The strangest election ever

February 18, 2007 2:49 PM

There's about to be an election (pdf) in the British Parliament's second chamber, the House of Lords. Not an election where the public can choose their lawmakers: that's still a matter of debate. No, one of the 92 hereditary Lords has died, and those of his party colleagues that remain get to choose another hereditary peer to take his place. So the election, in which only hereditary peers registered as Conservatives can stand, will be decided by the votes of the 47 Conservative hereditary peers still clinging to the twig. And just to make sure it's properly democratic - the vote is by proportional representation.
posted by athenian (40 comments total)

Sorry, it may not be apparent to those not steeped in the arcane elements of the British constitution that there are about 1,000 hereditary peers, of whom only 92 serve in the House of Lords at any one time. So in this election, the 47 of those 92 who are Tories get to choose from those of the 1,000 who are also Tories. In fact, it's a little more complex than that, but let's not start talking about the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Hereditary Earl Marshal of England.
posted by athenian at 2:51 PM on February 18, 2007

The list of candidates all have the first initials L, V, or E. Of course that means lord, viscount, or earl, but it seems strange to me to put it this way. Actually the whole thing is strange.
posted by grouse at 2:56 PM on February 18, 2007

How do they determine which seats go to what party? I mean, is it by national party registration, or what?
posted by delmoi at 2:59 PM on February 18, 2007

They determine the composition of the hereditary group on the basis of the party that the hereditaries affiliated with in the last year when all hereditary peers sat in the Lords as of right. The year was 1998 (no, not 1798).
posted by athenian at 3:01 PM on February 18, 2007

Tony Blair's changing the forms of the "Mother of Parliaments" -- limiting membership in Lords, and "devolution" -- is yet another symptom of his colossal arrogance and foolhardiness. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...."
posted by orthogonality at 3:11 PM on February 18, 2007

I fear the institution will never again reach the heights of the 1649-1660 model.
posted by Abiezer at 3:11 PM on February 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

Agreed, Abiezer.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 3:19 PM on February 18, 2007

The debate on reform of the Lords is very interesting, and complex. This is an interesting summary from the Economist. One point that it doesn't mention is something raised by Lord Lipsey: whenever a fully democratic Lords had been elected more recently than the Commons, it would be seen as having a greater political mandate, as its party composition would more accurately reflect the national mood than the Commons. This perceived mandate would conflict with the Lords' real constitutional role, and in effect result in two competing chambers, with whichever chamber last elected holding the most power.
posted by matthewr at 3:22 PM on February 18, 2007

"The strangest election ever"? With competition like this?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/footpowder.asp

"Did you happen to read that story from Ecuador? Seems that they sell a foot powder down there called Pulvapies and recently, during a local election campaign, advertisements appeared that said 'Vote for any candidate, but if you want well-being and hygiene, vote for Pulvapies.' When the ballots were counted, the foot powder had been elected Mayor by a clear majority."
posted by martinrebas at 3:23 PM on February 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Can you please elaborate on your last post, Abiezer? Thank you.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 3:24 PM on February 18, 2007

This perceived mandate would conflict with the Lords' real constitutional role, and in effect result in two competing chambers, with whichever chamber last elected holding the most power.

In reality, the House of Commons has more power, if for no other reason than the Parliament Acts. The convention that the government is made from the leading party in the Commons is also a biggie.

Right now, other parties win interim local and European elections, but that doesn't mean they get any more power than the Commons.
posted by grouse at 3:31 PM on February 18, 2007

U.S. Congress is to Britain's Parliament, as baseball is to cricket. It takes some effort to understand and appreciate the similarities and the differences.
posted by ericb at 3:31 PM on February 18, 2007

Can you please elaborate on your last post, Abiezer?

The Rump Parliament
posted by grouse at 3:33 PM on February 18, 2007

CautionToTheWind, that was the one good bit of British history where there was no King or Queen. Happy days (except for the Irish and to a lesser extent we Scots).
posted by imperium at 3:33 PM on February 18, 2007

How do they determine which seats go to what party? I mean, is it by national party registration, or what?

Wikipedia implies it's just a number pulled from thin air.

Party registration doesn't exist in this country - deciding which party you like is what elections are for.
posted by cillit bang at 3:34 PM on February 18, 2007

I like the idea of hereditary peers. The idea that there's a bunch of people who have a small degree of political power who aren't influenced by a desire to hold onto power at any cost is a good thing. The Lords are a brake on the excesses of British Governments gone mad on a desire to stay in power at the expense of the British people.

There's a consensus that because the hereditary peers haven't been properly elected or chosen from a wider range of society that they're a bad thing. My feeling is that as soon as you allow the current government to choose who is or is not a Lord, then this brake is gradually weakened. This is good for whoever may be in power at the time, but it's not so good for a people who deserve not to have reactionary laws forced onto them by a bunch of people (ie. parliament) who are doing what they are doing out of selfish reasons.

That's a simplification, but I think it's a valid one.
posted by seanyboy at 3:40 PM on February 18, 2007

I'm also a bit confused about how the "parties" side of the House of Lords works, mainly because when I think of aristocratic hereditary peers, I think Tory... Are there really that many red-flag-waving unionists with peerage?
posted by Jimbob at 3:54 PM on February 18, 2007

grouse, I realise "whichever chamber last elected holding the most power" wasn't quite what I meant to say. When the Lords had been more recently elected, they would feel entitled and able to use their power (to delay legislation, for example) far more than when the Commons had been more recently elected. If you look at the Lords Hansard, you see they are acutely aware that they are the second chamber, and the Commons have the electoral mandate, which they (rightly) see as a powerful argument for not being too obstructive toward the elected government. Were this to change, and the Lords were to acquire an electoral mandate, I think the Lords would come into conflict with the Commons far more often.
posted by matthewr at 3:54 PM on February 18, 2007

they would feel entitled and able to use their power (to delay legislation, for example) far more than when the Commons had been more recently elected.

You're probably right. But what is the point of the Lords if not to delay legislation? It seems it's what seanyboy thinks it is for, although I don't think it does much of that these days. I feel like there is a lot of bad legislation getting Royal Assent these days—more of a slowdown might not be such a bad thing.
posted by grouse at 4:03 PM on February 18, 2007

But what is the point of the Lords if not to delay legislation?

A debate not limited to the parliament in Britain; the Australian Senate faces the exact same situation.

Historically, it is the "house of review", and minor and opposition parties will tell you the role of the senate is to case a critical eye over the legislation coming from the House of Representatives. And they will complain, now that the conservative coalition have a majority in the Senate, that the government is using the Senate as a "rubber stamp on legislation", and not letting it perform it's proper role.

The government in power, of course, when the senate isn't under their control, complains about it being "obstructionist", and claims it has a mandate that the Senate shouldn't interfere with.
posted by Jimbob at 4:13 PM on February 18, 2007

Seanyboy: The cure for admiring the hereditaries is to hear them debate lowering the age of homosexual consent. They were also a solid right-wing Tory block, and much more ready to defeat Labour governments than Tory:

Government defeats on division in the Lords 1970-1998, average per year:
Conservative administrations: 12.4
Labour administrations: 59
(data source)
posted by athenian at 4:14 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think changing the composition of the Lords, for example by introducing elected peers, can't happen without thinking about the role of the Lords. The role of a second chamber is fairly clear in a federalist state like America, but far less clear in Britain (for example, a Senator represents his State — but who would an elected Lord represent?). If the role of the Lords is to revise legislation and act as a brake on the government of the day, then I'm not sure how much sense an elected chamber makes, since it's likely a party with a large majority in one House will have a large majority in the other.

The more I read about it, the more I think an oligarchic unelected second chamber makes more sense, especially when you compare the calibre of Commons MPs with the Lords. For example, the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is Phil Willis, who prior to election was a headteacher and local councillor. He has an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, which he gained mid-career. The Chairman of the Lords Science Committee, by contrast, is Lord Winston, who has advised the WHO, received fourteen honorary doctorates, published 300 papers etc etc.

I realise comparisons like this can sound snobby and elitist, but I think it's very hard to argue that replacing Robert Winston with an elected representative like Phil Willis would improve British science and technology policy.
posted by matthewr at 4:28 PM on February 18, 2007

And on the other hand you have the hereditaries, who don't even have the qualifications of being headteacher and local councilor.

The problem with an unelected second chamber is who will do the election?
posted by grouse at 4:32 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I am really up too late—that makes no sense. I mean who will do the selection.
posted by grouse at 4:33 PM on February 18, 2007

As an anarchist, I thoroughly approve. The more elections there are where 47 doddering hereditary peers choose a replacement and hope he can make it to his seat before he croaks and they have to do it all over again, or where Pulvapies foot powder gets elected mayor, the closer the day comes when everyone realizes how silly the whole concept is and our dream of worldwide anarchy is realized.
posted by languagehat at 4:38 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Indeed, there's no obvious solution, and good arguments on all sides. Each of the options for appointment — political parties, general election, an independent commission (ha!), primogeniture — has significant downsides. I can't imagine an independent commission actually being meaningfully independent of political parties, let alone the 'Establishment'.
posted by matthewr at 4:51 PM on February 18, 2007

God bless England and her oddities!

Imagine having an upper chamber of Parliament, comprised of hereditary landed gentry only, which is so remarkably genteel that it chooses to set up house at the very home of cricket!
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:10 PM on February 18, 2007

Just to second orthogonality's point - a good component of the stupidity described was introduced by Tony Blair in the last ten years.

As someone who used to live in the UK it was frightening to me the way the upper house was beaten into a shape that he and his government found most convenient to cheers of "it's modern so it must be good !"

As some of the other posters have mentioned useful alternatives are difficult to find. Maybe that's previous governments has resisted the temptation to mess with it significantly ?
posted by southof40 at 5:33 PM on February 18, 2007

Bah. I guess we won't see the 5th Baron Haden-Guest back in the House of Lords.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 6:05 PM on February 18, 2007

I imagine not - in today's security-conscious environment, the cucumber wrapped in tinfoil down his trousers would not make it past the metal detectors.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2007

I view Lords as a force for conservatism, in the non-political sense of the word. Not neccesarily a bad thing. But when they get all Tory, pardon, I can't see it as much more than lunacy. Whether because of a bias in the news or myself, it has seemed, since I started paying attention (about the last 5 years), that the Torries are mainly nuts, Labor is conservative, and the Liberal Democrats don't take themselves seriously enough.

But that's just my admitedly undereducated view as an American who happened to have lived in the UK awhile. Undoubtedly influenced by the lunacy of the American rightwing. I don't begin to presume I have any clear understanding of British politics. (But the only Tory-voter I knew seemed to say they voted Tory because they 'were Tory').
posted by Goofyy at 9:04 PM on February 18, 2007

My own view, which I guess is obvious from my tone in earlier posts, is that the Lords do an OK job, but not one notably better than elected second chambers elsewhere in the world. Their much-remarked ability to delay 'bad' legislation is reduced by their absence of mandate rather than increased by it. Eventually, they will always give way, no matter how awful the law.

I also think, personally, that it's morally indefensible for a part of Parliament to have no democratic influence, whether made up of hereditaries or appointed members. I don't mind having people like Robert Winston along to speak and advise on their areas of expertise but why ability in biology makes it right for you to vote on property law reform is beyond me.

I'd go for 100% election, without a doubt. Make it a citizen jury, elect by STV, use regional constituencies, whatever - but the whole of Parliament has to be elected, that's what it's for. I know that this goes against the 'politicians suck' trend in British politics at the moment, but that's a pretty undemocratic trend anyway.

I should declare an interest in that I used to work for the late Robin Cook, advising him on this very topic, so I'm probably a bit close to it.
posted by athenian at 11:37 PM on February 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I really cannot see the point of two elected houses. If the second house were elected at the same time as the first, it would probably have the same make-up as the first; if it were elected at mid-term, it would probably have the opposite make-up (because that's what generally happens at by-elections, and at local elections held in mid-parliament).

For all the claims of aristocratic bias, there have been plenty of socialist legislation passed by the Lords over the years (centuries); as has been suggested, with no populist axe to grind, they've been free to focus on the validity of issues.

The trouble with Lord Winston and his ilk is that, although he may be an expert in his field, he's also a political appointee; Blair would not have appointed a right-winger with the same academic credentials.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 12:12 AM on February 19, 2007

Actually, No Mutant Enemy, Winston was going to be an independent (cross-bench?) Lord until, late in the process, he remembered he was a member of the Labour party, and mentioned this to the Commission in charge of such things.
posted by matthewr at 1:12 AM on February 19, 2007

I really cannot see the point of two elected houses. If the second house were elected at the same time as the first, it would probably have the same make-up as the first; if it were elected at mid-term, it would probably have the opposite make-up

There is a point if the two houses represent different sorts of geographic areas, or if they are elected with a different voting system. Once again, to take the Australian example; In the Senate, the Senators represent states, there are 12 Senators per state (generally 6 elected per election cycle), and they are elected by proportional representation.

The proportional representation bit is the clincher; with six Senators up for election each time, you only need 17% of the vote to win a seat. Add in the preferential system, and minor parties end up playing a much greater role in the Senate than the House of Reps.

Also, if there is a universal 51% to 49% vote in every House of Reps seat, then we will end up with 100% of people from one party being elected in that house; but the senate will still have approximately 50% from one, and 50% from the other.

Finally, Australians appear to be vaguely aware that the Senate plays a different role than the House of Reps, and vote accordingly; people often report voting for a different party, or a minor party, in the Senate, to make sure the government of the day doesn't just get a "rubber stamp".
posted by Jimbob at 1:15 AM on February 19, 2007

matthewr, cross-bencher is correct.

late in the process, he remembered he was a member of the Labour party

I'm always forgetting stuff like that. Regardless of which, Winston's Blairite views are fairly well-known, and it was those, not just his party affiliation, that won him his peerage.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 3:07 AM on February 19, 2007

Well, when he told me about it (now there's a name-drop and a half, many apologies), I got the impression he had joined as a student and not done anything about it for years. The argument that he only got his peerage because of his Blairite views is, of course, unfalsifiable. But his position and reputation in academic medicine, and his work in popular science, would surely make him a leading candidate for a cross-bench seat in the Lords, regardless of party affiliation.
posted by matthewr at 3:26 AM on February 19, 2007

I'm sure you're right; I'm just an old cynic.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 6:14 AM on February 19, 2007

No Mutant Enemy: Jimbob is right, houses that had different constitutional roles would not necessarily have the same make-up, particularly if the electoral system differed, as would be likely in this case.

To take a real-life example in the UK, some local elections are held at the same time as European Parliament elections, and there is plenty of ticket-splitting, with European votes going to parties such as the Greens and UKIP that don't have (much) of a presence at local level.

Also, I'm not accusing the Lords of a bias towards aristocracy - that's long gone - but of a bias towards social conservatism that parallels their high average age and high average social class. Obstructing liberalisation of Sunday trading (a trade union cause) is just as much their bag as opposing the equalisation of the age of consent.
posted by athenian at 6:21 AM on February 19, 2007

Jimbob: most Australians vote a party ticket in Senate elections. The party ticket will have a specific strategy of dealing surplus votes (this is STV, folks) to minor parties to avoid giving them to their large party foes. You know about this, surely, being 'Strylian and all, but folks outside that country and interested in the subject might read this. And when you do, realize that "informal vote" is Australian for "spoiled ballot". _{See, Australia insists that everybody vote so if you want to register a protest and scribble obscenities and wipe feces all over the ballot paper, well, that's okay! You've still voted, only informally.}

imperium: that [Cromwell's Protectorate]was the one good bit of British history where there was no King or Queen. Happy days (except for the Irish and to a lesser extent we Scots). Or anone who wanted to watch a play or dissented from the Puritan doctrines or dressed wrong or did any joyful thing on a Sunday. Ah, yes, England's Ayatollah kept an orderly state! Say! Wasn't that a theme for Alan Moore? In V for Vendetta? When he kind of compared Thatcherites to Puritans?
posted by CCBC at 4:15 PM on February 19, 2007