Winston Churchill once said that democracy was a pretty dreadful system of government. But “show me one that is better”.
Perhaps a potted history is worth a glance.
Originally the House of Loads ran the show. And as the name implies, we were run by Lords.
What’s more they were hereditary Peers. They were running the country by stint of the accident of birth!
However, power was being shifted to the House of Commons albeit very slowly. And to cut a long story short, it was in 1911 that the Lords could do little more than stall the progress of legislation.
For those who would like to know the whole story, I can recommend two excellent web sites. (Just click on either)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
I should point out here, that these two sites are my only source of information, and rely entirely on their integrity and acuracy. But as I am discussing a principle, there is no need for exact figures.
As to why we need an upper house is a mute point. But every country that has based its system on the British, do have two houses! But in every case, both houses are elected.
What I think the
Proportional representation
In my book the way the House of Commons is elected is fine. There are so many advantages it should not in any way be modified. But it is not perfect and an upper house with seats distributed in proportion to how we vote, would provide a good balanced setup depending upon what powers this new upper house will be given!
If there had been an elected upper house at the last election in 2010, the House of Lords would have been allocated seats as a proportion of the votes won, nation wide. The table below just shows the first 11 parties out of a total of nearly 50!
In my book the way the House of Commons is elected is fine. There are so many advantages it should not in any way be modified. But it is not perfect and an upper house with seats distributed in proportion to how we vote, would provide a good balanced setup depending upon what powers this new upper house will be given!
If there had been an elected upper house at the last election in 2010, the House of Lords would have been allocated seats as a proportion of the votes won, nation wide. The table below just shows the first 11 parties out of a total of nearly 50!
As a proportion, the | |||||||
Percentage | Commons | no. of upper | |||||
of votes | seats | house seats | |||||
Conserative | 36.1 | 306 | 284 | ||||
Labour | 29 | 258 | 229 | ||||
Lib Dems | 23 | 57 | 182 | ||||
UKIP | 3.1 | 0 | 25 | ||||
BNP | 1.9 | 0 | 15 | ||||
SNP | 1.7 | 6 | 13 | ||||
Green | 1 | 1 | 8 | ||||
Sinn Fein | 0.6 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Democratic Unionist | 0.6 | 8 | 5 | ||||
Plaid Cymru | 0.6 | 3 | 5 | ||||
SDLP | 0.4 | 3 | 3 | ||||
These are my figures calculated from the data supplied in the above mentioned Web sites.
The actual make up of the Life Peers in the Lords in 2010:
Labour | 242 | ||||
Conservatives | 217 | ||||
Lib. Dems | 92 | ||||
Cross Benchers | 184 | ||||
Others | 30 |
To add to that total, there are also 24 Lords Spiritual! So much for our secular democracy! And something like 88 hereditary peers. And if nothing is done, these will go on ad infinitum. A bit like nuclear waste! But at least there are 184 cross benchers. These are the folk who do not align themselves to any party.
You’ll note there is a majority of labour peers in a house which is fundamentally a conservative club!
The introduction of life peers did mean that as soon as Tony Blair got into power, he created enough life peers to get his head in front. Of course, as soon as the Conservatives got back into power they could redress the balance in their favour.
The introduction of life peers did mean that as soon as Tony Blair got into power, he created enough life peers to get his head in front. Of course, as soon as the Conservatives got back into power they could redress the balance in their favour.
I assume that the reason David Cameron has not done this, is because the coalition (Conservatives and Lib Dems together) do have a majority.
The introduction of life peers far from making the house more democratic, it became a source for possible corruption and a distribution fixed by the party who happens to be in power, and also a haven for failed politicians! Can we really trust such a rabble to take any responsibilities at all? Not in my book.
Surely we can do better than that!
So, how to elect the upper house by proportional representation?
People will blow their top at my controversial suggestion! They will say “it is not democratic”, “I didn’t have a say”, “they are just also rans”. And no doubt a few others I have not thought of.
My approach is both simple and cost effective. And therein lies the rub. Have you ever come across a bureaucracy who will do something both simple and cheap when they can find a way of doing it 10 times more complicated and expensive?!
My method: You have a general election exactly as it has been. Nothing different at all. Then the upper house is elected with the aid of a computer from all the collected results.
For example: Based on the proportion of votes, Lib Dems should be allocated 182 of the available seats. The 182 seats are awarded to those Lib Dems who scored most votes as a percentage of each individual’s constituency but who did not actually win the House of Commons seat.
As simple as that. And actually will not cost anything at all because these sorts of statistics are done anyway. Or most of them.
Now for the criticisms.
"All 182 winners might all be from the South East."
Well yes, in theory that could be, but unlikely. Maybe one would have to divide the country up and take some from each area. The problem here would be getting someone who has lost his/her deposit being the only one available in that area! And also, what do we do about the party who is only entitled to 1 seat.
"I didn’t have a say"
Quite the opposite. Your vote counts twice. If you are fortunate to have your choice win, your vote also is added into the total helping to increase your chosen party’s proportion. If your choice loses the Commons seat, your vote not only increases the proportion but also helps to get your man/lady selected to the Upper House.
"They are just 'also rans'"
That’s like saying Silver medallists are 'also rans'! I don’t think so. But the whole principle of proportional representation is an integrating or smoothing exercise, ironing out all the peaks of popularity and excellence.
"It is not Democratic"
Well, there is no way any one member in the Commons or the Upper house can get in without having received a hell of a lot of votes. Compare that with the shambles and dare I say corruptness in the House of Lords now!
I'm sure there are a few rough edges to be honed, but I feel the principle would provide an elected Upper House of responsible members who could be trusted to have more powers than the present House of Lords.
If Winston Churchill could hear this I’m sure he would approve. After all he was one of a very small club who had the balls to refuse a peerage.
Footnote: This new upper house will not have a cross bench. It would be nice to have a totally non partisan house. But that is a Utopian dream I’m afraid.
Surely we can do better than that!
So, how to elect the upper house by proportional representation?
People will blow their top at my controversial suggestion! They will say “it is not democratic”, “I didn’t have a say”, “they are just also rans”. And no doubt a few others I have not thought of.
My approach is both simple and cost effective. And therein lies the rub. Have you ever come across a bureaucracy who will do something both simple and cheap when they can find a way of doing it 10 times more complicated and expensive?!
My method: You have a general election exactly as it has been. Nothing different at all. Then the upper house is elected with the aid of a computer from all the collected results.
For example: Based on the proportion of votes, Lib Dems should be allocated 182 of the available seats. The 182 seats are awarded to those Lib Dems who scored most votes as a percentage of each individual’s constituency but who did not actually win the House of Commons seat.
As simple as that. And actually will not cost anything at all because these sorts of statistics are done anyway. Or most of them.
Now for the criticisms.
"All 182 winners might all be from the South East."
Well yes, in theory that could be, but unlikely. Maybe one would have to divide the country up and take some from each area. The problem here would be getting someone who has lost his/her deposit being the only one available in that area! And also, what do we do about the party who is only entitled to 1 seat.
"I didn’t have a say"
Quite the opposite. Your vote counts twice. If you are fortunate to have your choice win, your vote also is added into the total helping to increase your chosen party’s proportion. If your choice loses the Commons seat, your vote not only increases the proportion but also helps to get your man/lady selected to the Upper House.
"They are just 'also rans'"
That’s like saying Silver medallists are 'also rans'! I don’t think so. But the whole principle of proportional representation is an integrating or smoothing exercise, ironing out all the peaks of popularity and excellence.
"It is not Democratic"
Well, there is no way any one member in the Commons or the Upper house can get in without having received a hell of a lot of votes. Compare that with the shambles and dare I say corruptness in the House of Lords now!
I'm sure there are a few rough edges to be honed, but I feel the principle would provide an elected Upper House of responsible members who could be trusted to have more powers than the present House of Lords.
If Winston Churchill could hear this I’m sure he would approve. After all he was one of a very small club who had the balls to refuse a peerage.
Footnote: This new upper house will not have a cross bench. It would be nice to have a totally non partisan house. But that is a Utopian dream I’m afraid.
(posted May 2007, & updated Aug 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment