Currently 92 members of the House of Lords are actual, hereditary lords, the rest are mostly government lackeys appointed for life. It is often said we should get rid of hereditary members altogether, as it’s undemocratic, but then the entire house would be stuffed with government appointied yes-men to rubber stamp its legislation. An alternative is to have an elected House of Lords, but what’s the point of that, since we’ve already got an elected House of Commons?
Why not have the members chosen by lot (i.e. at random) for a fixed term, like in jury service? That’s what they did in Ancient Athens.
I think they should all be hanged from Blackfriars bridge like Roberto Calvi.
But failing that, the idea of an elected House of Lords is that they would function as a sort of oversight to the House of Commons, a division within the legislative branch whose job it was to ensure that whatever legislation gained enough popularity to pass the Commons did not breach or destroy certain rights and fundamental laws governing the country. I mean, that’s the function they perform now, but instead of ensuring the legislation didn’t destroy certain rights they ensure the legislation doesn’t threaten the interests of the upper class, from which almost the entire population of the Lords is sourced.
If one did have an elected House of Lords one would have to reform the Parliament Act, under which it is presently possible for the Commons to force legislation through the Lords.
Because then there’s a real chance that we’d end up with a majority of brainless chavs running the country. Not that such a scenario would necessarily be worse than the current system.
An elected upper chamber would simply be the same as an elected lower chamber, and could lead to deadlock. For bad examples of this, look at how the USA does it. Its government is often completely unable to function. We had it here too, until the powers of the House of Lords were restricted.
Chosen by lot, their powers would still be restricted, but it would be a very good cross section of the population, if it was large enough. Let’s say 600, or one member for every 100,000 people. Lots of chavs, true, but a fair slice of intelligent people too.
I must admit, my contempt for the British parliament means that my knowledge is sketchy but I thought in instances of deadlock we reverted to the public vote, like in the X-Factor. Honestly, I’m an anarchist. I don’t fundamentally believe you can reform the state to make it into something better than an extortion racket.
Choosing by lot doesn’t guarantee a good cross section of the population. You might get a professor of philosophy, a cellular biologist and three people with media studies degrees in the mix or you might get 600 chavs. If we are going to have an upper chamber then I think they should be picked a) with no influence from the party machine and b) with a slightly more rational approach than simply selecting people at random.
With a large enough number, selecting them at random would function like an opinion poll. You would never get 600 chavs, but would always have non-chavs in the mix, proportionate to their numbers in the population.
Just brainstorming here - you could have a sign up system followed by a factual exam which would have to be passed to be eligible to become a member, to ensure that all potential candidates have at least a passing knowledge of the country’s affairs. After that, the house could be selected at random from eligible candidates.
However, such a house would be dangerously at rick of being constantly influenced by the silly things that influence most people, like heartfelt speeches, tabloid scare stories and stereotypical predjudices, rather than actually being a sensible counter balance on the government. A second house could end up like an empowered X factor audience. “That’s what they did in Ancient Athens” - but remember the trial of Socrates! Someone with a bit of talent could probably rile up a good half of any 600 strong cross segment of the population in to voting for just about anything. There’s also the instability problem to consider - every time such a house got re-chosen, its composition would completely change. If it was re-chosen every sixth months, say, this would make it a highly unpredictable body and governments would have to wait for a favourable composition before they could pass anything.
Actually, they are appointed for 15 year terms.
The lords functions mainly as a check on the commons. Notably, because the commons is filled with idiots, they generally reject bills and advise on changes because of perceived legal problems or loopholes which the commons didn’t spot. It’s generally a useful body, I think, and bare in mind that if it wants to, the government can force bills through, so at worst the lords can only delay bills, it can’t actually stop them. I think the lords should be filled with more lawyers and experts in a range of fields so that it can perform this function better than it currently does.
I would suggest a much longer term for those chosen, say 6 years rather than 6 months, and rotating it, so that only 100 retire every year, preserving continuity. It’s true that such a random cross section would be prone to influence, but if you continue to limit their powers, this shouldn’t be a problem. It would be like a panel of public opinion.
Are you sure the currently appointed members onlly serve 15 years? I thought they were given life peerages.
If you continued to limit the second house’s power - then I can’t really see the point of this ‘panel’ of public opinion. Opinion polls already tell us what public opinion is, politicians already bend far too far backwards trying to win ‘public opinion’. They’d only have all the debates that are aired in the commons and in the newspapers already, and thus wouldn’t get much attention. People would have no more reason to listen to the members of this house than they would the vox pop interviewees who litter the daily news shows. I don’t really see the benefits of having such a house.
As for six year terms - asking people to give up six years of their life would be too much to ask. Six years would have taken me from when I was 24 - a recent graduate travelling the world - to when I’m 30 - by which time I plan to have a good job, settled down with my life partner with a semi-payed mortgage and have adopted a child. If someone asked a 24 year old me to give up this six years of my life, I’d have quite rightly told them to get fucked. You could make attendance voluntary, but then you’d be excluding large sectors of the public (anybody who is career driven, northeners who have dependents or partners based in the north, pretty much all single parents etc). If you made attendance for selected people compulsory, then you’d basically be enslaving them into being part of the government, which would clearly be immoral.
It needn’t be full time attendance, just a certain number of days a year. Making it compulsory is no different to jury service, except perhaps longer, but in return it would look very good on a CV and undoubtedly help a person’s career, and confer status on them. There would be good wages too, plus free travel, accomodation, and other perks, and maybe a lifelong allowance thereafter. To address the specific point you raised, maybe no one under 30 (for example) would be eligible. Exceptions could also be made for people too ill to do it, just like with juries. It seems to me though that making it compulsory is essential for the same reason it is with juries, because otherwise it would be a self-selected body of people with axes to grind.
I hate to break this to you but there’s no way that at the start of your career you could semi-pay off your mortgage in 6 years. Unless you’re a drug dealer or a banker.
I think everyone who doesn’t produce their own food and water and shelter and security in the world should be left to die. It should be against the rules for any 2 or more people to work together for a common goal. Therefore, I think all forms of government should be scrapped. Even high school class presidents, even neighborhood associations, even in a bar that has a lot of waiters, it shouldn’t be the case that there’s a “head waiter” or a “manager”. Creating a hierarchy creates inequality. If we’re all truly born equal, then the differences we seem to have at first glace should even each other out when we’re all actually put to the test of taking care of ourselves and things should end up equal for everyone…right?
There is, because I intend to buy an apartment in Vietnam, where good apartments cost about $150,000 and I already have enough money saved to pay at least a third of the cost up front, without ever being on anything but the consumer end of both the banking and the illegal drugs markets
It’s completely different to jury service is between 2 days and two weeks. People can get the time off work for this, and get someone to look after their kids etc. It has no major impact on your life, its a just an acceptable incovenience. Furthermore, everybody knows and accepts why we have jury duty, and why its necessary for the successful functioning of the judicial system.
The age was actually irrelevant to the point I made. Somebody could be thirty years old and be in exactly the position that I was in when I was 24. The idea of being forced to give up a significant portion of my life over to this pointless ‘service’ is honestly horrendous. I intend to go and live abroad - but I would be trapped in the country or forced to take regular, lengthy flights. I wouldn’t care if they offered me £1,000,000 a month and drove me everywhere in a rolls royce, I still wouldn’t want to do it. In fact, I (as would many, I think) would go to prison to make a stand before being forced into spending six years of my life sitting in a government house which has no real power.
Maybe working abroad could be a legitimate exception.
I think most people would do it, especially if it was the financial equivalent of winning the lottery. You could even introduce legislation to guarantee their jobs were safe.
Maybe we need to do something to encourage public service. Not just this, but in all areas of life.
I still think its just too much to ask of people. If they are middle aged, looking for a change, not much family and already live in London, sure they are going to jump on it. If its a single mum in Manchester whose children are both enrolled in schools they love, then maybe she just wouldn’t want to move.
What are you going to do? Jail the mum who doesn’t want to uproot her children? Imprison the guy who hates the idea of moving south? Tell the guy who is two years into starting a new business which he hopes to grow into a global organisation that either he has to adjust his priorities, or be incarcerated? Jail the anarchist who doesn’t believe in national governments? I think its a little tyrannical, whether or not some or even most people would accept the offer, there’ll be those who don’t, and forcing this upon them would be inherently unfair.
