Coalition creates 100 peers with Lords deal

[manrow]

Reading the article it is clearly understandable why the imbalance in political allegiance in the Lords would make life difficult to impossible for the new coalition in achieving rapid changes in legislation. I appreciate that creating an elected second chamber is the longterm aim, but is this really the way to start the career of this new government? They both campaigned on the removal of sleaze from our political systems but this surely flies in the face of that.
Read more here:-
Coalition creates 100 peers with Lords deal - Times Online

I hope that this trend is rapidly ended and in particular they need to ensure that any subsequent legislative changes of this nature can only be achieved by national referendum; or is that too radical?

[Midas]

It's totally understandable why this move has been made, and it's quite logical that the political balance in the Lords should reflect that of the Commons, otherwise as Manrow says "... the imbalance in political allegiance in the Lords would make life difficult to impossible for the new coalition in achieving rapid changes in legislation". The new government has to push through a great deal of new legislation if it's to even start to make inroads into the colossal debts incurred by the last Labour government, legislation which Labour itself will, I'm sure, do all it can to resist. That would result in disaster all round, so for one, I think some unilateral and perhaps seemingly undemocratic moves have to be made, initially at least.

I too would like to see far more referendums on such matters, but in this case I don't think there's time; someone had to act fast, and I'm glad to see someone has.

[Opinionated]

It's totally understandable why this move has been made, and it's quite logical that the political balance in the Lords should reflect that of the Commons,

Surely a system of 'checks and balances' is vital to the health of a democracy?

...otherwise as Manrow says "... the imbalance in political allegiance in the Lords would make life difficult to impossible for the new coalition in achieving rapid changes in legislation". The new government has to push through a great deal of new legislation if it's to even start to make inroads into the colossal debts incurred by the last Labour government, legislation which Labour itself will, I'm sure, do all it can to resist.

Shocking! Just imagine an opposition party that actually opposes things!

That would result in disaster all round, so for one, I think some unilateral and perhaps seemingly undemocratic moves have to be made, initially at least.

Yes yes who cares about democracy when there's a much needed period of belt tightening to look forward to!

I too would like to see far more referendums on such matters, but in this case I don't think there's time; someone had to act fast, and I'm glad to see someone has.

If the Lords is ever going to be a democratically elected House then there will never be a right time to do it. Each administration is going to find an excuse in it's "important" legislation criteria for putting it off. However, I agree a referendum would be nice!

[Major Sinic]

Surely a system of 'checks and balances' is vital to the health of a democracy?
Shocking! Just imagine an opposition party that actually opposes things!
Yes yes who cares about democracy when there's a much needed period of belt tightening to look forward to!
If the Lords is ever going to be a democratically elected House then there will never be a right time to do it. Each administration is going to find an excuse in it's "important" legislation criteria for putting it off. However, I agree a referendum would be nice!

The most effective 'check and balance' we had was also the least democratic one. The House of Lords used to operate on the principles of honour, integrity, honesty and the concept of 'noblesse oblige'. The odd thing is it actually worked, and worked well. Then Blair came along and turned it into an ineffective hybrid, pumped it full of Labour life peers, some of whom paid for the title in cash or kind, and we ended up with an altogether lower calibre of peer, with corresponding lower standards of conduct. The balance of the Lords has been skewed as Labour for obvious and understandable reasons ensured a Labour majority in both houses. The short-term solution from a wholly pragmatic view is to skew it back again. There are more pressing problems facing this Liberal Conservative Coalition Government than reform of the Lords, which nevertheless should not be put on the back burner for any longer than absolutely necessary.

I realise that this is not an ideal democratic solution but rather a pragmatic and practical one.

There is little doubt in my mind that the leadership of our new government is committed to putting the country's interests above those of party. This could not be said of the outgoing administration. Equally by the very nature of a coalition there are checks and balances built in. I very much hope that the expected election of David Milliband as leader of Labour, will spell a new beginning for the Labour Party, and that it too will start to put the interests of our badly damaged country ahead of political advantage. This does not mean failing to provide an effective opposition, but it does mean not trying to damage government for the sake of it.

What we have now, a coalition made up of elected representatives with differing views and policies committed to working together for the common good; a government able to compromise and govern by consensus, is exactly what we will get following every future general election, if we do ultimately adopt proportional representation. Should this coalition fail it will, I fear, set the cause of electoral reform and proportional representation back considerably.

[Opinionated]

The most effective 'check and balance' we had was also the least democratic one. The House of Lords used to operate on the principles of honour, integrity, honesty and the concept of 'noblesse oblige'. The odd thing is it actually worked, and worked well. Then Blair came along and turned it into an ineffective hybrid, pumped it full of Labour life peers, some of whom paid for the title in cash or kind, and we ended up with an altogether lower calibre of peer, with corresponding lower standards of conduct. The balance of the Lords has been skewed as Labour for obvious and understandable reasons ensured a Labour majority in both houses. The short-term solution from a wholly pragmatic view is to skew it back again. There are more pressing problems facing this Liberal Conservative Coalition Government than reform of the Lords, which nevertheless should not be put on the back burner for any longer than absolutely necessary.

Yes I agree that what the Labour Party did to the Lords was a travesty of epic proportions and a missed opportunity to actually do some good by transforming it into an (at least) half elected chamber, but there you go - power corrupts etc. Feel the need to point out that it was Thatcher who first started castration of the Upper House by taking away many of it's powers after a series of legislation was defeated in "the other place".
There is no current purpose to the House beyond tradition and somewhere to go to fill empty cabinet seats.

I realise that this is not an ideal democratic solution but rather a pragmatic and practical one.

Aaah but isn't that an age old excuse for keeping the status quo even when it's detremental?

There is little doubt in my mind that the leadership of our new government is committed to putting the country's interests above those of party. This could not be said of the outgoing administration. Equally by the very nature of a coalition there are checks and balances built in. I very much hope that the expected election of David Milliband as leader of Labour, will spell a new beginning for the Labour Party, and that it too will start to put the interests of our badly damaged country ahead of political advantage. This does not mean failing to provide an effective opposition, but it does mean not trying to damage government for the sake of it.

We can only see but Clegg has done nothing to show he's interested in anything other than power and Cameron has always been ruthlessly ambitious (see meteoric rise to top), politics (these days especially) attracts a certain type and very few are in it out of a sense of duty (I can only name Dennis Skinner with any confidence, possibly Frank Field, there must be at least one Tory but with Widdecombe gone I'm hard pressed).

What we have now, a coalition made up of elected representatives with differing views and policies committed to working together for the common good; a government able to compromise and govern by consensus, is exactly what we will get following every future general election, if we do ultimately adopt proportional representation. Should this coalition fail it will, I fear, set the cause of electoral reform and proportional representation back considerably.

Yes you have a point, the way the electorate view Google Page Ranking may certainly hang on how successfully this government negotiates it's differences, even if they aren't keen on the end results.

[Midas]

Surely a system of 'checks and balances' is vital to the health of a democracy?

Yes, of course it is, however not to the point where one house will pass legislation only to have it thrown out by the other on party political grounds simply because of a numerical advantage.

Shocking! Just imagine an opposition party that actually opposes things!

Ha ha, but not so good when the opposition can find itself in a position to oppose positive changes simply because they have more Lords seated.

Yes yes who cares about democracy when there's a much needed period of belt tightening to look forward to!

There are times when actions need to be taken, and that can, and should, over-ride democracy.

If the Lords is ever going to be a democratically elected House then there will never be a right time to do it. Each administration is going to find an excuse in it's "important" legislation criteria for putting it off. However, I agree a referendum would be nice!

I don't think this is so much about a democratically elected House of Lords, more a pragmatic response to what could become a huge obstacle to rolling back all the damage caused over the last decade and a half. But at least it's a start in ensuring a similar political balance between houses.

[soloman]

Yes, of course it is, however not to the point where one house will pass legislation only to have it thrown out by the other on party political grounds simply because of a numerical advantage.

I don't think this is so much about a democratically elected House of Lords, more a pragmatic response to what could become a huge obstacle to rolling back all the damage caused over the last decade and a half. But at least it's a start in ensuring a similar political balance between houses.

I agree with the sentiment in your posting. However I wait to see the evidence that this is but a temporary 'blip' in the undemocratic way that this issue is being dealt with. We complained long and loud about the way that Labour rode rough shod over the rules, and I do not want to see the coalition making the same mistakes!

[Opinionated]

Yes, of course it is, however not to the point where one house will pass legislation only to have it thrown out by the other on party political grounds simply because of a numerical advantage.

Works in the USA, always has - OK it means things are slow but then often better worked out as a result! Also we don't have the same level of lobby system or the need to raise finances in order to keep a seat that they do.

Ha ha, but not so good when the opposition can find itself in a position to oppose positive changes simply because they have more Lords seated.

"Positive" is always subjective and if a measure is contrary to what the electorate voted for in an opposition manifesto then they have a duty to oppose it.

There are times when actions need to be taken, and that can, and should, over-ride democracy.

The country's not a business you know - repeat the country is not a business, government responsibility extends far beyond the economy (we can argue forever where that should end, but the fact is it's always going to be extended in the very least into law and order and national defence), as such democracy is always vital to protect us from the government getting certain things done - like our anti-terror legislation for example - wouldn't some real opposition to that have been great?

I don't think this is so much about a democratically elected House of Lords, more a pragmatic response to what could become a huge obstacle to rolling back all the damage caused over the last decade and a half. But at least it's a start in ensuring a similar political balance between houses.

Funny, because I distinctly remember a manifesto pledge from the Lib Dems to make the Lords fully democratic, but it would seem they are willing to do what they criticised Labour for and stack the HoL in their own favour. It's wrong - it always was, it always will be. Odd to me that some of those who were very vocal about Labour's using the Lords to get through the Fox hunting thing are those who now see it as a necessary, could it be they are safe in the knowledge that these coalition measures won't effect them adversely? Also more Lords = more expense how is that 'cutting waste'?

[Midas]

Works in the USA, always has - OK it means things are slow but then often better worked out as a result! Also we don't have the same level of lobby system or the need to raise finances in order to keep a seat that they do.

Yes, but the USA isn't here, and it's a totally different system they use despite there being the superficial similarity of two houses.

"Positive" is always subjective and if a measure is contrary to what the electorate voted for in an opposition manifesto then they have a duty to oppose it.

I don't disagree with you, however I don't think that in this instance, any measure to try to correct Labour's profligate over-spending could be anything other than positive! The very fact that they (Labour) lost so many seats is surely an indication of the electorate's thoughts on their terms in power.

The country's not a business you know - repeat the country is not a business, government responsibility extends far beyond the economy (we can argue forever where that should end, but the fact is it's always going to be extended in the very least into law and order and national defence), as such democracy is always vital to protect us from the government getting certain things done - like our anti-terror legislation for example - wouldn't some real opposition to that have been great?

Granted it's not a business, although there are no reasons why many of the aspects of government shouldn't be based on a business model; after all, the electorate are very similar to shareholders in a public company and can have the same rights of veto if they think something is being done counter their common interest. But talking of the anti-terror legislation, it would indeed have been a very good idea if there'd been more democracy as it might have prevented the worst of the invasions of privacy and restrictions of freedom that Labour introduced, based largely on spurious information. Having said that, I think that most people are perceptive enough to distinguish which are the real issues pertaining to the wellbeing of the country as a whole, as opposed to those which are simply party political.

Funny, because I distinctly remember a manifesto pledge from the Lib Dems to make the Lords fully democratic, but it would seem they are willing to do what they criticised Labour for and stack the HoL in their own favour. It's wrong - it always was, it always will be. Odd to me that some of those who were very vocal about Labour's using the Lords to get through the Fox hunting thing are those who now see it as a necessary, could it be they are safe in the knowledge that these coalition measures won't effect them adversely? Also more Lords = more expense how is that 'cutting waste'?

The difference is that this change to the House of Lords is being done for a very valid issue which of huge importance to the national interest, not simply a party politically inspired means of 'getting at the opposition'. A big difference.

[LibLeft]

It cannot be 'democratic' to have an unelected house appointed by the previous adminstration to have the power to delay bills and stop the government of the day. Of course the upper house should be democratic, but it will be difficult to do that in years, let alone weeks or months. Appointing a house that is representative of the polls last election is the only quasi democratic way to do it.

[manrow]

It cannot be 'democratic' to have an unelected house appointed by the previous adminstration to have the power to delay bills and stop the government of the day. Of course the upper house should be democratic, but it will be difficult to do that in years, let alone weeks or months. Appointing a house that is representative of the polls last election is the only quasi democratic way to do it.

So that makes the coalition's actions okay then does it?

[Robin Edward Putland]

I think some unilateral and perhaps seemingly undemocratic moves have to be made, initially at least.
I too would like to see far more referendums on such matters, but in this case I don't think there's time; someone had to act fast, and I'm glad to see someone has.

Undermining our democracy in order to make dramatic cuts that could quite easily leads to another recession, wouldn't be bad for the country. Its tyrannical party political.
A referendum should immediately be held on goverment, voteing and constitutional reform.
The first step should be to immediately make all peers elected, to represent the people vote, not entranch the government in with 55% of the vote to make for a vote of incompetance and make more unelected jobs for your mates, to get your policies through.

[Robin Edward Putland]

There are times when actions need to be taken, and that can, and should, over-ride democracy.

War, natural deaster etc not just a new government in power and scare mongering about impending doom. We have a huge deficit but we also have a huge economy to deal with it. We're not Portugal, Spain or Greece, we will recover and continue to grow, although the tories plan to jepodise that.

[Robin Edward Putland]

The difference is that this change to the House of Lords is being done for a very valid issue which of huge importance to the national interest, not simply a party politically inspired means of 'getting at the opposition'. A big difference.

Isn't immediately cutting spending and size of the state party political? A lot of people on the left, or on benefits or in services won't see it as 'national interest'.