In the aftermath of the United Kingdom’s 2010 general election which produced a government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the coalition partners are beginning to set out out their areas of policy. As David Cameron begins his first full day in office on 12 May 2010, a key area of interest is electoral reform.
The Liberal Democrats have dropped their demands for full proportional representation in the House of Commons, settling for a referendum on the Alternative Vote system. In the House of Lords, however, there is a different game – the Conservatives have reportedly agreed that they will pursue plans for a partly or wholly elected House of Lords (Daily Mail, 12 May 2010).
The House of Lords at Present
The UK’s second chamber, the House of Lords, is the product of a series of complex historical twists and turns (see Vernon Bogdanor, “Modernising Parliament: Reform of the House of Lords”, speech given 29 November 2005). Traditionally hereditary, the Lords was reformed by the Blair government in 2007, ending the representation of a large number of hereditary peers.
Its hybrid nature means that it although it is largely comprised of appointed peers there are also 92 remaining hereditary peers chosen by election among other members of the Lords (these will not be replaced by their oldest offspring) and the 24 most senior bishops of the Church of England (politics.co.uk).
Options for the Second Chamber
Although it remains to be determined whether the Lords would be wholly or partly elected, the electoral system is likely to be proportional. The considerations are different from those to be taken into account in connection with the House of Commons as the Lords does not have a geographical element to its representation (although it is not impossible that such could be brought in).
The Alternative Vote System, for which a referendum is proposed for the Commons is not, strictly speaking, a proportional system and is therefore unlikely to be used. It remains to be determined what type of regional or other geographic criteria would be introduced, but allowing for this the most likely options for election are the single transferable vote, the party list (open or closed) and the additional member system.
The single transferable vote (STV) relies on multi-member constituencies and the electorate rank the candidates in order of preference. This allows votes to be transferred to a second choice candidate if the first choice is either elected without it or is unable to be elected because there are too few votes ( Electoral Reform Society, electoral-reform.org.uk, accessed 12 May 2010).
Under the closed party list system, voters vote for a party and the votes are allocated in proportion, with candidates selected off a list put forward by the parties. This system has the advantage of being fully proportional and applicable to a large area, if no geographical element is introduced. A variation, an open list, offers the electorate the chance to express a preference for individual party candidates on a list (though this is a cumbersome procedure for a large area).
A third option is the Additional Member system, currently used in elections for the London Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. This combines the single-member constituency first-past the post system and a party list, allowing for both a proper element of proportional representation and direct accountability in single-member constituencies.
Whether it is wholly- or partly-elected, and regardless of the voting option that is chosen and the degree of regional or geographical representation selected, it seems likely that the new government, should it carry through its programme, will produce one of the most significant change in the complex history of the House of Lords
Join the Conversation