolish will have to back his proposed changes - and even very old turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

mirror.co.uk
 
Last edited:

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
elections cost a lot and to have another one will force the taxpayers to pay more.

first past the gate is the fairer way to go
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I think that this would be a most unfortunate change.

The House of Lords rarely exercises many of its less-friendly legislative powers because of a respect for the democratic weight of the House of Commons. I have a feeling that a second elective chamber could see legislative productivity in the United Kingdom plummet.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
It would be an evolutionary change to eliminate the House of Lords, but why replace it with anything. Britain already has over 600 MPs in the House of Commons. Why would it want any more politicians?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I think that this would be a most unfortunate change.

The House of Lords rarely exercises many of its less-friendly legislative powers because of a respect for the democratic weight of the House of Commons. I have a feeling that a second elective chamber could see legislative productivity in the United Kingdom plummet.


Does House of Lords have any legislative powers? I am not aware that it did. It can debate the House of Commons bill, propose modifications (which are not binding, the PM doesn’t have to accept them), but it cannot defeat the bill. In the worst case, it can delay the implementation by 18 months, but they really don’t have any powers beyond that.

I remember when I lived in Britain, a Labour politician, Tony Benn (he renounced his peerage and voluntarily went from ‘Sir’ to ‘Mr.’) came up with the scheme to appoint 1000 Lords and abolish the House of Lords. It went nowhere; Tories were strongly opposed to it.

So how do the Tories feel abut this chance? I don’t really see them supporting it.