Lords Reform: Ditch the bill

Tonight there will be a vote on the programme motion for reform of the House of Lords. This is in effect a vote on whether to bring in a guillotine on the debate, in this case for 10 days. There are many Tory rebels, and Labour are voting against.

If I were an MP, I'd be voting against too. On principle, such a large constitutional change should have significant debate as this is the largest change since joining the EEC.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems and pro-reform Tories are doing themselves a disservice with their arguments. Firstly they say that it was in all the party's manifestos. True, they all mentioned reform but not these details (450 Senators, 15 year terms, PR). Secondly they say that it was in the coalition agreement, but the agreement only stated that they would bring forward proposals to seek consensus. That doesn't mean legislation if there isn't consensus - the fact that whipping is needed shows there is no consensus. Thirdly, they argue tit for tat with the proposal to equalise constituency boundaries, no no no, the quid pro quo was the AV referendum and you've used that.

I completely disagree with election terms being 15 years. That's nearly half someone's working life! Terms should never be that long, what if you get a dud? We still haven't got powers of recall for dodgy MPs so I don't think measures for Senators would be handled well either.

The relative powers of the Commons and new Senate has not been settled with the Commons as primus. Flash forward 15 years and it is easy to imagine Lib Dem Senators talking about them having more electoral validity due to PR being their election method (even if that is wrong).

I also disagree with party lists driven by party leaders, we'll just get second rate MP wannabees. What about the expertise we have gathered in the upper house, the beauty of the current system is that the combined wisdom of many appointed Lords helps bring knowledge to our Parliament which is sadly lost from the Commons.

So please vote this down.

My revised solution is as follows. Each group within the Lords; Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Crossbenchers have internal elections before a General Election of existing members and prospective new members. These elections give rise to a preferential list of candidates for each group.

At the General Election, the groups are awarded Lordships based on the proportion of votes cast for each party. The Crossbenchers are allocated from the percentage of electorate who did not vote at the General Election.

I think this solution enables an element of proportionality to make sure no one has a majority. It enables Crossbenchers to have a good sizeable representation. The internal election makes sure that it is not in the hands of the party leaders, enabling experts to remain on the list if they are effective in the House. Also, being based on the General Election results but not directly elected should put the Lordships in their place when it comes to primacy.

Hey presto, keeping all the elements that are good and stopping the patronage nonsense. If only anyone would listen. David, are you there?

Squiffy.