Coalition to appoint 172 Lords?

"Change", is what David Cameron pledged all along. Well, you certainly can't accuse him of leaving things as they are.

If the Times is to be believed, the House of Lords is set to become the fattest parliamentary chamber in the world.

There are currently 736 sitting Lords, or 707 if you take into account disqualified ones and other exceptions- see here for a full summary.

The coalition government, however, has agreed to appoint up to 172 new peers (77 extra Tories and 95 extra LibDems) in order to "rebalance the upper chamber", which is currently under a Labour majority. According to the Times, "[t]he first wave is expected soon".

This will potentially bring the total to a maximum of 908 peers, nine times the number of the US Senate and thirteen times that of the German Bundestrat.

Luckily the place is generally empty, so at least fitting them all in shouldn't be much of a problem. Costs however, will sore big time.

Officially, the coalition has agreed to reform the House of Lords and increase the number of elected members.

For the time being, however, the Lib/Cons' looming act of political patronage would even tower over anything attempted by Tony Blair. And that says something.

The Tories: "bought like a banana republic"

What next: Rupert Murdoch for President?

Yesterday, multi-millionaire and de-facto Tory boss Lord Ashcroft finally conceded that he is a 'non-dom'- that is to say, he hasn't paid a penny of British tax on his humongous £1.1bn overseas fortune.

His official tax position is that of a "long term resident" as opposed to a "permanent resident", a semantic difference that may have crucially saved him a bob or two.

You're only entitled to be a 'non-dom' if your permanent residence is abroad. But that turns into a joke if at the same time you can both:

a) sit in the House of Lords and have a full say in the country's legislation;
b) become one of the most influential figures in British politics.

No wonder for ten years Lord Ashcroft refused to say whether he pays any tax in the UK.

He became a peer in 2000 on the condition that he'd become a UK resident ("a solemn and binding undertaking", ha ha). From that point on, he literally steamrolled into British politics.

And that's been the case not only through the House of Lords, but also (mainly, in fact) through his immense wealth. Lord Ashcroft is one of the biggest party donors in history, literally turning into the Conservatives' financial steamroller. He became Deputy Party Chairman, donated the Tories at least £5m, ploughed huge amounts into marginal seats and funded David Cameron's 2005 leadership campaign. Tax free, as it now turns out.

The best comment on the whole affair came from LibDem MP Chris Huhne: the Tory Party has been "bought like a Banana Republic". Spot-on.

13 years too late

Yesterday's farce in the Commons highlighted one thing alone: electoral reform is one of Labour's biggest failures.

In theory, the news that Parliament finally agreed to back a referendum on changing the voting system is something to welcome with open arms.

In theory, again, voters will be asked whether they'd rather keep the current First Past the Post system, or the so-called AV (Alternative Vote).

The choice is expected to be between more of the current winner-takes-all (meaning Labour or Tory winning by a landslide for periods of ten to twenty years), or something a little (though only a touch) more reflective of the popular vote.

As it is, millions of voters are literally wasting their time. The last two general elections were textbook in the way they highlighted the enormous disproportion between popular vote and allocated seats. In 2005, Labour received only 35% of the popular vote but were handed 55% of the seats. 22% of the electorate cast a ballot for the LibDems but all they got in the Commons was 9.6% of the seats.

In practice, however, the debate may prove futile. As it comes in the dying stage of this Parliament, the whole motion was tabled way too late. Also, it's yet to go through the Lords. A referendum wouldn't be held before October 2011, and the Tories already said that, if they win in May, a popular vote on the subject will be given the elbow.

Yesterday's speech by Jack Straw in the Commons was actually infuriating. As he called the referendum "a fundamental plank of our democracy", he said that "the alternative vote takes on the considerable strengths of our system and I suggest, builds on it. We propose a referendum because we believe it is not for us to decide, but it is important the people should have that choice". What a cheek.

So much do Straw and his party believe in it that they waited thirteen years to propose a referendum on the subject. Thirteen years. Reneging on promises, playing dumb and procrastinating, saying no but and maybe, dragging their heels, kicking and screaming. Thirteen bloody years, squandering massive majorities, to stage this belated, half arsed attempt at wooing the LibDems before the curtains are drawn.

Yesterday a Tory MP was right when he said that Straw is the same person who "has so successfully and personally obstructed [electoral reform] for over a decade".

Electoral reform remains one of the biggest failures of Labour's time in office.

More on the subject on Make My Vote Count.

The most difficult job in the world

The newspapers don't seem interested in this, but one job is sticking up two fingers at the word 'crisis', and the little people are paying for it.

Imagine you land a job where you get paid £161-50 a day for each day you turn up (even if you stay for, like, 20 minutes) plus £86.50 a day for food, drink and taxis, and an additional £75 for office costs, without producing a single receipt. And you can't resign even if you wanted to. What sort of workplace would let you do that?

Some people would tell you that your boss is either a saint or an idiot of the highest degree. Everyone at work takes the piss and the whole shop functions like a joke, with average attendance rates standing at just over 50%.

Until one day, under pressure from auditors, the board, or sheer financial hardship, your gaffer decides to see sense and announces he's going to tighten the belt.

'Course you'd expect the "reforms" to bring in more scrutiny on costs and expenses (i.e. producing receipts) as well as a wage freeze or even a pay cut.

But no. You turn up to work (it's not even compulsory, there's no attendance levels, you see) and, much to your delight, you find out that the dreaded toughened up rules are so tough that you wage is actually higher - from £161-50 a day to £200!

More, you also get £140 a night for accomodation expenses and you'll still be spared from submitting receipts, as long as you declare you've performed "appropriate duties", whatever that means. Sure, now you'll be required to clock in, but a couple of hours will do, so no worries if you get bored or your colleague's annoying voice is getting on your nerves.

Dream job, right?

Well, welcome to the world of Unelected Peers in the House of Lords. And you know what the Senior Salaries Review Board people said (those who drafted the reforms)? “We are sending a strong signal: if you’re swinging the lead, don’t do it.”

Keep your heads down, little people.

Also see: "Scrap the House of Lords".

Scrap the House of Lords

No other democratic country has one. Simply because there is no justification for such a huge, unelected second chamber in the 21st century.

The new scandal surrounding corrupt lords has reignited the debate about reforming the decrepit House of Lords. After Tony Blair's 1999 'reforms', which simply replaced some hereditary peers with trusted ones conveniently handpicked by himself personally, the second house is now even less accountable. Allegations of corruption in the Lords are becoming a regular feature of British political life. Remember that no-one in the House of Lords can resign, even if they wanted to.

And yet, the reluctance to scrap something that is clearly redundant and anachronistic is staggering across the whole political spectrum. Significant chunks of the left, as usual, are terrified of defying the status quo, even in the face of overwhelming public opinion opposing it. Today, a certain paper writes that "a wholly elected chamber would be a mistake", and that's the Independent. They don't explain why, but nevermind. And that's in the face of an enormous unelected mammoth of toffs of a various kind who have as much connection with the real world as Gollum from Lord of the Rings.

The House of Lords isn't working. According to official sources, the yearly costs of the second chamber have been increasing relentlessly. In 2006, the House of Lords was costing the taxpayer £68 million, a massive increase on the comparatively puny £16m in 1991. And that's for a place which, in the words of The Earl of Halsbury "is not three-quarters empty; it is over 90 per cent; empty".

To give you an extent of the dysfunctional fairyland we are talking about, in Britain there are people having a direct say over legislation who are still known as Lords Spiritual, Dukes and Baronesses. Theirs is a detached world of flattery, ancient baronies and chivalry. Like Anthony Sampson once wrote, "[The Lords] still delight in the rituals of addressing each other as 'my noble friend'. At big debates ageing peers still fiddle with the built-in hearing aids or go to sleep though nowadays a flunkey wakes up the sleepers before a minister speaks lest they be seen snoring on television". The typical pro-Lords stance is that they don't really have a say in public life. If that was true then, why keep it? But the reality is that this comical, make-believe world still performs a serious legislative function. They can crucially delay legislation (like they did with the repeal of Section 28) or affect the outcome altogether.

No-one has ever explained why the House of Lords has to be so massive. The current count stops at 743. The German Bundestrat features 69 members, while the US Senate has 100. The Senate of France includes 343, and the Spanish one 264. But nevermind that; what in the name of goodness can justify such a fat feast in the British second house? And why on earth are they unelected? What is the usual crap about "the need to avoid more professional politicians"?

Because you'd have thought that's, for better or for worse, the nature of democracy. Professional politicians. Not a bunch of unelected big wigs preserved in aspic and trapped in spider's webs. At odds like they wouldn't manage to be even if they tried, with a contemporary world having debates about stem cell research, climate change, the role of digital communication, i-Phones and globalisation.

Until the whole legislative function becomes the prerogative of fully-elected, fully-accountable bodies, Britain will not be able to call itself a serious democracy.

Mandelson, Littlejohn...

...and the aberration of "the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

A choice between Richard Littlejohn and Peter Mandelson is like a toss-up between drinking a glass of mouldy orange juice or a bottle of off goats milk. In this article, our uber-opinionated Daily Mail 'columnist' and spokesperson for the you-couldn't-make-it-up brigade confirms that he can't see the wood from the trees.

Littlejohn hurls spite at Peter Mandelson in the wake of his return to the fore of British political life. Last week, the former Labour MP was ushered back in through the back door of the House of Lords and was quickly handed his new title of "Baron Mandelson of Foyin the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham" (no, seriously).

But Littlejohn doesn't tell you (as he probably doesn't even know) that the elevation to peerage of someone like Mandelson is an abuse of power that can only happen in Britain. And it does so thanks to that monstrous machine of medieval-style unaccountability that answers the name of The House of Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -which Littlejohn defends. As brain cells negotiate past the latest X Factor winner, Jade Goody's ego and another Big Brother bulletin, it is easy to forget that an unelected chamber of Bishops and Barons is, in 2008, still deciding on behalf of the British plebs. You can giggle at the Americans as much as you please but even they don't have that.

So, "the day the House of Lords died", Littlejohn writes. If only.