Another “New” Labour dog’s breakfast. You have to wonder why after waiting for decades, even in the years since 1997 we haven’t had a government with the guts to consign non-elected peers to the dustbin of history.

There is a case to be made for having an upper chamber with some non-elected members, but why not make them from professional bodies representing areas of expertise in the business world and professions? Appointing politicians and Bishops just goes to show how ante-diluvian much of the British establishment still is.

Lord Blair of Basra anyone…?

I’m with Galen on this one, Labour came in on a promise, well I thought they did, to get rid of this second chamber and replace with something democratic.

2010 and we’re still waiting.

Prezza should be a peer for his left fist alone; the rest can fuck off

@ 3 – Carl

Hmmnn.. not convinced. Given the huge disappointment of the past 13 years, an egging is the least most of the prospective Lords (hung parliament please forbid!) deserve.

The bunch of no-hopers, empty suits and principle voids who filtered through New Labour cabinets since 1997 should hang their heads in shame. I’d sooner propel the first random person I met in the street to the House of Lords.

I supported the Power2010 motion. The reason for which is not as straightforward as this article gives, though salient nonetheless. The House of Commons is full of elected members but, as recent media coverage shows, corruption of one sort or another is rife.
My argument for an elected 2nd chamber is to hope that such a house can only have members proposed, and voted for, in it that have demonstrated a political career, notably distinguished by, sound judgement and reasoning, ethical and morally accepted conduct, together with an understanding and wisdom for the modern society.
A forced retirement age to ensure places for new blood to keep the kettle boiling, together with a minimum apprenticeship of say 20+ years in the Commons would be an added benefit.
The clergy in particular should stay out. As should business figures and others from public life outside of politics.
Ecclesiastical members are a throwback to the days when religion led the public in moral standards and ethics – all of which is now covered in modern legislation.
With lobbying etc also a rife and unwelcome practice, non-political public figures should also stay out.
The correct use for such people (and retirees) would be in consultancy groups and other affiliated memberships to publish papers recommending, supporting, or criticising, prevalent political agenda.

You wouldn’t want a painter and decorator, untrained as an astronaut, to fly a Spaceshuttle – so why do we accept so much less when it comes to the House of Lords?

Hi Nick, thanks for the well thought out case on lords reform. You make a very important point in highlighting that Lords reform should not mean a chamber elected in the same way as the commons. A well thought out approach is needed to ensure a reformed second chamber is not only accountable to the people but effective in legislating.

Remember your always welcome to email us with blog pieces stating your support for either the pledge or particular campaigns on aspects of the Power2010 pledge like this one.

Who wants an elected second chamber? You’d only get the same pack of charlatans that we’ve got in the Commons, and the Parliament Act lets the Commons overrule the Lords anyway. It’s a revising chamber, it doesn’t actually have constitutional power.

There is *no point* in allowing the Lords to be elected, beyond the petty crybaby whinges that some people we don’t like will get paid to be there. The Lords is stuffed with actual experts who have made long careers out of actually knowing stuff. To replace it with elected members would only allow the major parties to further distort facts in pursuit of power.

Re. 5

If someone can get elected at any age, let them be in the Commons. Your ‘Logan’s Run’ retirement has no valid purpose, and would result in a volatile Commons consisting of popular dilettantes. Fuck that!

You’d do well to read up on the spread of professions present in the Lords as well, you’d be surprised to find how grateful we should be to the ones who were never elected.

Re. 8

I would be happy to concur with your sentiment and “fuck that”. Fortunately I live in a world where my opinions, meagre as they may be, do count.

Lets try and follow your thoughts to a logical conclusion. Lets scrap elected representatives altogether.
What would you suggest?
Who would make the appointments and on what basis? Do we draw lots – or go for a last person standing king of the ring fight!
Or is the electorate too ignorant or unimportant to exercise judgement and freedom of choice? You accept it for the Commons so why not for the Lords. Talk about hypocrisy.

No system is unfallable, but when people fail new rules are one of the ways of helping ensure similar mistakes do not reoccur. The whole purpose of elections is to give the majority of the polled voters a representative that is proportional of the majority, and, is willing to act under that majority’s will.

Logan’s run was death at 30, hardly relevant in terms of making way for fresh political thought.

Dilettantes – I take it you consider modern politicians to be no more than hobbyists. The whole point of the article was change.

Critique only has value when balanced with a demonstrable understanding of the subject. If the Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule the second chamber, why have they been allowed to qualify terms for second home allowance as “stayed at once a month”, clearly at odds with the Commons’ qualification of a second home and the Public’s view that claiming for second home allowance is not acceptable as a means to gain personal profit from it.
In the face of such misuse of public funds, you hold that as a taxpayer I should be grateful to these people?

I have read up on the spread of professions in the Lords. That’s the point. They all have affiliated interests to themselves, not the people they are supposed to serve.

Thanks for the comments though, it’s made me all the more determined that change is needed.

I can see the arguments for a fully elected second chamber, but I can also see the conta argument that it would lead to conflicts with the lower house about where legitimacy and precendence should lie.

I think the answer might be for a part elected, and part appointed upper chamber, where the appointed members were a minority, and were appointed in a way that the political parties and/or leadership can’t use it as an instrument of patronage. I’d be happy to see bodies like e.g the British Medical Association, the Bar Association and other professional bodies and interest groups involved in the process – altho it would need some debate which ones.

Anyone have any experience of how it’s handled in other countries?

Re: 9

I didn’t say scrap all elected representation, and that’s not the logical conclusion of what I did say. I said there’s no point having two elected chambers, when the current unelected chamber has no constitutional might. You’ve wasted your time writing all that, sorry!

Re 11

You said “There is *no point* in allowing the Lords to be elected”
I said “You accept it for the Commons so why not for the Lords”

To save time suggest you visit/explore here

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/elected-second-chamber.htm

The idea of an elected second chamber is nothing new.

Re: 12

I know all that, thanks. I didn’t just barrel in without doing my research.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring my point, which is that the Lords is a revising chamber with no power to pass legislation that the Commons won’t accept. The Commons, on the other hand, can pass anything it likes without the Lords accepting it – therefore it needs to be accountable to the people.

For the very, very, last time – the Lords has no power, which makes accountability utterly inappropriate. It acts as an amending chamber that doesn’t need to cravenly pander to the party line or media interests, because nobody can be deselected by their party once they’re in.

You’ve consistently demonstrated a flawed understanding of how Parliament currently works in the UK constitution, and I’m okay with that. I suggest you do some fucking background reading before you patronise me with white paper summary links though.

Gwyn

Sorry if I came across as patronising, but far from not having any power as you assert, it does.

It can propose and have the commons carry forward Private Members Bills and can (if it decides to exercise it’s right) have whole clauses of Legislation passing through either struck or re-amended.
The Law Lords themselves take responsibilty for the details of ensuring legislation does not contradict current legislation and recommends changes to reflect that. The Ecclesial Lords helped ensure moral doctrine.

Say what you like, but appointing business figures with vested interests in their own professional circles is not good, if anything it leads to discrimination against competitors.

The liason between the houses also ensures a broader more rounded view is considered in all matters. That’s the real power of BOTH houses.

With Labour’s push for greater transparency in government which is supported by both houses on all sides, an elected house will do away with cronyism, as appointment will be open to public scrutiny and justification.

An “amending” house it may be, but if you think it has no power…..

Besides the Commons is little more than a debating chamber with any decision arising from a consensus of opinion of the majority. As a consequence the Commons is littered with Bills that never make it on to the statute book.

My argument for electing Lords from retiring members of Parliament with strength in depth of political framework and modern political and state concerns holds.

Perhaps while you are at it you would suggest we abolished the role of the Queen and that of the Privy Council as well?

It’s not the roles that are in question here, it’s the way people get to have a say in the decision making process.

Representatives should be elected by the people they serve. US.

P.S. With all due respect your intolerant language is not welcome.