Lords of the South-East: We The People
The new, “reformed”, House of Lords is “unacceptably dominated” by peers who live in London and the south-east of England, claims a report.
London has more peers than the east Midlands, West Midlands, Wales, Northern Ireland, north-east England and Yorkshire and the Humber put together…
A significant north-south divide is also apparent, with areas in the south enjoying far greater representation than those in the north.
The director of thinktank that wrote the report, the New Local Government Network, said:
It isn’t fair that our laws are being partly written without all corners of the country having a fair say. The Midlands and north of England are particularly poorly represented.
The problem with the state of our current political situation is that it isn’t equal:
- Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own legislative bodies, with varying powers. But England doesn’t.
- Scotland and Wales have larger representation in the Commons than their population warrants.
- The Cabinet is dominated by MPs with Northern and Scottish constituencies. Only two Cabinet ministers have constituencies south of Watford.
Frankly, that the House of Lords is biased towards London and the South East means little. Especially if you consider the role of the Lords. They’re not representatives, they’re a check on our representatives.
Under the partial reforms, the hereditary “representative” - according to this report - Lords were removed and appointed Lords instated. They were [presumably] selected because they have specialist knowledge or experience and can as such properly critique the bills passed to them from the Commons. Not because of where they live.
Representation is about more than geography. Representatives should be equal, yes, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. When it comes to electoral influence, it must be equal across the entire country. One person = one vote = the same level of influence. But if we are slecting the best people to perform the role, where the live or where they come from must mean bugger-all.
Categories: All WW, Political Blogging, Politics, We The People
The West Lothian Question MK11, Why should a non English Peer of the realm scrutinise English only affairs, bearing in mind Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own legislative bodies that are un- accountable to the Lords?
My thoughts.
1 - The data looks convincing, being based on declared main “place of residence”.
2 - Another good reason not to let MPs keep their houses in London bought by the taxpayer.
3 - Read it and weep:
“We had initially hoped to analyse the first half of the postcode of each Peer’s address in order to undertake a comprehensive and more detailed analysis of where Peers reside. However, this information is not in the public domain and the request we made to get this information was declined by the Freedom of Information Officer at the House of Lords, on the basis that “it constitutes personal data of which you are not the data subjectâ€.”
The first half of a postcode identifies something like (around here anyway) 40,000 to 50,000 people. They might as well refuse to tell us who are MPs are.
Rgds
Matt
Matt, my point is that it doesn’t matter where Lords live. They’re not our representatives, but a check on our representatives.
Certainly until the skewed representaion of the people in the Commons - with Scoutland, Wales and NI having legislative bodies of their own, but England not, and the constituencies of the Scottish and Welsh MPs being so much smaller than those in England - is fixed, there simply is no mileage in the complaint that the Lords is “unacceptably dominated” by people who reside in the South-East.
ThunderDragon’s last blog post..Chihuahuas = Destruction
>Matt, my point is that it doesn’t matter where Lords live. They’re not our representatives, but a check on our representatives.
Sorry TD; had a trying day.
I’d still make the counter point: we need Lords who are aware of all the implications for all areas of the country, otherwise we end up with position where (for example) decisions can get through made out of a London-centric urban view without understanding (say) the implications for the Somerset Levels or coastal defence.
Matt Wardman’s last blog post..BBC Website Graphic Design and Photography
You are correct - we do indeed need Lords who are aware of all the implications for all areas of the country. But that doesn’t mean they have to reside there. And I would also argue that geographical representation is of less importance than a wide range of knowledge and experience covering all areas.
ThunderDragon’s last blog post..Chihuahuas = Destruction