Ten Lords a leaping

Yesterday I left you with the thoughts that holding an election is not necessarily the best way to choose our government. More specifically I was considering what we might do about the House of Lords. I suggested abolishing it completely and setting up an alternative which we might call something else, for example The Senate.

I favour a random selection process for this upper chamber. A lottery if you will. This is not an idea which is uniquely mine, but I would say that I thought of it and then discovered, not surprisingly that many other people had thought of it as well and some had even done some serious academic research into it. Here is an article I found in the Guardian which might be of interest https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/apr/16/improbable-research-politicians-random-selection.

Another article also makes a contribution to this view http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy?CMP=fb_gu

I have long said that only people who have no desire to be politicians should be allowed into Parliament. Given how easily they lie this might be difficult to implement.

'Ah, Mr Johnson.'

'Call me Boris'.

'I'd rather not, if you don't mind. Now I want you to answer this question in a truthful and honest manner. Do you want to be a politician?'

'No, certainly not, nothing further from my mind.'

'Very well, in that case you can be an MP.'

I just can't see it working. Making them swear on oath would not make any difference, just remember Jonathan Aitken.

Besides the selection of the Upper House is even more fraught with problems. The House of Lords or more fully: the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, is a scrutinising chamber. It has only limited powers when it comes to outright rejection of legislation proposed and passed by the House of Commons. If it were to become an elected chamber, this could cause problems because it might legitimately claim that it was as democratically representative of the electorate at the Commons and therefore had every right to reject legislation, and, in the absence of a written constitution, this could precipitate another crisis and I for one have had enough of them to last me the rest of my life.

Juries have been chosen at random, by various methods for as long as we have had juries. In general the system seems to work, despite several well publicised mistrials, which probably have more to do with the police evidence than the failure or the jury system per se.

Choosing the Upper House in this manner would have many advantages. For a start it would stop the unedifying spectacle of each successive government stuffing the chamber with new appointees in order that they might command a majority. This is clearly one of the reasons why it has grown so large in recent years. It has also proved to be the final resting place of many MPs not all of whom have retired voluntarily. If the electorate in their wisdom have decided that this or that particular MP is surplus to requirements and have replaced him or her with another, how democratic is it that we give them a voice by appointing them to an unelected chamber? If the Senate were to be chosen by a lottery of some sort, then we could expect a fair cross section of society to be represented. This would be in stark contrast to The Commons which today is dominated by members who have enjoyed a university education. I am not decrying this, I have attended two universities myself, but in Parliament the authentic voice of the working man and woman cannot be heard however much those there claim to speak for them. This I believe is behind the huge disconnect which clearly exists at the present between the government and the people it represents. 

Many things would have to be put in place to make this work. Five years is a long time to expect somebody to give up to serve their country. Senators would have to be generously paid to help them overcome the disruption to their lives. This disruption would be mitigated by the fact that they would not be representing constituencies and would would not be expected to carry out that sort of work which is expected of MPs. When the House was not sitting they would be free to pursue their own lives in whichever way they chose. They would moreover not need to campaign, an activity which takes an inordinate amount of time which could, I feel be better spent running the country.

I suspect that the Civil Service would have an expanded role in advising and helping senators in their job. This is no different to the system we have in government at present. Here we have the absurd state of affairs where an MP with a 2:1 in modern history can end up running our economy without any real knowledge of economics on the whim of a Prime Minister with whom he is best buddies. We, the electorate have no say in this, so what price democracy? Thank god the Civil Service is there to help him out. Just imagine the mess he would have made without them. The same is true of so many Secretaries of State. Jeremy Hunt, the man who is trying to bugger up our NHS is a PR man with an interest in IT. Mother Theresa is a banker; Philip Hammond is a businessman; Michael Fallon is a career politician who set up a chain of children's nurseries when he lost his seat. IDS is an ex soldier with very few qualifications of any sort who worked for Marconi after leaving the army; Nicky Morgan was a corporate lawyer; Patrick McLoughlin was a miner who was a scab during the miners' strike.

I could go on but I think I have made my point. Not one of those I mentioned has any specialist knowledge or indeed any real experience in the field over which they have been given authority. It was ever thus, and once again thank god for the Civil Service. At least to rise to the top in that institution you need to have done a bit more than gone to the right school or been best mates with the right bloke even though that probably helps too.

So we have an unaligned Senate who are charged with having oversight on legislation passed to them by the Lower House.  I think, off the top of my head, that it should have about 400 members, with maybe half being elected every two and a half years so that after an initial period of settling down, at least half the members would know the ropes and be able to help the new intake when they arrive.  I choose five years because the coalition managed to sneak in the fixed term parliament despite it not having been in either party's manifesto (at least I don't think it was, if anyone knows better I will bow to their superior knowledge).  Quite how this chamber might operate I don't know, this is just a general outline of how I think things might be changed.

I suggested in a previous blog that we might need to build a separate building to house the Senate. I have been thinking and wonder whether it might not be a good idea to build a whole new parliament. The present building, while iconic is by all accounts falling apart.  It is projected that it will cost possibly £4 billion to restore it.  It does not do it's job very well, the debating chambers are as I have said the wrong shape; it is not very historic really, being only 150 years old.  My house is considerably older than that.  The cost will undoubtedly escalate.  Why not sell it off as a visitor attraction with part of it used for apartments which would command huge rents from Russian criminals looking for somewhere to stay.  The main public areas could still be used for ceremonial purposes, so the Gove or his successor can still ponce about in his costume and Black Rod can still bang on the door in time honoured fashion.  What's not to like?  

Elsewhere it's been a quiet day.  Andrea Leadsom has agreed to publish her tax returns; The Crabb has said he's ok about gay marriage (walking a bit crabwise on that one Stephen); The Gove insists he did what he did out of principle, (what principle's that then Michael?); Mother Theresa apparently prefers Yotam Ottolenghi to the sainted Delia; and Liam Fox tells us how experienced he is (with nary a nod to Jimi Hendrix, I fear).  

Meanwhile on the other side of the street Jeremy's minders have been protecting him from his enemies; we learned he is a man of steel; he has held out an olive branch to the MPs who want him gone; Emiliy Thornberry suggested Lord Prescott as a man to mediate; Chris Bryant called on him to resign (no real surprise there); and Blair shoved his oar in again.  

Expect more exciting developments at the start of the new week. I am writing this on Sunday evening because I have to actually do some work tomorrow morning, real genuine paid work, which will come as a bit of a shock to the system.

Sleep soundly and don't worry too much.

Love Tim xx