We have recently touched on the Upper House in previous blogs, and we’re eagerly awaiting a Cromwell blog from Araminta. Boadicea has given us an excellent education in the important structure of how we came to be as we are legislature-wise, and I am always trying to learn a little more. The House of Lords has been an institution that I never quite understood, and so have kept quiet as I try to gather information, until now as I am a little confused.
I start this blog as a discussion, and although looking for people’s views as ever, I’d also like those that can to explain please! I know I could go buy a book on the constitution, but I’d rather hear from you fellow charioteers as there is so much knowledge out there!
This article is the main reason for me writing – I just don’t understand it. I thought the Upper House was there to counter-balance the House of Commons. I am vaguely aware of the Parliament Act but don’t understand how or why it came about (I understand New Labour invoked it many times) but I don’t understand the contradiction. This second article goes on to show that Teresa “something of the night” May says they will ignore the Lords vote and do it anyway!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the House of Lords is meant to be the cheques and balancing part of the two tier system ensuring the Commons don’t get too up themselves. But….despite this ‘defeat’ (lead by the LibDems – aren’t they in the governing coalition?) the Government has announced they’re going to do it anyway. Not even bother with the pilot recommended by the amendment voted on in the Lords.
Now, as you know, I have an issue with hereditary anything including peerages (see previous blogs) and I was tentatively in full support of the New Labour reforms in 97…..until they produced nothing other than a different type of ‘corruption’, namely jobs for the boys and girls that either donate to the relevent party or will be a yes man for the government. I can’t offer an opinion on the remaining bishops and law lords etc, but what is the point of having an upper house, no matter how selected, if they are simply ignored by the government? We can’t even rely on the HRH to not sign the ensuing legislation! Surely we can do better? Did it work better or more transparently before the New Labour reforms? I suspect it did.
Lord Taylor (Tory, but black and a lawyer) is quoted as “horrified and shocked” today that he was being investigated for corruption, sorry, expense claims, an example suggesting that these ‘appointed’ Lords are as bad as the lot in the commons. He believed he was entitled to claim the money. Did he not read the bumpf he got with the cape and wig FFS?
Not that USA or Australia have the answers, but is it not the case that unless both houses agree legislation cannot be passed? And both their houses are elected? Is that not something we could do here? I’m not saying their systems work….but are they not at least a little more accountable? (sorry, Boadicea, I know you hate that word, but I do think someone somewhere should be accountable! My democratic vote allows me to say that I reckon!)
I wonder, does this system need changing? It doesn’t seem to work to me if the government, a minority one at that, sticks two fingers up at the Upper House and therefore to extrapolate, do what ever they so wish. (‘cos Auntie Liz will sign anything put in front of her ……sorry, couldn’t resist!)
Boadicea's Chariot 
You are right of course, Cuprum. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 severely curtailed the Powers of the House of Lords, so effectively on most matters the Commons can ignore their decisions.
They can, however, considerably delay the passing of a Bill, and their decisions are rarely completely ignored. The checks and balances are therefore not completely ineffective, but it’s not an ideal situation, I agree. Since every party in Government tinkers with the composition of the Lords, it has become a bit of a nonsense, especially since the creation of the new Supreme Court has removed yet another of their functions!
or “its” functions!
Another interesting point Ara – the contrast between judiciary and legislature is in the news over these super injunctions. I don’t know about impact of the supreme court but is it too simple to say that the judges can only rule on what Parliament has passed, not what is necessarily right? I understand there were more law lords before the Lords reforms in 97, but there seems to be a significant number of lawyers in the commons too, so I’m flumoxed!
What was the thinking behind the original idea of the two Parliament Acts? Was there an issue the other way round to today? They’ve been around a long time and in my limited experience of the law the longer it remains on the statute books the better it is (ie served the test of time, but I am aware this isn’t a golden rule!)
The general rule, Cuprum is the legislature passed by Parliament as a statute is interpreted by the Judiciary. This sometimes has rather startling consequences. The process of Judicial Review and the body of Common Law sorts out some of the really badly drafted legislation, I believe, although I think that Statute Law takes precedence over Common Law.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, Cuprum, so I am trying to think back more years than I care to remember, so my memories of Constitutional Law are extremely hazy, and quite likely to be wrong.
Wasn’t it Michael Howard who was described as having “something of the night” about him, not Teresa May?
The Parliament Acts are much too modern for me, Cuprum, so I know little more than you on the subject, but the balance of power from the Lords to the Commons started during the seventeenth century, but more of that later!
Sheona – Yes, you are correct, it was by Anne Widdecombe in the early 2000s. However, having met the lady(?) in question, with her goth eye shadow and pale skin and a shoe fetish, I have transferred it to her too!
Araminta – It’s times like this I really wish I chose differently at A Level and Degree! I ought to go to a jolly good bookshop and buy a book on the History of Politics! But, between you and Boadicea (and others here) I’m sure there’s a collective of knowledge worth digesting!
The key word here is ‘interpret’ I guess! To misquote you – there are a lot of rubbish laws out there! It is intersting though that JRs can change what Parliament legislates – I bet they don’t like that!
I look forward to your piece on the pre 17th Century!
Hiya Cuprum – I have to go and throw a herb-butter spatchcocked chicken on the barbie right now, but will be back later.
OZ
I will eventually, I hope, produce something interesting, Cuprum, but my area of “expertise” and I hesitate to use that word, is the Seventeenth Century, and the Civil War, in particular.
I know exactly what you mean about choices; I switched from Law to History, but probably should have done English!
Enjoy OZ – alas I won’t be here later, I’m off to see Derren Brown for an evening’s entertainment with Mrs C! TTFN
I suppose that I agree with Daniel Hannan on this matter. The Lords was just fine before Blair ruined it, much as he ruined everything about the UK. Short of returning to the 1996 status quo, the best option would be just to have fully elected Lords.
The 1911 Act was intended to curb the power of the House of Lords.
In 1909, the Liberal government under Asquith, put forward what was known as “The People’s Budget”. It proposed a form of land tax, which would have hit the landed classes very hard. The Lords refused to pass the Budget.
The Liberals made a big issue of reforming the Lords in the General Election of 1910, which returned a hung Parliament. The Lords still refused to pass the Budget, and Asquith asked the King to create sufficient Liberal Lords to ensure the Budgets passage through the Lords. The King refused.
Unlike today’s lily-livered lot (couldn’t resist that!), Asquith went to the country again at the end of 1910 asking for a mandate for Parliamentary reform. The Liberals, again, formed a minority government.
In the meantime, Edward VII had died, and George V agreed to create sufficient Liberal Lords to overcome opposition in the Lords… the Lords backed down and the Act was passed.
The Act prevents the Lords from vetoing any Act originating in and approved by the Commons. It sets a limit of one month for the delay of “Money Bills”.
For other Bills, the Act provided that a ‘rejected’ bill would become law without the Lords’ assent if it were passed by the Commons in three successive sessions, provided that two years elapsed between Second Reading of the bill and its final passing in the Commons.
It also, incidentally, reduced the Parliamentary term from seven to five years…. Pity it didn’t go further!
The Act was amended in 1949, mainly because the Labour Government under Atlee feared that the Lords would oppose their program for nationalisation and other social reforms. It simply reduced the ‘waiting’ time from two years to one.
What Blair did with his ‘reforms’ heaven knows! I don’t. It seems to me, from this side of the world, that he removed the Best and left the Worst aspects of the bicameral system.
You have a thing against ladies who love shoes, cuprum? Think very carefully before answering!
I always associate the words “shoe fetish” with very odd gentlemen.
I agree with both Christopher and Boadicea. Blair with his placemen and his half-baked reforms of the Upper House ruined the system. (btw have you seen Bob Marshall Andrews’ opinion of Blair in the Daily Mail?) The original peers of the realm had been brought up with a sense of responsibility and duty to the country. The idea that they were all Tory backwoodsmen is incorrect. So it seems that two sets of Labour “reforms” have wreaked the damage. And look at some of Blair’s peers. At least three of the Muslim ones are being investigated for expenses abuses, not to mention lying in their teeth. I think I would prefer the backwoodsmen who would at least have the interests of the countryside at heart to a bunch of Tony’s cronies. But then I would probably prefer most of the current guests at the Scrubs to any crony of Tony.
I think we’re way beyond fixes, time for a complete re-start, thanks to all the meddling that has gone on – what was I saying about fixing something that ain’t broke?
It’s certainly broken now and I think the only possible answer is a fully elected chamber with some real revising teeth – especially where the public purse is concerned. Somehow, though, you have to break it free of Party and I have no idea how that could be done.
Here here Bravo! Can’t see it ever happening though, it is rare that the Lords really ever get mentioned, never mind debated or discussed amongst the normal electorate – even the media don’t seem very interested. Perhaps time for a letter to the Times? Or, even more effective…a twitter (you all have permission to shoot me if you ever see me be a twit!)
Sheona, no, shoes are a very important part of a lady’s attire! My point was that due to the type of shoes she wears, there’s something to suggest “something of the night” about her!
Secondly, no, I havent read the piece in the Mail – I’m could never bring myself to read the hate filled rag! I know what you mean about Tony’s cronies, but I do think all parties are to blame, not just him. Yes the muslims are being investigated, but so are the black Tory lawyers. Also, one of those muslims is a Tory! Cam has appointed more Tory peers than any other PM (see my previous blog).
Boadicea, thank you for your factual post – just what I was looking for! Interesting to note the difference between the two Kings.
In effect then, the Lords is pointless as the Commons can do what they want? Where’s the cheques and balancing?
It all sounds a bit of a mish mash of nothingness now – ideal for a proper review for proper reform for the benefit of the people, not the ruling classes. A JR or Royal Commission perhaps?
Any comments on how the second house works/fails elsewhere?
Cuprum, old bean, it’s “checks and balances”; “cheques” are only needed for paying bribes. 😀
Doh! Thank you dear chap – I was distracted watching the State of Origin RL game! Go Queensland! Mind you, I made the same error in the original post!
Any comment on the upper house in Canberra?
Cuprum –
I let it go the first time …
Go the Maroons!
Pronounced “ma’ roh-n” in this instance, as you know, but most Charioteers won’t. 😎
Paul Keating famously described the Senate as “unrepresentative swill”. It would take far too long to outline their current role and success, but in a word (or 3) they have teeth.
I’m not sure that the Lords was pointless. Certainly they could not veto Bills passed in the Commons, but they could amend them and they could ‘hold’ them up and thus, hopefully, allow cooler and more reasoned opinions and attitudes to prevail.
As Sheona has, I think, rightly pointed out the Lords wasn’t politicised in the same way that the Commons was / is. Certainly there were those on the Left and Right, but they were (are?) not subject to the sorts of pressures to conform to the “Party Line” as Members of the Commons are. If anything is undemocratic, in my view, it is the party Whips – the word says it all!! I think that the freedom from Party Politics allows for a much more rational debate – and compromise.
One musn’t forget the Lords Spiritual – Bishops, etc. Now you may freak, as I sort of do too, that the Church should have any input into legislation. They certainly opposed Sunday Trading for some many years and I’m sure, although I don’t know for certain, that they had something to do with the limited trading hours that now exist. Yet, is that really so wrong? The UK Sunday trading laws seem to me to be a typically British compromise between those who want to shop and those who think at least one day a week should be different from all the rest.
If we don’t have the C of E represented in the legislative process – I’d certainly vote for a bunch of ethicists to cast their beady eyes over proposed legislation.
Unfortunately, Bravo has it right. The system is now ‘broke’ and really does need fixing. However, I doubt that any politician from the Lower House will tackle the problem. Why should they? Why would they put in place a system that will limit their ability to do just as they please? They never have and they’re not going to suddenly start now!
The only way to remove Politics from the Lords is to grant life tenure. We have the technology to ask for nominations from the public … those who want to stand are precisely those who should never be elected … Elect the ‘Lords’ for life, or until retirement age.
Well if Keating didn’t rate them, they must be good! I take it they’re elected?
Go Queensland…..10-nil. Blimey, Mal Meninga’s put on a bit of weight since retiring! Greatest player I ever saw – fond memories of the Canberra Raiders in the early 90s.
Boadicea – I meant the Lords is pointless, not was! I totally agree regarding party politics, they’re infuriatingly non democratic. And I think you’re absolutely right about the Sunday trading – although the resulting mish mash of compromises are a little confusing and not really enforced. How does once become an ethicist? I’d happily apply!
I wonder how many Spiritual Lords there are?
Regarding the life tenure of public nominated candidates – I do vaguely remember this being raised as an idea around the millenium but I don’t think anything came of it.
Yes, they are elected – by a different system of voting. Wiki’ll explain. 😎
16-12 !! 😆
I would support a system of life tenure – or, at least, tenure to some sort of retirement age. If I had me druthers, I would also go for a nomination system outside the control of the political parties:
What I would propose would be a Senate, (Forget the Lords, much as it pains me, it’s gone.) There would be 48 Senators from the Historic Counties of England, 6 from NI, 13 from Wales and fewer than the 32 Historic Shires of Scotland – say 24 which would give 81. I would include the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Senior Clergymen of Scotland Wales and N. Ireland – no idea how those last two are defined, the Heads of the Armed Forces and the CGS giving us 89. Two more would be the Chairman of the CBI and a representative of the Trade Unions – choosing that one would be a bit of a pickle, perhaps. That brings us to 91. One more post would alternate between the Lieutenant Governors of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Mann. The Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, St Barts, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Queens Belfast and Wales, (Lampeter,) Which gives us 99. The final post I would leave I n the personal gift of the Sovereign, which means, in effect, the popular gift, even if it ends up with someone like David Beckham…
I would impose two strict qualifying criteria. No-one who was, or had been, associated with a political party, at any level, would be eligible, nor would any civil servant. Any nominee would have to show that they had worked for their living for at least, say, 20 years.
Initially, and when a seat became vacant, nominations, apart, duh, from those attached to certain posts, would be by acclaim, that is, anyone could nominate anyone else to an independent electoral commission for the Senate, who would check the qualifications above, then manage the elections. Since, after the initial elections, subsequent elections would be on the order of decadal intervals in each County or Shire, the commissioners should be life-time appointments, and all or their deliberations, meetings and correspondence should be open to inspection by the public.
That might be something like it?
I like your idea Bravo – sounds good. Now all one has to do is to get the Commons to implement it!