Dr John Parkinson is a politics lecturer at the University of York, and he writes in the Guardian, responding to the recent report on power and democracy in the UK. One thing I found really interesting in what he wrote is:
Elections are still vitally important in holding decision-makers accountable, but that does not mean that every political institution should be elected. We need the addition of more deliberative scrutiny of particular policy proposals, and that is a task that may well be better suited to an independent, life-appointed House of Lords than an elected, party-political upper house.
The interest for me lies in the way that the reasons he gives actually play into my pet idea for the reform of the House of Lords. I agree that scrutiny is a good thing about a second chamber. I agree that voting is not the be all and end all and that a non-voting system alongside a voting system could counterbalance the careerist evasions of truth and duty that tempt elected officers. However, I'm concerned that we could lose an opportunity to tap the expertise and passion of the UK voluntary sectors. So I would propose that non-party political organisations should be able to elect or appoint members to a second chamber. I envisage religious groups, charities, single issue groups and mutual groups such as the WI being eligible. The thing would be to set the threshold of membership for elibility and a suitable set of guidelines for what counts as membership [I suspect, for example, that the CofE claiming a membership of 30m based on infant baptisms would be unfair, but having something like 2m on its electoral rolls should give it a handful of seats].
Lots of further issues occur to me but that's detailing. What I can't work out is how best to get the idea 'out there'.
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Peer pressure:
Filed in:
UK,
government,
constitution,
Lords,
election
