The Upper House of Corruption.

[tarrant]

There was ample evidence of most of the heriditory peers selling their influence to numerous concerns.

Almost all of them had executive seats on companies, pressure groups and such. All paid hansom salaries. Few with any practical skills in the area concerned.

[cllrpeterevans]

That the HOL needed reforming was not the real issue. It was "What do you replace it with?"
The trouble is that the HOL worked - it was independent of government and comprised people of expertise at the highest level - like High Court Judges - who could criticise proposed legislation for clarity, purpose and objectivity.
So, applying the maxim: "If it isn't broke - don't fix it!" meant that many politicians, (which included a large number of Tories) preferred to take their time to evolve a way that would prove to be effective at keeping out extreme examples of bad legislation (usually produced by an ailing government) or - Lib Dems who wanted to push through reforms rapidly (taking a principled stance) or Labour, who wanted to be identified as giving more power to "ordinary people".
Unfortunately, we now have institutions that are driven primarily by self-interest. I opposed the big increase in councillor expenses, for instance, because I felt (and still feel) that a lot of people who become councillors suddenly become more concerned about keeping their expenses (that increase when they hold a post) than about being loyal to the people who elected them. If we fast-track this attitude to the HOL, then we can make the same comparison if posts and positions are based on political affiliations.
Ironically, the government (under Blair) harboured the idea a few years' ago of reducing the number of councillors and replacing them with people appointed for their expertise. Oddly, that idea approaches the structure adopted in the HOL.
But whatever form of second chamber is finally agreed - it is vital to all of us that it is effective in that it exists to challenge government. No matter which party holds office in government, unless we recognise that most governments are only there via a minority vote, we would fail to give a voice to the majority of our population who rely on "the system" to preserve a government that does not turn into a dictatorship.

[tarrant]

Jan 28, 2009 22:09:25 GMT cllrpeterevans said:

The trouble is that the HOL worked - it was independent of government and comprised people of expertise at the highest level - like High Court Judges - who could criticise proposed legislation for clarity, purpose and objectivity.

The problem was it wasn't independent of government. Most peers were affiliated to a political party.

While there was undoubtedly some expertise, most were just
privileged people who inherited their positions.

The current allegations of corruption are actually being defended by peers who point out that they are operating under the same rules of conduct that have existed for years.

In other words, what we are actually dealing with here is just another opportunistic bat to beat the government with.

Yet in this case, the ball is firmly in the Tories court since it is they who have refused to participate in any further amendment of the upper house.

[cllrpeterevans]

I agree that the HOL has never been totally independent, tarrant, #22 but it is less so now. I have refrained from giving a judgement regarding the current allegations (and still do) but it will be of interest to note (if found culpable) - how they came to be in the HOL.
Also, we need to compare results with examples from the past to determine how "honourable conduct" has changed!
I acknowledge the response from the Tories - but the procedures in Parliament do not always translate into actions that are necessary for an effective debate. Hence it is often appropriate for opposition groups to lay down criteria that we public can easily misinterpret!

[gibman]

most were just privileged people who inherited their positions.

Like our current Prime Minister?

[tarrant]

Jan 28, 2009 22:39:00 GMT cllrpeterevans said:

I agree that the HOL has never been totally independent, tarrant, #22 but it is less so now.

There is little doubt that the current situation is unacceptable.

But that is no reason to return to the equally unaccpetable situation that existed before.

It is the Toreis that are scuppering any further reform with their obstinacy.

I suspect they started this, back in the days of William Hague who assumed he would win the next election and be able to impliment reforms to his liking. This has continued and the Tories still assume they can win an election then impose an upper house that suits them.

That is not good for democracy.

The Tories are the reall villens here.

The problem is, if anyone says it they risk being branded a Labour supporter.

This is completely undemocratic.