This is an issue everyone should be concerned about. The current Labour Government is turning our constitution on it's head and very few people are sticking their heads above the parapet to be counted.
There has been very little coverage on this topic in the media , although some commentators have addressed the issues one or two times. This is a vitally important topic and it is best not left to the professional politicians to dictate how the constitution is altered.
Remember the Labour government was only elected by some 46% of those Voting. In no modern democratic country does this normally provide the Government with the Power to alter the constitution - except it would appear ours!
If you read the white paper , which you can get from the official documents site listed below you'll see that this government appears to have a party political ambition in relation to this reform , for in paragraph 16 it specifically refers to the fact that the house of lords as it is currently constituted "..ensures that the conservative party has a 3 to 1 built in majority over the Labour Party". That may be so , but of itself that does not justify an ill considered and rushed piece of legislation to reduce the house of lords to a rump , while having nothing to put in it's place.
The terms of the reform are limited also.
This government is cherry picking constitutional reform to it's own liking. It doesn't matter if the PEOPLE like it because they are not getting a say.
AT least not yet. So raise your voice. Write to the Secretary, The royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords , the address is below. Write to your MP , write to the Prime Minister.
Let's ask for a proper debate on this matter and on constitutional reform in general. The government as the executive in our constitution is too powerful and the House of lords did provide some , if little control.
We need:
1. Direct elections to the new House of lords. On a constituency basis.
2. Those elected should be prohibited from standing on any party platform , they should at all times be seen as representatives of their constituents , [Unlike unfortunately MP's today who are all too often simply spokes people for their own party. But I did enjoy the recent so called rebellion by labour MP's though to my way of thinking they were doing what they were sent to westminster for.]
3. A proper debate and legislation to STOP governments being able to change our constitution without a proper national debate , and without say a 75% majority on a FREE vote in each house of parliament.
Please send me an e-mail telling me what you think about House of lords Reform and also your views on strenghtening our democracy.
You can also write to ;
SW1H 9NL
Why Direct Elections are
the only answer and issues about the reforms
The Royal commission on
the reform of the House of Lords (Wakeham) is now underway. I
would urge those who have access to the internet to view the site
www.lords-reform.org.uk , this gives details of when the public
meetings are to be held , and a questionnaire. One concern is how
many people will participate in this process? The Wakeham
commission has some limitations on its deliberation, not the
least of which is the requirement to maintain the House of
Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of parliament.
If we are to have constitutional reform there should be a wide debate. The reforms so far have been thrust upon us, the Welsh Assembly and Scottish parliament have appeared with no consultation in England. The Constitution has been rent apart and the people have not been consulted. Does anyone care? I have heard some voices rai sed, some commentators in the press, the occasional politician. The government is forcing the pace and like a juggernaut no-one , excepting the people , has the ability to stop them. Are the people apathetic or do they not understand the risks? I am very concerned about the current constitutional reforms, in a nutshell they seem to be tending to Centralise power and patronage in the party machine. The tendency to propose state funding for political parties Nominated Upper Cha mber ( per labour submission to Wakeham) In this country we already suffer from limited, if any, control over the Executive. All these reforms are strengthening the Executive and the party machinery. The constitutional reforms that have taken place so f ar have been piecemeal and inconsistent. They are dangerous, divisive and in case of the proposed interim House of Lords if not unconstitutional then certainly insidious. Whatever Wakeham reports on it will be whatever the Government decides which will b e forced through. Where is the constitutional debate? There has not been one for the reforms that have taken place as yet, there must be one. I am not alone in feeling increasingly concerned about this concentration of power. Lord scarman in a lecture to Charter 88 on the 20th July 1992 [see charter88 Web site www.charter88.org.uk] said"..now the modern party system has created a single centre of power that controls both the executive and legislature indeed the concentration of power in the commons has capsized the old system of checks and balances . In fact it is the Prime Minister who exercises most power. Whilst in office the modern Prime Minister has an almost absolute control over power.
The real concern is that there is no real scrutiny of the Gove rnment , there is no separation between Executive and Legislature and the Executive has control. It would be better not to be starting from where we are , but as we are then we need to fight for an Independent House of Lords , a strengthened House of Lord s, a House of Lords that can stop legislation , a House of Lords that can call the Government to account , as well as a House of Lords that will play a constructive role in the everyday political and social life of the country. We must have a directly elec ted chamber, nominated or any mechanism other than direct elections will never ensure independence.
We need a different method for the elections. One formula may be that candidates, who should be constituency based, should not be candidates of any politic al party. The party whip should not operate in the Upper chamber. People can express their political support but we want people elected because of themselves not a Party. I have always believed that PR offered a way forward but seeing the way that party lists and other mechanisms are operating, the inappropriate way that selection processes are influenced , I consider that first past the post method offers better democratic safeguards. At this point therefore I urge people to lobby hard for a directly ele cted chamber , one with teeth and scrutinising powers, one with the ability to stop legislation. The manner of the elections should be such as to ensure members elected are independent owing no alliegance to party but only to their constituents. We must use this opportunity to redress the imbalance in our constitution, given that we have only a very limited opportunity and possibly an even more limited say, to reduce the control of the Executive over the legislature. Of course this reform has been undert aken by the Government for precisely the opposite reason, it is imperative therefore that we raise the standard and demand a powerful, directly elected second chamber. Demand it now. Go to the public hearings.
The first site is the site of the official enquiry. There is a feedback form available to you on that site.
The second site is Charter 88 and this site has a lot of good information on many aspects of voting, democracy etc. There is an excellent article by Lord scarman , which I believe is really helpful in setting out some of the key issues and concerns.
The third site is where you can see and even download some official documents , e.g. the white paper on house of lords reform
E- mail address
[email protected]