No title, but a quick sashay - 27 October 2015... time to dance whilst the Lords burns and, now I come to mention it...

So, Lord Trefgarne, whose side ARE you on?

The Government loses a(nother) vote in the Lords, and all of a sudden, Lords Reform is on the cards. Now, given that they've tried to exclude anything up to two million voters from the electoral register, rigging the constituency boundary review in the process, intend to shut off the Official Opposition's primary source of income, they're hardly holding themselves up as defenders of the democratic process. And now, they've come for the Lords.

Get up and dance, you know that you want to...

It is quite amazing what the internet can expose you to, especially if, like me, you are of an inquisitive nature. So, try this. I defy you not to want to move...

On this day in... 2007

Did I have a small hand in the changing of the guard amongst Central Suffolk Tories? Well, I answered a question that was apparently being asked, and then, all of a sudden, Sir Michael Lord was gone. Sadly, for Tim Passmore, the usual rule whereby the local Tories are considered too useless to fill vacancies created by retirement applied, and that nice Dr Poulter won the selection. No wonder some of the locals don't like him...

[insert title here] - 21 October 2015

Conservatives miss the trick

Liberal Democrats announce that they will submit a fatal motion with regards to the Statutory Instrument intended to facilitate dramatic cuts in tax credits for working people. In response, the Conservatives say that the future of the House of Lords is in jeopardy. Many Liberal Democrats respond, "And the problem is?"...

Something to listen to

Never let it be said that we are without culture, here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy. Here's a little something from the works of Stefano Landi...

On this day... in 2011

I was, much to your surprise, no doubt, thinking about a constitution - in this instance, that of my Regional Party. Moving to a two-year cycle for Regional elections meant that the Regional Executive and its sub-committees actually had time to get a grasp of the issues before having to stand for re-election. Never let it be said that a bureaucrat can't be radical...

Vaguely annoyed by another pointless generalisation

Unlock Democracy! Yes, you! Over here!

And now that I have your attention, might I be so bold as to ask that, in return for my annual subscription, you desist from sending me e-mails seemingly designed to annoy me.

What's that, you say? You don't mean to annoy me? Perhaps you might explain the use of the phrase "the out of touch and unelected Lords" then. Yes, I acknowledge that they are unelected, but out of touch?

It is a modern truism that, when arguing a case, it is as well to find ways of discrediting your opponents. However, the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't actually mean that they are necessarily out of touch - indeed, it could be that they're right and that you're out of touch. But even assuming that some Peers are wrong and out of touch, insulting those who actually support the cause of Lords reform is pointless, insulting and counterproductive.

It was enough to point out the unelected nature of the House of Lords, but Unlock Democracy seems determined to alienate the very people whose support will be required to achieve its long term goal - this is not the first time that an e-mail from them on this subject has irked me.

And to be honest, as an interested party with a strong belief in the value of democracy and civil society, such needless discourtesy makes me less minded, not more, to contribute to the work of the organisation in the future.

It's a pity, really, as I still retain a fondness for Unlock Democracy, its leadership and the people who work for it. But call me old-fashioned if you will, I still believe in trying to respect your opponent...

Lords Reform: if some is better than none...

Friday sees the Committee Stage in the Lords of the House of Lords Reform Bill. No, not that one, the Private Members Bill introduced by David Steel or, as one should refer to him, Baron Steel of Aikwood.

Whilst he has indicated his opposition to the outline proposals currently being debated by the joint pre-legislation scrutiny committee, he is calling for some desperately need reforms. For example, the Bill calls for

• the abolition of by-elections for hereditary Peers
• the removal from the House of any Peer found guilty of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to more than a year in prison
• the transfer of the power of nomination to a Statutory Appointments Commission consisting of nine members nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords.
• a limit on the number of Peers - less than the number of Members of the House of Commons
• the right to take permanent leave of absence, i.e. an opportunity to retire.

Yes, there is no reference to election, and the overall effect would only emerge slowly, but it would represent an advance whilst the Government's proposals wend their way through the legislative minefield that will undoubtedly be laid. And, if the Government loses its nerve, there would at least be some reform, rather than none.

The Committee Stage will also provide an indication as to how the House of Lords is likely to approach the question of reform. My sources indicate that hereditary Peers are likely to oppose even these modest proposals, which does not augur well for the prospects of the Government Bill, when it finally arrives...

EXCLUSIVE: Liberal Democrats announce their nominees for the Lords Reform pre-scrutiny committee

In fairness, it's more that, whilst the information is out there, nobody appears to have noticed. However, it gives me great pleasure to announce the three nominees - two from the Lords, and one from the Commons.

From the Lords, representing the constitutional wonk tendency (in a good way), Lord Tyler is the first of the two nominees. Paul has been leading calls for a complete overhaul of the Second Chamber for a very long time and is one of the Party's foremost constitutional experts. Given that he is firmly in support of the Government's proposed reforms - unlike some of our Peers, I fear - most Liberal Democrats will feel that he represents a secure repository for our trust.

From the Commons, that rather unusual beast, a former member of the House of Lords, John Thurso. As he has already been abolished once, one wonders how he will feel about the prospects of enabling the abolition of all of his former colleagues. However, he is on record as supporting reform and, in a speech in the House of Commons on 18 May said,

"I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his modest progress. The plain fact is that an unelected Lords is an illegitimate Lords and that weakens the Lords and weakens Parliament as a whole.

An elected Lords is a strong Lords and that strengthens Parliament as a whole. Does my right hon. Friend not find it faintly ridiculous that after 13 years of abject failure, the dinosaurs over there are only interested in feather-bedding the dinosaurs upstairs?".

And finally, the second Lords nominee, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, of whom I have the highest regard, having married her just over three years ago.

Ros has repeatedly voted to abolish herself, and has recently played a key role on the Ad Hoc group report on financial support for members of the House of Lords looking at the expenses system for the second chamber, and on the House Committee sub-group on Members leaving the House, which looked at potential ways of allowing Peers to leave the House of Lords on a voluntary basis.

So, I'd suggest that the Liberal Democrat nominees can be relied upon to enter into the pre-legislative scrutiny process with the aim of improving the legislation without watering down its intent, and reform will be all the better for it.

House of Lords reform (part 37 of 94)

Just too late to make any difference, Jack Straw finally lets slip that he has a plan for reform of the Second Chamber. Because, let's be honest, thirteen years is barely long enough to even scratch the surface of getting rid of an unelected legislature and replace it with one that is fit for the third millennium.

Best of all, it is all being done by leak. There will be just 300 seats in the new House, provisionally called a Senate. Salaries will be less than that for those in the Commons (will that be renamed too?). It will be elected on a proportional basis, in thirds. Existing members will be bribed given an incentive to retire.

So far, so good(ish). If only there weren't less than two months before a General Election, and nowhere near enough time to ram the legislation through a reasonably pliant House of Commons. Even if there were, one can assume that the Lords would want a good, hard look at any legislation before signing its own death warrant.

One must therefore assume that this is a cynical attempt to peel off a few voters who consider constitutional reform to be important. The catch is that we've all been here before. The Jenkins Commission which led to precisely zip, nada, nothing, was the point where it became clear that the only power that Labour were willing to 'give away' was going to go to people who they could trust, i.e. other Labour politicians in Scotland, Wales and London.

And, like Gordon Brown's Damascene conversion to the cause of electoral reform, talk of enhancing our democracy is just so much window dressing. For let's be truthful here, even the Conservatives are more truthful on the subject than Labour are.

So, if you really want fairer votes, localism and a Bill of Rights that you can rely upon, one that doesn't rely on a Government that graciously allows you to have it, you know where to go. And with that, 'Liberal Bureaucracy' endorses the Liberal Democrats (alright, no great surprise, but I thought that I ought to do it anyway...).

House of Lords reform: a non-baron writes

Oh no, I'm not bitter about the fact that, had the positions been reversed, Ros would have become a Lady.

Actually, I'm not. It does seem a bit quirky, but signing off letters from HM Revenue & Customs, "Yours faithfully, Baron Valladares of Needham Market", might, I fear, give people the wrong impression about our new and dynamic UK tax administration.

On the other hand, I do have a view about the Ministry of Justice's new publication, "The Governance of Britain - An Elected Second Chamber: Further reform of the House of Lords", one of the most vacuous documents ever published, even by the standards of this government. Eleven years in power, a clear mandate for reform, and you sense that any radicalism that might have been left is now utterly dissipated.

So, let's see what their conclusions are...

3.6 The reformed second chamber should take account of the prevailing political view amongst the electorate, but also provide opportunities for independent and minority views to be represented.

Hmm... if we rewrite it in the negative... The reformed second chamber need not reflect the view of voters... alright, entirely motherhood and apple pie so far...

4.30 The Government would welcome views on the size of the second chamber.

Pardon me? Isn't this a White Paper? What do you mean, you don't know? For God's sake, you're the government, you've got a majority. So use it!

4.41 There was strong consensus in the Cross-Party Group for, and the Government proposes that there should be, direct elections to the second chamber.

Hallelujah, at least most of the hereditaries didn't die in vain...

4.80 The Government believes that further consideration should be given to the following voting systems options for elections to the second chamber:

• a First Past the Post system;


• an Alternative Vote system;


• a Single Transferable Vote system; or


• an open or semi-open list system.

As opposed to naked arm-wrestling, synchronised bungy-jumping or a silly walk competition. Actually, I know, we could do it as a political version of Jeux San Frontieres, where candidates could dress up as penguins and try and fill buckets with water coming from a tap eight feet off of the ground whilst standing on a greased turntable. It would certainly keep costs down...

4.87 The Government believes that there should be a process to fill vacancies and would welcome views on what those arrangements should be.

Bless, isn't it wonderful that they believe that voters shouldn't go without representation...

From there on in, the document is a morass of entirely reasonable, if mechanistic, set of proposals, most of which are unlikely to offend particularly.

The question of what happens to those Life Peers already elevated to the second chamber is addressed by means of a series of options. There is a moral dimension to this, in that these individuals have been sent there for life. You could argue that a contract has been entered into but, given that the average age of members of the House of Lords is sixty-eight, the actuarial bottom line is that death will take care of the problem in comparatively short order. That, and a modestly generous redundancy package, would probably satisfy the contractual obligation, and ensure that a reformed second chamber would be mostly elected by 2020.

For psephology geeks out there, Annex 2 considers what the make up of a reformed second chamber might be based on the results of the 2005 General Election. Putting aside the fact that, if current opinion polls are correct, the tables serve no useful purpose whatsoever, they do indicate that any proposal that calls for first past the post or alternative vote should be actively opposed by anyone other than Conservative or Labour supporters.

The Annex also indicates how the reformed second chamber would have looked after each election since 1974, and shows how we have advanced as a party since then.

And so, what are the prospects for House of Lords reform? Labour consider this to be an issue for their next term. The Conservatives view - something for a third term. On that basis, I expect to be married to a member of the House of Lords for some time to come...