James Moore
There is a lot of concern and mistrust of the political
agenda surrounding the changes being considered to the House of
Lords.
There are many people who deserve and aspire to receive
honours and titles. By abandoning the Lords in its current format,
we are reducing the ability to recognise people who have done
something for the good of society in favour of people who have
served a political party.
The argument that there is no expertise in the Lords
is totally baseless (unless meaning expertise in party politics).
I believe the opposite is actually the case.
The type of people who deserve the honour of sitting
in the Lords and who will be expert in a certain field may well
be the type that would not choose to stand for elected office.
By making it wholly elected, it will attract more typically party-affiliated
politicians who will be obviously more influenced by their party
needs rather than the needs of the county.
The current system also guarantees that minority
groups such as faith, charity, scientific groups can be represented
by one of their own who has a long and respected career outside
politics. The alternative will be the need for more specialist
lobby groups to replace their lost influence.
So in reality election will not widen the likelihood
of people to get in to the Lords, it will actually narrow it and
create a more party-tribal atmosphere.
In light of the scandals over lobbying and the ability
of governments to be selective with advice during consultation
processes it is essential that interested groups have a direct
influence in the legislative process.
Party politics is a dangerous thing when it comes
to creating inclusive government. It's almost unheard of to find
that more than 40% of people support a particular party. But we
can break down that barrier by including people such as non-affiliated
peers and the sovereign around whom there can be a sense of unity
and common purpose as there is less political agenda. Life membership
allows a freedom to do what is right in the long term without
undue party influence.
To the argument that the current system is failing
(with for example the appointment of Jeffrey Archer) then the
same can be said of the electorate's choice of MPs. It is equally
possible to remove any particular Lord who proves unsuitable on
a case-by-case basis, allowing a committee of members of the Lords
to do this themselves.
The continual constitutional changes which essentially
increase the influence of party-politics cause disillusionment
in the electorate and it partly this that drives low electoral
turnout and also reduces people's national cohesion, which taken
to it's logical conclusion will lead to a break up of the UK (the
SNP do well off this). The obsessive demand to change the institutions
of the country, imply that there is nothing more important for
politicians to do with their time.
At best, nothing of real importance in the life of
the UK will improve with this change. There will be an inevitable
increase in the cost of running an elected House of Lords.
Electing will simply increase party-political influence
which if the party in power is in control of the Lords, there
will be almost no way to slow down controversial legislation,
or if they are not in control could mean years of not getting
any major Bills through at all. It would be untenable to allow
the Parliament Act to remain in place if the Lords were elected.
If the argument is purely about making it democratic,
then this will put the Sovereign in a very difficult situation
and she will inevitably come under more direct attacks if the
Lords are changed in the ways proposed. It also raises questions
around the democratic credentials of the EU in its actions in
forcing a second treaty referendum in Ireland and in the action
that has been taken against Greece or the unelected government
that has had to be brought in Italy after the failure of the democratically
elected one.
If party politicians were genuinely interested in
real democracy, they would seek to allow direct elections for
all government ministerial positions independent of elections
for Parliament. This would create a much more democratic process
than seeking to have direct influence over the House of Lords.
At worst case, all peers (hereditary or life) should
at least still be allowed to speak in the Lords, even if not to
vote and should be invited for ceremonial occasions.
I appreciate that these views are very unfashionable
among MPs, but I hope that you will consider the benefits of the
current system, allowing common sense to prevail and that we can
all learn to live with the imperfect, but well balanced system
that we currently have.
| 
