Discussion Thread: Have an elected second chamber

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Have an elected second chamber" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed. 

Jim Allen 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
Problem. the House of lords is the shock absorber to the spring of the commons... thus placing an elected 21 year old into the upper house would remove the shockabsorber - if the upper house is to be elected, then it should be from those 'over 60' who have lifes experiences to call on and not simple political dogma of the Commons mob. No amount of qualifications at university and beat a bin there done that knowledge of the older person.

David Hine 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
I support a directly elected Lords but it is crucial for its credibility that it should not challenge the Commons for primacy. This would be the case both for identical and a mixture of standard electoral systems. This uncertainty could critically reduce its popular support. In my proposal for a fully elected Lords I suggested a first two past the post system to get around this difficulty. This retains the present single vote system but applies it to the election of both Houses. I argue that the automatic opposition majority this produces in the Lords could be transformed with time- sharing legislation into more effective power for minority parties than proportional representation produces. Since commonly the first two parties gain two thirds of all votes, joint voting of both Houses could be introduced on free votes. It also could provide the basis for decentralising of parliament into balanced regional assemblies. Voting even in the safest seats would be more meaningful. There may be downsides to this suggestion, I'm sure someone will provide them, but as far as I know this is truly innovative from someone with no party agenda or affiliation who is only interested in furthering the cause of democracy.

harrystarks 1 month ago

2 people liked this.
A fully elected second chamber yes, but one that has 200 members at most, preferably fewer, and which has a remit only for reviewing proposals for laws and scrutiny of executive action that concern the UK as a whole.
It would be a nonsense to continue with a second chamber that needs to approve new laws that affect England only but has no remit regarding laws in other parts of the UK.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to harrystarks
Harrystarks, Your 200 member chamber would have their work cut out if a past White Paper on Lord's Reform suggesting the optimum number should be 500 is to be believed. The protocol is very similar for Lords and Commons so you would really have to apply your justification to the Commons as well. I think 500 is about right for both Houses, I wouldn't like to see representation dive below that. Or would your second chamber be aloof from constituency work? We need to increase representation, decreasing it threatens our democracy.Glad you support an elected second chamber though.

jamcnab 1 month ago

11 people liked this.
An elected second chamber MUST NOT be elected on political party lines. Members should be elected from carefully defined constituencies such as legal, medical, financial professions, business, arts etc. so that we get people with a real understanding of how the world works - not another group of career politicians with little experience outside politics.I agree with harrystarks - about 200 members would be enough - vide US Senate for a country 5 X size of UK.Second chamber should have power to block directives from EU.

kal2 1 month ago in reply to jamcnab

2 people liked this.
I strongly agree - you're the only other person I've heard propose this, which will preserve expertise and prevent short-termism. If the upper house is also elected, then what's the other place for exactly, and where are the checks and balances? You know what the daft idea of an publicly-elected house leads to? President Thatcher, President Blair. Why do you think the professional politicians push the idea? No, we need an electoral college to represent all the professions and walks of life. That can include a public "jury".

Rif 2 weeks ago in reply to jamcnab
The problem with only appointing (by lottery from the voters' roll) anyone for a period of just a year is that they will take the first year to understand how political systems work. Most people appointed (or elected!) to any post are floundering during the first year and are not able to be effective. Most voters do not understand the structure of government (we sadly ignore the teaching of Civics as a subject in our education process) and would be unable to question the manner in which a Bill is framed.
The second problem is that the vast majority of people do not understand the way in which legislation is framed, and thus are likely - whether creating or amending legislation, to word a Bill in such a way as to enable their best intentions to be circumvented.
One possible way forward is to only give the Second Chamber a power of veto; in other words, give them the power to reject legislation passed by the First Chamber, not the power to alter the wording of a Bill. 
But I regret that on balance I cannot subscribe to this whole idea of having an amateur Second Chamber; people have to understand what they are doing and the consequences of what they do. Sadly governing any major country (or any minor one, for that matter) is a vastly complex matter.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to jamcnab
Glad to see that you agree that a second chamber must be elected jamcnab. Sheet metal workers seem a bit under-represented in your list of acceptable candidates from "carefully designed constituencies" though. Pity no postmen or women either, long-distance lorry drivers do get to see a lot of the world's works, just the wrong kinds of works I guess. I could go on...
That cheap shot about career politicians is highly unoriginal and totally untrue. Did you stop to think for one moment of how utterly class-ridden your carefully designed list is... you seem to have rather a lot to learn yourself about how the world works, below stairs.

J A McNab 1 week ago in reply to David Hine
Thanks for your comments but I have not voted for an elected second chamber, for the reasons given,nor are my suggestions " class ridden" or in any way discriminating against women - who play a leading role in many professions - I was trying to envisage a way of creating a meritocracy of people with the skills to understand proposed legislation and of course the trades union would participate.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to J A McNab
My mistake on the election front for which I apologise. You did use the word elected twice in conjunction with the second chamber and your carefully designed constituencies. Are you then saying that your somewhat elite and restricted professions list would self-appoint internally or would they be elected by some other elected/appointed body? 

Some parliamentary critics point to the preponderance of MPs we already have from the professions you mention. Diversity of choice certainly doesn't guarantee a meritocracy but it doesn't exclude it either, ask the Home Secretary.

My worry is that the reported £2bn lobby fund would find rich pickings in any appointed system you could devise. I would far rather a second chamber selected by our imperfect electoral system.What makes your system accountable to me and my fellow citizens?

James Ware 1 month ago
The only proviso in my view is that Supreme Court Justices, CofE Bishops and faith leaders should still have the right to speak in an ex officio capacity under a written constitution regulatuing a constitutional monarchy, as laid out in other commonwealth jurisdictions.

The voting system should be STV according to National and regional constituencies like the European Parliament and they could act as regional grand committees to regulate and provide direct democracy to the decisions of the currently flawed English regional framework.

alastairross 1 month ago

5 people liked this.
Second chamber should not all be elected at once. Rather they should retire by rotation so that change occurs more slowly and thus secures better stability of policy in the second chamber.

helen 1 month ago

awilliams66 and 11 more liked this.
Surely the whole point of the Lords is that it's NOT elected. It's essential that at least some of the people who are making our laws are able to take a long term view rather than always focussing on short term gains to get re-elected.

Simon 2 weeks ago in reply to helen

5 people liked this.
Absolutely, I used to be against the house of lords as I too believed all the sensationalist garbage about how it being unelected meant it was unfair and therefore anti-democratic.

For the last few years however the lords has protected us against some of the worst excesses of the present government, by standing in the way of various pieces of legislation designed to reduce our liberties. Such as the proposed legislation for 42 days detention without charge, and the attempt to make MPs exempt from the freedom of information act...

The lords do not create legislation, they merely act as reviewers, able to block it if it does not come up to scratch, they are an important safeguard against politicians manipulating the political system in their favour; which, if the attitudes exposed by the expenses scandal are anything to go by is a firm requirement. Even the blocking capabilities of the lords are limited, if a piece of legislation is blocked three times in succession by the lords it can be made law without them.

The fact that the ELECTED government is choosing to put through so much legislation using statutory acts, bypassing both the house of commons and the house of lords, should serve as a warning as to just how democratic the elected officials that lead us often are.

In conclusion this idea is poor and misguided at best, if anything the lords should be protected from influence from the parties, and party political meddling in the lords reduced rather than strengthened.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Simon
Simon,You make some good points about detention without charge and the workings of the Freedom of Information Act but what went wrong when it really mattered? Shouldn't those highly influential people have known more about the dodgy dossier?

You are wrong to say that the Lords do not create legislation, they have the same five stage procedure available as the Commons, although the final word remains with the latter. The expenses scandal is not restricted to the Commons, it will be interesting to see how that one develops.

You approach the idea of a fully elected Lords, like a lot of people, disenchanted with our elected representatives in the Commons. I think that's too superficial, MPs actually are reasonably ethical and I wouldn't swop them for most foreign equivalents. Don't you find the present system of life peerages awarded in sufficient numbers to ensure swift passage iniquitous? I do. That is classic political party meddling. Parties are a convenient way of lumping together a number of policies hopefully in a coherent way so that decisions get made and Acts created. They are a necessary evil. No system can function without them, it is better political links are not concealed.

What I have proposed F2PTP ( first two past the post) is a way of ensuring that there is an automatic opposition majority in the fully elected Lords. My novel concept is of both Houses proposing legislation, in proportion to the actual votes cast and stalemate avoided by the ensuing time constraint. Details are elsewhere , particularly on the thread attached to the proportional voting option.

Various systems of appointment are proposed elsewhere but ultimately where is the guarantee that they will be any different from the present life peereage one?

Simon 1 week ago in reply to David Hine

1 person liked this.
Fair point regarding their ability to create legislation - I had forgotten that function since it is so rarely exercised. The fact remains though that any such legislation also has to pass through the lower house and so through democratically elected officials, so democracy still has its say.

As for the lords not questioning the dodgy dossier more, yes you are right they should have, but since the elected house failed so miserably in its duties as well this is hardly a sign that elected officials somehow work better than unelected ones.

I admit I am extremely disenchanted with British politics, some of the areas I am fed up with are addressed by other voting options in the Power2010 pledge, some not. This is not however the sole reason behind my wishing to keep elected officials out of the lords, although it doesn't help them in my eyes either. I appreciate the suggestion that my logic since it runs counter to yours is ‘superficial' however.

Put simply I do not want Britain to end up like countries like America where perfectly decent legislation is blocked on purely partisan grounds when different parties hold sway in the different houses, and often extremely poor legislation rushed through when they control both, with riders attached for good behaviour by various senators.

I agree that the present system of political appointment allows cronyism but that is the parties, and that is what they do, yet somehow parties are deemed an ‘necessary evil' but other systems such as the lords are not allowed that luxury. I happen to disagree with you on these grounds as well - I do not think that parties make the best legislation, they have just manipulated the system so much over the years by reducing backbencher power, scheduling parliament etc that they are now only bodies able to pass legislation at all - this is not the same thing.

The same cronyism will be present in such party based voting system - only the party elite will be put near the top of the list and be able to get through in a F2PTP system. Sure we will get to vote but as happens with MPs in various ‘safe seats' across the country we won't get to pick the people put up for them by the parties - those choices will be made by the same people who currently abuse the appointee system. There is the occasional coup when appointees such as Georgina Gould get ousted but there are a lot more less celebrated occasions when they don't (the most recent I can think of was Luciana Berger).

At least with the present appointee system (excluding political appointees) we can be assured people aren't towing the party line, or being ‘whipped' simply keep their seats.

Let's make the lower house actually democratic and representative first then start looking at the upper house.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Simon
Simon, Hi. If I gave you to understand that my logic was superior to yours that was a misinterpretation on your part and a failure of communication on mine. We should at least get off on the right foot. It was your opinion not your logic that I was calling superficial. Sorry that came out worse somehow. 

What I am trying to say is that the expenses row has given many people the superficial impression that our elected MPs spend all their time fiddling their expenses. That is not the case, some of their most ardent critics elsewhere on this site accuse them of passing too much legislation. Hope that clears up that point.

Your view on the corruption of parties and the party system is a valid one that has been repeated many times on the PR thread of this site. However politics cannot function without people of similar opinions coming together to form policy, that is intrinsic I think you'll agree. Parties or factions will form whenever people communicate that much is obvious. How they are structured and in what quantities is the problem.

I prefer a small number of parties of a broad church but less hierarchical nature than our present whipped versions. The rationale is that the broader the range of interal opinions the less chance one particular faction can gain ascendancy. The whip system is an unfortunate consequence of the hierarchical nature of our parties and ways of eliminating it without losing coherence are difficult to dream up. Secret parliamentary voting for MPs might work, with disclosure of voting patterns periodically so that the electorate get to know what they've landed themselves with. I'd also like to see the party secretly elect both PM and cabinet to break up patronage.

Certainly F2PTP is as vulnerable to the cronyism of the list as FPTP but such party reform coupled with past voting records could partially address this.At least the voter gets to decide.

To your last point, if not toeing the party line, whose line are the non-political appointees toeing? The lobby business, which is the real threat to democratic decision making is reported to be worth £2bn. That is a lot of money not to have an electorate to be accountable to.

Some people have suggested a single chamber would function as well as two, because the latter would be just a rubber stamp. What would happen in a landslide?

F2PTP( first two past the post) is just an idea designed to get around the catch 22 primacy question and provide an automatic opposition majority in the 2nd chamber. The idea is that the disproportion introduced in the allocation of seats by F2PTP, as happens in FPTP, is addressed by using the actual votes cast to dictate time- sharing between the Houses. Both sides unlike any other system have real legislative powers which is theirs to lose if they time waste with obstructionism.

That is the theory and much devil is in the detail, but no one else can explain to me how you would arrive so simply at a fully-elected bi-cameral parliament without compromising primacy. It is not, and this is not false modesty the result of my superior logic, its just an idea for a problem no-one seems to have addressed yet. When they do there will no doubt be many superior ideas, but and this is not false modesty, they couldn't be simpler.

Cheers David.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to helen
Helen, congratulations you have a lot of support for your views. Are you saying that all elected people take a short term view and all non-elected people take a long term view? How can you be so sure? Aren't you doing an injustice to many MPs whilst looking at the peers through rose-tinted spectacles? There may be some truth in what you say but it is little more than an unproven assumption. I want proof of your assertion, the names of these short- term bounders and what they did. By Jove, I'll vote them out in double quick- time...

unless they're peers in the House of Lords, that is.

charlie pank 1 month ago

5 people liked this.
It is vital to this country that the second chamber are not elected. We need people who can take a long-term view without worrying about being re-elected.

awilliams66 1 month ago

9 people liked this.
Typically we are only presented with three options,

1. Fully Appointed
2. Fully Elected
3. Part Appointed /Part Elected.

There are other alternatives but our politicians just pretend they do not exist. 
The House of Lords should be replaced by a House of Jurors, selected by lot in the same manner as juries in a court of law. They could serve for short durations, just serving to hear, debate and vote on individual pieces of legislation. It would fill the second chamber with a healthy cross-section of people from all walks of life.

If we elect members to the Lords, we create a copy of the House of Commons and will create two elected chambers, both with a Political Mandate for Power. Instead using a similar selection method as appointing people for jury service is a far more effective and truly democratic solution. 

The number of Jurors could be set to 100 members for the second chamber and the Bills would be put before the Chamber by their sponsors and opponents from the first chamber, with the Jurors able to put their own questions directly.

A House of Jurors would give everyone eligible for jury service a chance to serve their country and would also get more people interested in the political process if there is a chance, no matter how remote, of them being able to take an active role in the legislation process.

Before any elitist complaints are made about such people chosen by lot not being up to the job of reviewing the legislation, first bear in mind this is exactly the way we decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused in our law courts, and second take another look at the quality of our MPs who vote on the legislation in the first place.

jesstar 4 weeks ago in reply to awilliams66

awilliams66 and 2 more liked this.
This is how i have always thought about this issue. If people we're brought in on a jury style basis it would ensure that a true cross section were involved and re-election didnt blur their motives. I think it would also be paramount that these 'jurors' would be forced to really research the issues being debated and not just be swung by media bias.

By making it compulsory/possible for all members of society to get involved at some stage in their lives, this could encourage everyone to take a bit more interest in politics and not just be left to those with an election-power-drive.

Darrill 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
How does it differ from Parliament which is also elected by the general populace? Within weeks all candidates would be associated with a political party.
Parliament needs to be fixed first before we consider this change.
With the EU now having the power to enact most of our laws the House of Lords may no longer be required. 
A UK constitution created to clearly describe what powers rest in the UK and what rights we have as citizens in the context of our membership in the EU, a parliament scaled back to deal with English (or Welch or Scottish) only issues and a system of legal checks to ensure governments stay within their remits.
Of course this is all predicated on making the European Parliament truly representative and hence a viable place for legislation to be enacted. Politically there is as yet no true European democracy.

A St Pierre 1 month ago

4 people liked this.
The layout of this website is ridiculous. Why is the only option "Vote for this idea"? Should you not have a "Vote against this idea" button right next to the "Vote for ........" button? And show the number of votes for and the number against? And then, against comments expressing dislike of the idea, you show "1 person liked this" Liked what? The idea on which you have asked for votes, or the idea expressed in the comment? If the former, that's a lie because the comment shows they didn't like the idea. If the latter, well, it's hardly surprising that they should like their own idea.
ModerateFlag
Like Reply

Darrill 1 month ago in reply to A St Pierre

3 people liked this.
Some very good points. It might also improve the fairness if some of the potential negatives of an idea were highlighted. This format is very one-sided and it is a bit like these ideas are being forced through - you are either for the idea or ignored.

Syed Farrukh Ehsan Bokhari 1 month ago

5 people liked this.
I agree with what has been said earlier quite eloquently against elected second chamber. What we need is more clear and transparent way of appointing Peers rather than party puppets. Second chamber should free of election worries and should hold to account even the most popular and powerful government.

Brian Riley 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
The present arrangement has a stench of corruption and is unsustainable.
A completely elected second House would first need a written constitution, otherwise the two houses would eventually end up in conflict over which has primacy.

laurencesmaje 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
Having attended debates on scientific issues in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, those in the House of Lords were of much greater quality and depth. I am thus not convinced that a fully elected House of Lords would be much better than the present system. I would, however, be in favour of eliminating hereditory peers and bishops and having a majority of elected members - say 75%. The remainder should be appointed by a disinterested group concerned to appoint individuals who have distinquished themselves in their lives and who could bring expertise or life experience to the House, rather than it be filled with full-time politicians

kal2 4 weeks ago in reply to laurencesmaje
There is a large number of "disinterested groups" already available that are already capable of forming electoral colleges to appoint representatives. There are professional bodies such as the BMA and the Law Society, unions, religious bodies (yes, even political parties) - I am sure the armed forces are quite capable of organising ballots too.

How do you prevent corruption? Simply by compiling a list of breaches that will result in automatic expulsion.

irenefyfe 1 month ago
Yes I am for this, get rid of Lords and Snobs who just go sleep there.
fill it with ordinary people as they seem have more sence and not out just for themselves and expences to get their moat's etc sorted. We should have classless society gone is day for genrty it's people power we want see running our affairs

David Hine 1 month ago

I note that a number of replies seem to favour an appointed Lords stating variously continuity, independence and expertise as their rationale. In the case of the permanently appointed 'lifers', how do you get rid of them if they transgress? They might you know. What appointment procedure could guarantee to deliver independently minded members and on what independent basis do you judge independence? As to expertise, how did we become engulfed in the Iraq war if it wasn't with the consent of the much lauded Lords? I don't say these paragons of virtue and wisdom don't exist but once you remove the rose-tinted glasses you may notice they're also human. In the FTPTP system which I proposed of a fully and directly elected Lords, primacy is well established and each member is directly answerable to his constituents. Reducing the number of constituencies to around 500 is optimum and would still retain the personal link to the members whilst reduction to 200 would need some form of PR. PR gives an illusion of democracy but necessitates appointment by proxy which breaks that all-important personal election bond. The competition between two directly elected constituency MPs per slightly enlarged constituency should guarantee more sympathetic access to the twin corridors of power.The MPs might even spend more time at home if part of their duty was to attend now possible balanced regional assemblies to which all those virtuous and wise paragons, that don't have a second home in London, myself included, would have increased access.( My allusion was to the second home, as to the other, modesty forbids.)

awilliams66 1 month ago in reply to David Hine

3 people liked this.
"What appointment procedure could guarantee to deliver independently minded members?"

The Jury appointment system works pretty well in the other areas it is used, and would not fill a second chamber with yet more Proffesional Party Politicians who rely on their Party support to keep their seats by outspending any independant's campaign, thus allowing the Party whips to keep them in line.

David Hine 1 month ago
A jury selection procedure for electing the Lords? Juries deal with matters of fact, after the deed has been done, is the accused guilty or innocent as charged? Expert help is available and the ground well trodden.Coherent government policy that has the mandate of the people, thought through by the politically astute (that is not necessarily a compliment) based on its likely future consequences to be challenged by a random sample of people with no expertise? That has no credibility for me. Why not have a referendum for every parliamentary decision and do away with parliament (and taxes perhaps?) altogether? Have you considered that without the scrutiny of the electorate it would be possible for your 'jury' to be wholly composed of BNP party members, or were you going to exclude them from the lottery? That of course would just be the start. Sorry to pour cold water on your logistical nightmare awilliams66, please feel free to reciprocate.Agree with you on reducing the power of the Whip. My own dictum is, the strength of the Whip is increased exponentially by all system of PR. They just love those pesky potential dissidents running off to form their own parties! Cheers.

awilliams66 1 month ago in reply to David Hine

3 people liked this.
The purpose of the second chamber is to review legislation and either approves it or send it back to the Commons for further revision. What is needed is a body that is representative of the population that will be subject to this legislation. If a House of Jurors consisted of at least say 100 members, regularly renewed with new members, then it would be unlikely to consist entirely of one political group. Bear in mind that it is the First Chamber that sets the legislation and that the Second Chamber can only delay its implementation, unless it were to receive an elected mandate, which an elected 2nd chamber would have.

Referendums and direct democracy in the First Chamber are an issue for another idea that has not been put forward in Power 2010. Your description of Criminal Court Juries is correct but we were discussing how to fill a second chamber with independently minded members" and the Jury system is just such a system, which if we ensure there is enough Jurors in the Chamber we will get a body with a far larger background of work and life experience than your current narrow Party selected election candidates and so I suspect their "expertise" will be at least the equal of the MPs currently filling the House of Commons.

There is a contradictory argument often put forward in many guises that the electorate are smart enough to select the right representative but not smart enough to decide on the right policies and legislation, that somehow our MPs and Lords are on a different intellectual plane to us mere plebs. Current events at both Chambers have shown just how wrong such arguments are. A House of Jurors would be a way of returning power back to the people and that is something our Politicians do not want.

Andrew 3 weeks ago

awilliams66 and 2 more liked this.
I agree with awilliams66. I have thought for some time that a monitoring body, which is selected from ordinary citizens to control the House of Commons would help to eliminate the unlimited powers of the Commons once they are in office.
By random selection from the electoral register , a panel of 100 maximum, on a fixed salary , with accomodation provided, and free tarvel by public transport. Not compulsory to serve , but surely an honour which most would accept, for a fixed period of say 12 months.
As said already , no electioneering , no career politicians,

Graham Davis 3 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
"Democracy is a very bad form of government but all the other forms are so much worse" (attributed to Churchill). Despite its potential flaws an elected 2nd chamber it must be, all other option are worse. Democracy rests upon electing a person or party and booting them out if you don't like them. Any form of appointment will be riddled with problems.

No bishops, no hereditaries, no spent politicians and no political appointees. And while we are at it, no fancy dress, no royal involvement and a name change to the Senate. Let's drag parliament into the 20thC rather than the 19thC.Graham Davis 3 weeks ago

Oops! I meant 21stC

awilliams66 3 weeks ago

2 people liked this.
Democracy means " Rule by the People". The Leaders and Representatives in a democractic system must be chosen from the people as a whole and the two means of achieving this are by elections and by lot. 

If you have a two Chamber system then it makes sense that if the Main Democratic Chamber is chosen by elections to Create and impliment legislation then the Second Democratic Chamber that is required to review and revise the legislation before the First Chamber impliments it should be chosen by the other Democratic method, that is selection by lot from the electoral rolls as is used in the Jury selection method. Otherwise you do not truly have two Chambers but one large one with an artificial division.

Graham Davis 3 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
"Democracy is a very bad form of government but all the other forms are so much worse" (attributed to Churchill). Despite its potential flaws an elected 2nd chamber it must be, all other option are worse. Democracy rests upon electing a person or party and booting them out if you don't like them. Any form of appointment will be riddled with problems.

No bishops, no hereditaries, no spent politicians and no political appointees. And while we are at it, no fancy dress, no royal involvement and a name change to the Senate. Let's drag parliament into the 20thC rather than the 19thC.

YARDEL 2 weeks ago in reply to Graham Davis

1 person liked this.
Why no Hereditaries? This system throws up people of all ages and abilities in a way that no other system will. Surely that is what we ( the People ) need to curb the excesses of professional Politicians. Isn't it a pity that jealousy has messed about with a system that worked well for so long?

Graham Davis 3 weeks ago
Oops! 21stC

tricia George 2 weeks ago
I DON'T want an elected House of Lords
The House of Lords has always been one of our mains-stays at time of contentious laws at bill stage, in providing a check and balance on ill thought through bills presented by the Commons. The Lords role is to debate in depth, using traditions and solid constitutional understanding, ensuring that Micky Mouse laws, like those of the pantomime government Blair resided over, never get past the starting post. What has gone wrong with Parliament over the past 13 years is that anyone who supports the government/Labour party is promoted to the second house on the understanding that they will support a labour party and not the nations interest.
The Lords needs informed, intelligent people, with discrimination, and understanding of Parliamentary processes and devices, as well as first and foremost a commitment to preserving the integrity of the UK and the British Constitution. In the past, though we may have seen a bevy of landowners and aristocrats pursing a lot of their own interests, at least we could be assured in the long distant past, that those interests WERE allied to those of the UK. 
Currently some peers don't even live in this country, and I'm not sure all were even born in this country and we can assume that this could lead to a conflict of interest over which country they put first in their considerations of bills passing through the house.
Electing a second house puts us in danger of putting temporary peers in the Lords with little insight or understanding of parliamentary processes, or governmental devices and protocols necessary to properly deeming a bill worthy of assenting to or not, and our whole confidence in the check and balance role the Lords should be playing will be eroded to a huge degree. Not only that, but long held, established and well counselled traditions that ensured an informed debate will be thrown out as newbies and temps flaunt tradition and decide yea or nay on an in ill informed whim.
Stability and credibility do not arise from constantly changing people who make important decision. We have witnessed this in the social services , education and the health service where rapid staff turnover means experience, expertise and good practice are thrown out like the baby with the bath water due to transient non indigenous staff arriving for the money, not because of any real dedication or commitment to this country, or the sevice they are being paid to support.
We need people in the Lords who are committed to this country, but what goes wrong is when only the government decides who goes in there. 
We need to stop PM's and the gov in power being the sole decider of who to put in the Lords, and get a proper government consensus on which candidates are right due to their services to the UK, not to party interests.
The Lords SHOULD have a proper due process for eliminating any peer who does not abide by a rigorous code of ethics, and if they don't live up to that code, then the PEOPLE should decide who gets ejected. A petition could be set up to bring a peer to task if it is found out they are not respecting UK interests, or those of the Lords, to call for their resignation.
Putting temps in the Lords is a crazy idea and serves only to undermine the function of this house, and quite frankly have you not noticed that in the US an elected second house does little to preserve dignity or a well blanced government.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to tricia George
Tricia, You say that you don't want an elected House of Lords. You then go on to say that you don't like the present arrangement of party ( its an all-party nomination system - not just labour) political appointees, the life peers. Can you explain your appointment system in a bit more detail, exactly who do you want to decide nominations, I thought the present system was some sort of consensus? Do you have any more right to say who does this than I do? What exactly is your objection to your fellow citizens doing the selection without referring to these intermediaries?

PAULHARRIS888 2 weeks ago
I BELIEVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY THAT IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY WE SHOULD HAVE AN ELECTED SECOND CHAMBER TO ENSURE THAT THOSE NOT PULLING THEIR WEIGHT CAN LOSE THEIR SEAT, AND WITH A FAIRER VOTING SYSTEM IT WILL REFLECT MORE OF SOCIETY

Rif 2 weeks ago
Sorry, Tricia, your arguments don't hold up! You say "What has gone wrong with Parliament over the past 13 years is that anyone who supports the government/Labour party is promoted to the second house on the understanding that they will support a labour party and not the nations interest." I don't disagree with you (but you'd better add that the Tories did exactly the same over the previous 18 years from 1979 to 1997). But this is always going to happen when you have a system whereby people get appointed rather than elected; governments find it easy to manipulate the appointments system. Increasingly, the House of Lords is filled with party hacks (especially those former MPs who have been voted out by the electors!) on the basis that they will advance the interests of party first. This is EXACTLY why we need a system whereby the members of the second chamber are elected - firstly, because unless they have a mandate from the electorate, the members of the Upper House won't have the power to challenge the House of Commons, and secondly, because if they are elected then the electors (and only the electors) could have the power to turn them out.

What we should do it to consider the different voting systems which we need to elect the two Houses. If both were elected on the same basis, there would be deadlock between the two Houses if they opposed each other on anything, each House claiming that it has an equal right to decide on legislation. What you need is for the Second Chamber to be slightly less representative than the First Chamber. Those calling for a House of Commons to be elected by STV (in other words, with apportionment of seats to be closely proportionate to the divisions of opinion among the electors ) correctly make the point that this would mean that electors views were being proportionally represented. To be less proportional, an Alternative Vote system should be used for the Second Chamber; this would thus have a lesser mandate. What is more, this would provide for a continuation of the single-member constituency system which some see as a advantage for electors (although it actually means that at least a large minority, and often a majority of voters in any constituency have to rely on someone who doesn't represent their views).

Rif 2 weeks ago
Sorry, Tricia, your arguments don't hold up! You say "What has gone wrong with Parliament over the past 13 years is that anyone who supports the government/Labour party is promoted to the second house on the understanding that they will support a labour party and not the nations interest." I don't disagree with you (but you'd better add that the Tories did exactly the same over the previous 18 years from 1979 to 1997). But this is always going to happen when you have a system whereby people get appointed rather than elected; governments find it easy to manipulate the appointments system. Increasingly, the House of Lords is filled with party hacks (especially those former MPs who have been voted out by the electors!) on the basis that they will advance the interests of party first. This is EXACTLY why we need a system whereby the members of the second chamber are elected - firstly, because unless they have a mandate from the electorate, the members of the Upper House won't have the power to challenge the House of Commons, and secondly, because if they are elected then the electors (and only the electors) could have the power to turn them out.

What we should do it to consider the different voting systems which we need to elect the two Houses. If both were elected on the same basis, there would be deadlock between the two Houses if they opposed each other on anything, each House claiming that it has an equal right to decide on legislation. What you need is for the Second Chamber to be slightly less representative than the First Chamber. Those calling for a House of Commons to be elected by STV (in other words, with apportionment of seats to be closely proportionate to the divisions of opinion among the electors ) correctly make the point that this would mean that electors views were being proportionally represented. To be less proportional, an Alternative Vote system should be used for the Second Chamber; this would thus have a lesser mandate. What is more, this would provide for a continuation of the single-member constituency system which some see as a advantage for electors (although it actually means that at least a large minority, and often a majority of voters in any constituency have to rely on someone who doesn't represent their views).

Jim Halcrow 6 days ago in reply to Rif
Hi Rif. It is sheer lunacy to rule out STV for either chamber until there is an absolute guarantee that at least one chamber will be elected by STV. Even if that is the case, choosing a dodgy electoral system for the other is not the answer. The problem could be solved by defining carefully the roles of the two chambers.

tricia 5 days ago in reply to Rif
Hi Rif Not sure if I replied to this as I'm having probs trying to track previous replies I made to other people's posting on this forum. However, gien also I don't even know which of my posts your are objecting to forgive me for missing any minor details that may already have been covered!
Rather than be too lengthy one issue raised is this: who is going to be responsible as a body for putting forward or selecting a prospective peer? If a non political party is going to form a body of reps who select those for election who decides what the criteria should be for that selectin committee? You see if say a residents assoc in the outbacks of some estate in the poorer end of Birmingham want to take part in selecting a candidate, how do they compete with the landowners in the hearby rural area who also want a rep putting up for selection?
Or if a group of drug smugglers ( as yet hypothetically un noticed by the law) making huge profits from their trade get together to bribe their customers to select a candidate of their choice for the second chamber then what safeguards do you have for ensuring certain standards are met for your all people catered for selection process for electability to the second house?
Hope this gets posted co none of previous ones did!!

Rif 2 weeks ago
Sorry, Tricia, your arguments don't hold up! You say "What has gone wrong with Parliament over the past 13 years is that anyone who supports the government/Labour party is promoted to the second house on the understanding that they will support a labour party and not the nations interest." I don't disagree with you (but you'd better add that the Tories did exactly the same over the previous 18 years from 1979 to 1997). But this is always going to happen when you have a system whereby people get appointed rather than elected; governments find it easy to manipulate the appointments system. Increasingly, the House of Lords is filled with party hacks (especially those former MPs who have been voted out by the electors!) on the basis that they will advance the interests of party first. This is EXACTLY why we need a system whereby the members of the second chamber are elected - firstly, because unless they have a mandate from the electorate, the members of the Upper House won't have the power to challenge the House of Commons, and secondly, because if they are elected then the electors (and only the electors) could have the power to turn them out.

What we should do it to consider the different voting systems which we need to elect the two Houses. If both were elected on the same basis, there would be deadlock between the two Houses if they opposed each other on anything, each House claiming that it has an equal right to decide on legislation. What you need is for the Second Chamber to be slightly less representative than the First Chamber. Those calling for a House of Commons to be elected by STV (in other words, with apportionment of seats to be closely proportionate to the divisions of opinion among the electors ) correctly make the point that this would mean that electors views were being proportionally represented. To be less proportional, an Alternative Vote system should be used for the Second Chamber; this would thus have a lesser mandate. What is more, this would provide for a continuation of the single-member constituency system which some see as a advantage for electors (although it actually means that at least a large minority, and often a majority of voters in any constituency have to rely on someone who doesn't represent their views).

Dave C 2 weeks ago

3 people liked this.
I'm a penniless liberal, but after seeing how the US congress/senate works and how our system works I'm dead set against an elected second chamber.

The House of Lords has been pivotal in preventing an even larger stripping of our civil liberties than has already occurred as much as I despise the hereditary principle, I truly believe an elected House of Lords would have catastrophic consequences for our democracy.

It took the Americans a while to figure out that it gave far too much power to the elected, which is why there is almost always a different party in majority in the senate/congress.

You may as well just abolish the House of Lords if you are going to elect them.

YARDEL 2 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
How foolish we were to allow the Hereditary system of the House of Lords to be messed around with. Which other system would produce Members of all ages and with such a variety of expertise? We will end up with The Other House filled with professional Politicians with little experience of anything else. I fear it was only jealousy which prompted it in the first place and which is so out of date in 2010. I do hope our Politicians will see sense in time!

Fred Hall 2 weeks ago in reply to YARDEL
The Lords were cheap and there was no pension to worry the nation about. What we do not need is more of the same. I normally vote Labour and will again because our own MP is a good man. I have written in our local paper two weeks ago that this is not a Labour Government. Like the Tory one before it, it is rubbish! Many of the Lords put uniform on and fought alongside common people like myself. The present MP's. have not been in the Armed Forces but are quick enouigh to start a war. The assets of the Lords are stuck in this country and so are they. I would even call myself a Monarchist now! Get Scottish Welsh and Irish out of Westminister and I am partly Welsh and belong to a Welsh British Legion.

David Hine 2 weeks ago
It's a remarkable fact that such an infringement of democratic rights as the present hereditary/ appointed House of Lords attracts the number of supporters it does on this blog. All the world loves a Lord it seems. Why not? True it is a meritocracy of sorts, no longer entirely based on wealth, although representing it disproportionately but no doubt deservedly. What exactly is wrong though with putting all that meritocracy to the test at the hustings? They should all coast back in shouldn't they? Legitamised, any claimed independence scrutinised, their honesty fully questioned all allegiances disclosed. No secret lobbying interests, all jolly friends together. Are they somehow not as other men or women? Do they have no imperfections? 

In my proposed system FTPTP ( first two past the post) not only would they probably return in triumph they would probably ascend in glory to the Commons. Bonus. If they're not physically up to it, we could introduce measures for a job share scheme. Place your other objections as to why they shouldn't reapply for their jobs via the ballot box and I'll try to think up some ingenius answers to accommodate them. Salve.

Fred Hall 1 week ago in reply to David Hine
Dear David, What I don't need is a lecture on WW2 although I was only 8 years old in the January of 1940 I remember it well and my father and his brothers who were in it. I too served in the Middle East later. I am a member of the British Legion and most of us are patriotic that means we want what is best for everyone especially our grandchildren.
I have also been a ships officer in the Spanish M.N. when Franco ruled with a rod of iron and I have met Jack Jones frequently.(Internatonal Brigade) I have travelled to many countries and several times behind the Iron curtain, Near East, Middle East inc. Israel the Far East and all over Europe. My Arabic teacher was/is a Palistinian and now my friend.

I am a very successful man with more experience and skills than many others. My local MP is Rob Flello Labour and I am supporting him but I do not want another Labour Government with so many M.Ps. who are not English to vote in. Westminster on English issues.
Now I fully support the hereditary Peers and I will not be moved. As for Thatchel of course I know who the dwarf is. He is a minority and I am fed jup of hearing about them. Incidently the ex. Mayor that we used to have was also 'one of them' but he was a very nice guy and we have enjoyed a pint together.
Grow up and look at the world as it is not as you think that you can make it.
Have you not heard that change is not progress always.
Obviously it is too big a subject to argue by mail so don't try.
God Bless
Fred Hall













ww2

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Fred Hall
Fred, Sorry because of the format I have already replied to a couple of comments you made despite your latest request not to. A final few words word then.
I apologise if I've misunderstood you, but being a pragmatist I tend to take things at face value. I certainly didn't set out to lecture you about WW2, that was just a passing reference to the history of Burma.
I have pointed out some of the many inconsistencies your comments are riddled with. You cannot expect to say something in a public forum and not be challenged, that displays gross naivety. I did my growing up only a dozen or so years behind you Fred and have suffered the loss of a fifteen year old son in a RTA, so I need none of your homilies on life or death. 

If someone, as you have done, apparently attacks the very principles of democracy I will defend it. I will go on seeking to convert you or any opponent of it, sometimes I am naive and idealistic enough to think I may have done so. I am too much of a pragmatist not to know that opinions become ingrained and immoveable at our ages.That is why I try to keep my thinking youthful and look to the future without dwelling too much on the past.

I think your half-concealed homophobia is a disgrace to you Fred and your avowed religiosity, which as a secularist I reject. Since I have a friend who's son suffers from dwarfism I am not overly impressed with your perjorative useage of that word either Fred. You are born with it.

I will never stop believing that the world can be improved by new ideas, that is why I believe in a fully-elected Lords. Change is not, as you say necessarily progress, sometimes the reverse is true, but that is no logical reason to give up on it. Ask Aung San Suu Kyi if she still believes in change. If only you could. So long Fred.

jtedwards 2 weeks ago
2 people liked this.
A general election style vote would end up appointing the same old professional political types as The Commons. Select 200 Learned Societies, Bodies like the BMA, Civil Engineers and Trade Unions etc to make their appointment instead.

Fred Hall 2 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
I say the House of Lords should be put back to as it was intended. I do not want another expensive Parliament. I am convinced that the Lords was a functioning second chamber and will not support an elected chamber under any circumstances.
Democracy does not work! How much more proof do you want. Even Cromwell did not allow a universasl vote!

Fred Hall 2 weeks ago
Rubbish idea. Democracy is the rule of the ignorant masses.

Fred Hall 2 weeks ago
The Lords were cheap and there was no pension to worry the nation about. What we do not need is more of the same. I normally vote Labour and will again because our own MP is a good man. I have written in our local paper two weeks ago that this is not a Labour Government. Like the Tory one before it, it is rubbish! Many of the Lords put uniform on and fought alongside common people like myself. The present MP's. have not been in the Armed Forces but are quick enouigh to start a war. The assets of the Lords are stuck in this country and so are they. I would even call myself a Monarchist now! Get Scottish Welsh and Irish out of Westminister and I am partly Welsh and belong to a Welsh British Legion.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Fred Hall
Fred, Apparently the Lords can call a place their main residence if they spend one night a month there. That enables them to pocket nearly £200 for overnight expenses in addition to their daily allowance for the briefest of appearances. Pity our soldiers' tour of duty in Afghanistan isn't shorter, they could claim for overnight expenses on the same scale, as bona fide servants of HM.

Not so cheap then Fred, but don't concern yourself for their lack of an official pension, I assume you researched that point, the lobbying industry is worth £2bn. Someone may have a quiet word on their behalf in the corridors of power, don't you worry about them overly. 

And don't worry about their assets being "stuck in this country" as you put it. Just ask Lord Ashcroft, his are worth £1.1 billion. He's agreed to pay tax in this country, decent of him because seemingly he's half Belizean, in return for his title. Fortunately Fred, to allay your concerns for his financial well-being, he has managed to hide his residency and thus his tax status, despite three years of freedom of information enquiries from the ignorant majority.

Since perversely I, along with the ignorant majority do worry, I want to see a properly paid, full-time, fully elected, fully domiciled House of Lords, fully accountable to local constituents.They may then all re-apply for their jobs through the ballot box. You, awilliams , his jury, even the ignorant majority including me will be able to examine their track record and make sure they'e OK. That's democracy for you, picky!

Fred Hall 1 week ago
The Lords are definitely more dependable than party serving MPs. The Whips are the ones who should be removed. I would rid the Lords of ex MP.s and I would give Roman Catholic Bishops access to the Lords. (I am not a RC) The Lords served in the armed forces along with commoners like myself. It is shear snobbery in reverse and I would be a Royalist in a Civil War. Democaracy is the rule of the ignorant. There are far more important problems than the House of Lords whos proposed changes will not improve the country one jot.

Fred Hall 1 week ago
Who the hell is Peter Tatchell? what has he achieved worth talking about? Is he competant in the real world? Has he worked to raise a family and known the grind of responsability?

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Fred Hall
Fred, I do know who Peter Tatchell is, he's very well known in the world of politics, surely you should look him up before attacking him? I sense that you are an angry and frustrated man, a reputation which I think Peter Tatchell earned for himself many years ago. You plainly do not think that a democratic system of government works.

You are right to say that democracy may be the rule of the ignorant but wrong not to immediately add that it may also be the rule of geniuses. I tend to think by the law of averages its probably something like the rule of the ordinary. That's me, and from what you say about being a commoner, that's probably you too.

Are you familiar with Burma, being an ex-soldier you may remember the British involvement there in the 2nd World War? A lot of our soldiers lost their lives defending our present system of democracy there all those years ago.

There is someone living in Burma now called Aung San Suu Kyi, she has been under house arrest since July1989. Do you know what her crime was? She won a democratic free election with 80% of the vote. Her crime was to believe in democracy. The military generals who did this were not elected, they elected themselves. They awarded themselves power, wealth and priviliges.They too are ordinary.They will always be ordinary.

In 2007 a number of ordinary monks were killed for peacefully protesting about the lack of democracy in Burma by ordinary soldiers obeying orders. They are ordinary soldiers and they have ordinary blood on their hands. 

There is one person, a winner of the Nobel peace prize, she was an ordinary person. She is now an extraordinary person, her name is Aung San Suu Kyi. Only democracy can do this. You can't buy or sell it, conquer or subdue it, beg, borrow or steal it. If you believe in it vote NOW to fully elect the House of Lords, despite what ordinary generals may say or their ordinary soldiers may do.Fred Hall 1 week ago

History is full of examples of failures where a majority have had their way. If the Crowned heads of Europe had survived and returned to Rule, there would not have been World War 2!
Think of the people murdered by Stalin after the Bolshevics (majority) and the Murder of Iraq people after King Fiesal was assasinated, the dictatorship of Egypt after the idiot King Faruk was kicked out, King Peter of Jugoslavia, Greece and Spain, (were they glad to get their Monach back! )Monarchy today helps to prevent the Dictatorship of so called Peoples Representitives. The most stable countries in the world all have Monarchs, Denmark, Sweden, Britain, Spain,Holland.
God protect us from idealists, the ignorant majority and the vocal minorities.
Heaven is for the next world. We don't want it here!

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Fred Hall
Fred, you display some knowledge of past wars but little understanding of them that withstands even the simplest analysis. I strongly defend your right to free speech but reserve the right to disagree, from your extensive historical studies you'll recognise that somewhat garbled quote of course. Explain to me, if you are not part of the ignorant majority doesn't that automatically make you part of a vocal minority? You seem quite strident in your views.

I respect your faith in God and the right to practice your religion but am unable logically to understand why, given the choice and your belief, you wouldn't therefore welcome heaven on earth. What branch of religion endorses your statement 'We don't want it here! '. Sounds more like Communism to me.

You picked on Peter Tatchell, implying that he hadn't ever worked hard for a living as you undoubtedly have, despite claiming you didnt know "who the hell" he was. Blasphemy?

You go on to claim to be a Monarchist, surely the royal 'hangers on' are the more obvious targets of your envy and rage? Don't think Peter Tatchell is on the Civil List. Bet he's paid income tax though.

Would you agree, if randomly selected, to go on awilliams66 jury of appointed members of the second chamber? Would awilliams agree to have you? Would the people whom awilliams appoints? I don't think so.

I wouldn't, which by the way is why I'm in favour of a fully elected Lords. Elected by the ignorant majority as you so graciously describe us. I'm proud to be part of that ignorant majority, if you represent wisdom.

Nothing to say about Aung San Suu Kyi? Extraordinary!

awilliams66 1 week ago

2 people liked this.
Fred you seem to be overlooking the failures made by Monarchies in the past, the pogroms authorised by the Russian Czars, wars of succession, etc. Your assumption that the old monarchies would not have allowed WW2 does not take into account their support for WW1 Those stable countries you refer to are stable because the people of those countries can chose their leaders through democratic means. If any of the Monarchs of those countries tried to reassert their ancient rights by over throwing the elected representatives they would not last a week.

The worst elected representatives share the same failing as the worst monarchs, that is a self righteous belief in their own superiority that stops them listening to the very people they are supposed to represent. It is right that we should elect our leaders in the First Chamber but those we place in the second chamber to review the legislation from the first Chamber should not be chosen in the same way but by a method which must be seen to be fair. The hereditary principle is not fair and only