On Alternatives to the House of Lords
Jun. 18th, 2013 03:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamSome chat over at the Andrew Ducker coffee house on Lords’ Reform prompted by a suggestion from the ERS that the number of Peers in the House of Lords could reach 2,000 after the next election if Peers are appointed to make the House of Lords proportionate to the 2015 election result.
Personally I quite like the proposed reforms that were parked earlier this Parliament for a 300 seat revising chamber elected using STV for 15 year terms. They are not the worst proposals I’ve seen and they are certainly better, in my view, than the current arrangements.
We’re certainly very unlikely to get either of my alternatives. But for the record, here they are.
Alternative 1.
We do away with the second chamber entirely and use people’s assemblies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy
A people’s assembly is convened by lot for each piece of legislation coming up from the Commons and to consider in depth important areas of public policy as selected by public petition.
Each assembly member is given time off work and lots of information and support in order to become a knowledgeable lay person with access to experts. The assembly then deliberates on the legislation or the issue and makes recommendations. In the case of legislation for proposed ammendments. In the case of policy for changes to policy and for legislation to be brought forward.
One might want to combine this with a Yes / No referendum on each final Act.
This alternative involves ordinary people in the legislative process much more than are currently involved but without sacrificing the deliberation by experts that the House of Lords is supposed to give us.
Alternative 2
I quite like the idea of group people along more than one criteria for political purposes.
Currently we are grouped for voting purposes by geography. I’m a member of the south of Edinburgh group.
I like the idea of also grouping ourselves by some other factor. Interest group sounds like a fine grouping factor.
My notion of how this interest group constituency would work would be this.
Seats in the House of Lords are allocated to registered interest groups on the basis of membership. Say 1,000 seats up for grabs.
Any group can register to be a registered interest group. Trades Unions. Religions. Charities. Associations of whatever type and stripe. The RSPB can register. The Man U supporters club can register. Or all of the football team supporters clubs could form an umbrella body.
Citizens can opt to be a politically registered member of up to, say ten, different groups.
So I’d be a politically registered member of Unlock Democracy, the ERS, an umbrella group for Scottish amateur dramatics, the umbrella group for qualified accountants, Amnesty, the cricket supporters group and the rugby supporters group, an umbrella group for allotments and gardening. Everyone else gets to pick their own according the their conscience and their interests.
I’m using politically registered for two reasons. Firstly, there are a number of organisations I want to be a member of or support but that I wouldn’t want to exercise political power. LiveJournal for example, or the Friends of the Wilts and Berks canal. Secondly, there are legitimate questions about what ought to qualify as a membership. Should the CEO of a charity get a seat in the Lords because a lot of people gave them a small amount of money? If I’m rich and can afford the subs for 40 membership organisations should I get 40 votes? If I’m really rich and I can afford to pay the subs for several thousand people should I be able to create a membership group (Friends of the Robert Maxwell Pension Fund anyone.)
You could allocate the seats in the Lords in a couple of different ways. Use D’hondt allocation based on the size of the each organisations politically registered members. Or any group with more than a threshold level gets one seat in the second chamber and we flex the size of the chamber up if needed. If there are spare seats allocate a second seat to any group with double the threshold, etc.
The seats once allocated to a particular group are filled by them in whatever way they like. The Church of England could fill their place or places by having the Queen appoint some bishops. Unlock Democracy would probably have an election. The CEO of an anti-cancer charity might be appointed ex officio.
What we get with this method is a different group of people turning up to the Lords with a different range of interests and a different set of constituencies to be accountable to. We retain expertise in the second house. We have people with a longer term view than the next election cycle. We also have a genuine degree of public approval for each appointment. The public get to endorse each organisation, including the way they allocate any seats in the second chamber they get.. If they no longer support the organisation they can leave, reducing that organisation’s likelihood of getting seats.
Personally I quite like the proposed reforms that were parked earlier this Parliament for a 300 seat revising chamber elected using STV for 15 year terms. They are not the worst proposals I’ve seen and they are certainly better, in my view, than the current arrangements.
We’re certainly very unlikely to get either of my alternatives. But for the record, here they are.
Alternative 1.
We do away with the second chamber entirely and use people’s assemblies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy
A people’s assembly is convened by lot for each piece of legislation coming up from the Commons and to consider in depth important areas of public policy as selected by public petition.
Each assembly member is given time off work and lots of information and support in order to become a knowledgeable lay person with access to experts. The assembly then deliberates on the legislation or the issue and makes recommendations. In the case of legislation for proposed ammendments. In the case of policy for changes to policy and for legislation to be brought forward.
One might want to combine this with a Yes / No referendum on each final Act.
This alternative involves ordinary people in the legislative process much more than are currently involved but without sacrificing the deliberation by experts that the House of Lords is supposed to give us.
Alternative 2
I quite like the idea of group people along more than one criteria for political purposes.
Currently we are grouped for voting purposes by geography. I’m a member of the south of Edinburgh group.
I like the idea of also grouping ourselves by some other factor. Interest group sounds like a fine grouping factor.
My notion of how this interest group constituency would work would be this.
Seats in the House of Lords are allocated to registered interest groups on the basis of membership. Say 1,000 seats up for grabs.
Any group can register to be a registered interest group. Trades Unions. Religions. Charities. Associations of whatever type and stripe. The RSPB can register. The Man U supporters club can register. Or all of the football team supporters clubs could form an umbrella body.
Citizens can opt to be a politically registered member of up to, say ten, different groups.
So I’d be a politically registered member of Unlock Democracy, the ERS, an umbrella group for Scottish amateur dramatics, the umbrella group for qualified accountants, Amnesty, the cricket supporters group and the rugby supporters group, an umbrella group for allotments and gardening. Everyone else gets to pick their own according the their conscience and their interests.
I’m using politically registered for two reasons. Firstly, there are a number of organisations I want to be a member of or support but that I wouldn’t want to exercise political power. LiveJournal for example, or the Friends of the Wilts and Berks canal. Secondly, there are legitimate questions about what ought to qualify as a membership. Should the CEO of a charity get a seat in the Lords because a lot of people gave them a small amount of money? If I’m rich and can afford the subs for 40 membership organisations should I get 40 votes? If I’m really rich and I can afford to pay the subs for several thousand people should I be able to create a membership group (Friends of the Robert Maxwell Pension Fund anyone.)
You could allocate the seats in the Lords in a couple of different ways. Use D’hondt allocation based on the size of the each organisations politically registered members. Or any group with more than a threshold level gets one seat in the second chamber and we flex the size of the chamber up if needed. If there are spare seats allocate a second seat to any group with double the threshold, etc.
The seats once allocated to a particular group are filled by them in whatever way they like. The Church of England could fill their place or places by having the Queen appoint some bishops. Unlock Democracy would probably have an election. The CEO of an anti-cancer charity might be appointed ex officio.
What we get with this method is a different group of people turning up to the Lords with a different range of interests and a different set of constituencies to be accountable to. We retain expertise in the second house. We have people with a longer term view than the next election cycle. We also have a genuine degree of public approval for each appointment. The public get to endorse each organisation, including the way they allocate any seats in the second chamber they get.. If they no longer support the organisation they can leave, reducing that organisation’s likelihood of getting seats.
