house of lords: allocate peerages like jury service

The current system: http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/

My repeal would not be to the system but to its workload, by trialling another system.

Allocate one jurer in a million a life peerage, or some variation on this theme:

  • the oldest child of one jurer in a million
     
  • the elected top 50% of a group of randomly chosen jurers, if 50% stand for life peerage in a mainly online and TV hustings system.
     
  • the system that arrises after a few trials of different ideas as above and popular comment. It could be that some of these new lords, like pools winners, wish they never had the chance to make fools of themselves and have suggestions for changing the system more.
     
  • hereditary peers who have been refused their former membership, and have below average income or have an unusual career, possibly with a change to old laws to make peerages unisex. This last idea is coming from a different direction but you get the gist of the first few.

Why is this idea important?

The current system: http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/

My repeal would not be to the system but to its workload, by trialling another system.

Allocate one jurer in a million a life peerage, or some variation on this theme:

  • the oldest child of one jurer in a million
     
  • the elected top 50% of a group of randomly chosen jurers, if 50% stand for life peerage in a mainly online and TV hustings system.
     
  • the system that arrises after a few trials of different ideas as above and popular comment. It could be that some of these new lords, like pools winners, wish they never had the chance to make fools of themselves and have suggestions for changing the system more.
     
  • hereditary peers who have been refused their former membership, and have below average income or have an unusual career, possibly with a change to old laws to make peerages unisex. This last idea is coming from a different direction but you get the gist of the first few.

Abolish the House of Lords Appointment Rules

Whether or not the House of Lords should exist at all is one question, but the most objectionable thing is that various cronies of the various political parties, many of them never elected by the public any more than were the hereditary peers, have been installed in the House of Lords in recent years.

 

The thinking appears to be get as many of your political ally cronies in there as possible, to outnumber and outflank the existing hereditary peers, who so often have put the block on appalling anti-freedom laws, such as hunting bans, etc.

 

The result is that whichever party gets the longest session in power gets as many of its cronies in as possible, to thereby pervert the last line of defence of the public from the madness of whichever government decides to put forth extreme, unpopular or anti-freedom policies.

 

Though this is not the place to suggest total abolition of the House of Lords, or a new system of creating Lords, it is certainly the place to point out that this totally undemocratic sneaking in of all sorts of dubious persons – no need to mention names – of whatever hue (they all seem to favour ERMINE in the end) is an appalling insult to the public, thoroughly undemocratic, and whatever mechanisms/laws/rules which allow governments to put their favourites and cronies in the House of Lords must be repealed/abolished in the public interest.

Why is this idea important?

Whether or not the House of Lords should exist at all is one question, but the most objectionable thing is that various cronies of the various political parties, many of them never elected by the public any more than were the hereditary peers, have been installed in the House of Lords in recent years.

 

The thinking appears to be get as many of your political ally cronies in there as possible, to outnumber and outflank the existing hereditary peers, who so often have put the block on appalling anti-freedom laws, such as hunting bans, etc.

 

The result is that whichever party gets the longest session in power gets as many of its cronies in as possible, to thereby pervert the last line of defence of the public from the madness of whichever government decides to put forth extreme, unpopular or anti-freedom policies.

 

Though this is not the place to suggest total abolition of the House of Lords, or a new system of creating Lords, it is certainly the place to point out that this totally undemocratic sneaking in of all sorts of dubious persons – no need to mention names – of whatever hue (they all seem to favour ERMINE in the end) is an appalling insult to the public, thoroughly undemocratic, and whatever mechanisms/laws/rules which allow governments to put their favourites and cronies in the House of Lords must be repealed/abolished in the public interest.

Separate the executive from the legislature

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.