Fork in the road
Lordy Lordy. What are we to make of ? Was it a first step on the path to elections for our second chamber or the first step on leading to a constitutional ditch? Rarely have I felt so unsure about what lies ahead so I'll set out both cases and let you choose.
Why it might be a first step on the path to elections for our second chamber:
• Whatever the reasons MPs may have had in their minds, last night's vote was for what it said on the paper - a fully elected Lords. That will create its own momentum
• The likely next prime minister and his possible successor are both committed to electing 80% of peers and are likely to put that in their next manifesto
• The political mood has changed for good - partly for generational reasons and partly thanks to the cash for honours investigation. Many MPs are now embarrassed to be heard arguing for a fully apppointed House of Lords
• This is an idea whose time has come
Why it might be the first step on a muddy, potholed road leading to a constitutional ditch:
• The vote for 100% elected Lords was swelled by those who wanted anything but that. They were seeking to provoke a confrontation with the Lords. Previous reforms have been defeated by unholy alliances eg Enoch Powell and Michael Foot in the 70s
• They'll succeed as peers of all parties are predominantly opposed to elections
• Many peers are not just fighting for a principle but for their job, their pay, their perk and their pension. All good reasons they won't give in easily
• Gordon Brown's not daft enough to waste his first few months in office or the first few months after an election victory fighting a protracted battle about a topic which no-one down "The Dog & Duck" cares about
• David Cameron told his peers that this was a priority (wait for it) for his third term in office!
• The devil is in the detail - i.e how peers will be elected, by whom, when, to a body called what and with which powers - and last night's vote was not about any of that.
Your view then?
P.S.The act of writing this made me come to a view. It will be the first step on the path to elections for our second chamber but the road to it will be muddy, potholed and lined with ditches so no-one can tell how long it will take to travel. Cop out, me?
I'm 
Comments
And the English parliament - which surely will follow a Scottish PM - will complicate matters even further.
England has a bicameral system, and Lords spiritual, whilst Scotland and Wales are unicameral and disestablished.
It would have been best to wait to see what function the Lords was required for (The Upper Chamber of the British Parliament, the Upper Chamber of the English Parliament, or the English Commons) when asymmetrical devolution was followed to its logical conclusion: Symmetry and an English parliament.
For the last several years, I've noticed that the unelected parts of the government - the Lords and the judiciary - have been the only ones I trust to make sensible, liberal decisions, rather than pander to the mob and the press or, frankly, act like a bunch of psychopaths. (I'm thinking in particular of terror legislation.) That's probably because they don't have political careers to worry about. I suspect that having them all-elected will make things less democratic, not more, and that that's somehow what the Commons wants.
I think your PS is not a cop out but correct. The problem is nobody really knows what they want, though many know what they do not want.
My fear is MPs will feel they need to be decisive and "men" of action rather than noble thinkers who have considered, debated, considered more then formulated a plan.
This forthcoming change in our system of government will be the most momentous event in the history of the governance of Britain even more than any agreements we have and will make with the EEC. So they need to get it right.
Even if this vote were binding (it is not), you can't just say: We'll elect a second chamber. What is the second chamber to do? If elected surely it is just going to occupied by politicians of the same political persuasion as the Commons - in which case why have it?
If I am elected to a Parliament(fat chance) I would expect to have the same element of power in the one chamber as the other - otherwise I am a second class politician.
WS Gilbert quoted "When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, as every child can tell. The House of Peers, throughout the war, did nothing in particular - and did it very well". He missed the point. It is not the job of the HOL to create laws, it is their duty to check they are well drafted and applicable. Elected members will know that their jobs will depend on towing the party line and thus have a conflict of interest. Surprisingly the independence and non-elected status of the HOL, combined with its subordinate but important role has prooved very stable and popular.
Only a political party or leader with a persecution or inferiority complex would want to amend the HOL.
I am both surprised and saddened by the result of the vote last night. Personally, had I been an MP I would've voted for a 50,60 and 80% elected second chamber, with preference probably in the reverse order.
I read the Government's White Paper on Lords Reform, and am in the process of reading the two days of debates preceeding the vote in , and as yet I'm unswayed from my position that there should be appointed members.
My largest fear now is that the expertise and scrutiny applied to legislation will be diminished, and that a single party will conceivably be able to command a majority of both houses, effectively acting as a rubber stamp (assuming all the Lords take the party whip).
I would like to see in future clear legislation in place to prevent any party having an overall majority in the House of Lords, I would like to see the name "House of Lords" retained, and I would like to see nothing but free votes. I'd also quite like to see all the pomp and ceremony associated with the Houses of Parliament retained, for symbolism if nothign else, although I am sure that there are a great many who would disagree with me on that point.
I agree with John Portwood's comments above. The House of Lords, in concept at least, is meant be a legislative check on the commons, not a political one.
The biggest irony has to be that the House of Lords has become the victim of the type sloppy legislation from the Commons that it itself was designed to weed out.
The only way two fully elected chambers could work in the interests of the nation (and not the parties) is for the elections to be staggered mid-term of each other.
I am not as concerned about the exact mix of the second chamber as long as the principle remains. The principle I am referring to is that a second chamber has the right to challenge government so that hastily assembled bills, knee jerk reaction policies and huge majority dictats are all examined and questioned thoroughly by disinterested (look it up) people. I would suggest that any government especially a huge majority government thinks very careful about the % of voted peers because the argument they use at the moment to overrule second chamber 'interferences' will not be anywhere near as valid if the second chamber is actually elected.
Those of you against life peers and hereditary peers be careful what you wish for because we could end up with a US style government where a strong elected second chamber prevents the elected government from carrying out the business of the day and the Prime Minister either being impotent or having to impose a Presidential style to running the country. Does this sound familiar...?
From what I can remember from the halcyon pre-tony life there was nothing wrong with the HOL. It was the intent of New Labour to destroy the HOL in an attempt to stop the balances and checks that would then give them uncontrolled power. There is nothing wrong in other parties saying what we have done is wrong, it is not working, and returning all non-elected but prepared to work peers back to the HOL where they belong. Because of the arrogance of one man who is under the impression that he is nearly related to god and his unholy desciples the institutions of this country have been brought to the point of destruction. It is a pity the last 10 years cannot be wiped from our history! But I fear that even retirement will not stop him being resurrected.
In the immortal words of Yogi Berra; When you reach a fork in the road...take it.
So what about the Parliament Act? Do we think the Commons is about to abandon the right to force legislation through against opposition from the other House?
Not really. So why exactly are the elected members of the other House going to bother to turn up and debate and vote? If all they represent is political will, and if their political will can be set aside whenever it doesn't suit the government, what is the point of the job?
The wealth and variety of experience within the HOL and its ability to consider the longer / wider view when looking at legislation are things worth retaining.
Next to this we have the shorter term and politically expedient HoC where MPs are forced to tow the party line - rather than use their experience.
What we don't want is for HOL reform to diminish the overall capability of Government but rather extend it.
The difficult question is how? I hope the result will not end up being the cumulative effect of various changes taken a various times and based on the expediency of the time.
Isn't this something worthy of a referendum?
Are we to have a second elected house because the first one has been such a success?
It's rather like military strikes against Iran, because Iraq's been such a triumph.
Nutters!
Perhaps that ditch is actually the target,and if that works, the other House will not be far behind. It's perfectly feasible for the PM not to still be in post by the time of the next Party conference - if the next Party Conference never happens.
The whole issue should be settled through a friendly game of football.