The One That Has A Plan. . .

A little more pie in the sky planning this morning. It’s a model I’ve talked about before, but I’ll run it up the flagpole again and see if any of you buggers salute it.

DK has a go at a defence of a wholly appointed House of Lords by some Tory blogger. He makes the point (quite correctly in my opinion) that a fully appointed House of Lords is a bad thing. I’ve always viewed the Lords as a brake on the Commons. In its current incarnation it has the ability to chuck back a bill and say ‘are you really sure about this?’ Of course if the Commons (or more correctly, the majority party) are really sure then they can always force it through with the Parliament Act, most recently seen with the Bill banning hunting with dogs.

There are several problems with the Lords as I see it. Firstly the hereditary peers are there by dint of being the son of the son of the son of the son etc, who wiped Henry VIII’s arse, that is no foundation for good government. Granted a good deal of that has been swept away, but, secondly, appointed peers are probably worse, they are the people who wiped the arses, in a figurative sense, of the great and good from living memory. At least the hereditary Lords Temporal wouldn’t necessarily follow the party line like sheep. Appointed lords are completely beholden to the political parties for their position.

Then we have the Lords Spiritual, the 26 Bishops sat in the Lords. I don’t think people should sit in government (even though the Lords Spiritual traditionally don’t vote on matters of state, they could) just because they hold office in another organisation, least of all the Church. If we absolutely have to have them then they should be representative of all religions practiced in this country. The head of Scientologists sat in the Lords would be a right giggle.

No, it’s all a bit crap really.

My model is for a wholly elected Lords, by the public. But what to call it? Many people like the idea of Senators sat in a Senate. I think one of the best things about our Parliament, despite its ridiculous traditions and anachronistic practices, are its ridiculous traditions and anachronistic practices. Better that than the soulless carryings on in the European Parliament or some young nation from Eastern Europe. At the risk of sounding like the community out-reach diversity officer, I can think of no better way of handing out peerages than having the electorate say ‘we like this chap and think he should be recognised for being a good egg.’

So, I’d have an elected House of Lords with reps from each county, unitary authority and metropolitan area, with the number representing each area dependent on the population therein. To be elected for a maximum five year term, with each election two and a half years after any general election, to keep the Commons on their toes. If Worcestershire qualifies for three reps, say, then the people ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the poll get elected. Those people get ennobled and can keep their title even after they’ve resigned or been booted out of office.

I’m undecided on two issues. Firstly if it should be election on an independent basis only, or if election as a member of a party should be permitted. Secondly should these people be paid a salary, reimbursed for their expenses (on a properly audited receipted basis) or do it gratis for the honour of representing their countyfolk?

The One That Is Reflecting. . .

As I posted earlier, not a great result. However all is not lost, and it would appear from this entry on the LPUK blog that we have picked up a ready-elected friend on a council.

I posted the following in the comments section, and reproduce it here as I was going to blog on this anyway, and don't see the point in writing it twice.

Twas always going to be a defeat, although I'm not going to pretend that 0.10% of the share doesn't sting a little.

However, at leat we had a crack and at least Tom had the cajones to stand up and do it. A few parties of similar size to us didn't give it a go.

Was Tom's age a factor? I'm afraid to say it probably was. It shouldn't have been, but this is politics. I wasn't exposed to any of the campaigning, but had I been up against us, the first thing I'd have done when asked about our policies would have been to gone, 'Libertarians? What, the 18 year old?' Harsh, but that's the way it works.

One of our greatest strengths; being untainted by the political class, is identitcal to one of our weaknesses, it means we have little experience in running an election campaign. It is only a lesson which can be learned with experience.

The news about a councillor resigning to join us is a very encouraging one, and perhaps give us an indicator of a strategy we should employ. (I'm assuming he's a councillor formerly with the Lib Dems rather than a former councillor who is leaving the Lib Dems - big difference).

I believe town, city and borough councils are the way to go early on, get good people good names on their own local streets. I would swap 1 MP for 10 Councillors in a heartbeat, as one councillor really can make a difference especially in a close NOC council, a councillor really can be accessible and really can generate a good rep for a party which would then be recognisable on a parliamentary ballot paper.

At the risk of labouring the point, I really do believe that the local level is the most important starting point, a good solid local level base is the foundation that a good MP is built upon. A good councillor will feed into the local MP so s/he really knows what is going on (that is of course on the understanding that a good councillor will actually give a shit what is going on on his/her patch) in their constituency. Strong, local and accountable representation is the best way to emasculate that palace of piggies sat on the Thames.