An 80 percent elected Lords would not be a Lib Dem triumph

High Tory

Who cares whether or not it's a Lib Dem triumph? It would be an unmitigated constitutional disaster that all right-minded people should oppose it tooth and nail!

All this interfering with the upper house for purely ideological reasons has devalued it, harmed its ability to properly scrutinise and revise legislation, and lead to it being filled with unprincipled party cronies. An elected chamber will not change that!

'Like' this facebook page to join the campaign against this madness: http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-say-NO-to-an-elected-House-of-Lords/172663369423925

Also read here:http://hightory.com/2010/12/20/the-case-for-a-hereditary-house-of-lords/

Bill Kristol-Balls

If the coalition deliver an 80% elected Lords, it will be a Lib Dem result, despite it not being exactly what they would have ideally done.

Cameron is on record as saying that Lords reform was a 3rd term issue for a Tory government. Rough translation, it wouldn't have happened.

So if we go from nothing to an 80% elected second chamber using some form of PR, even Labour wouldn't be able to spin that as anything other than good for Clegg & Co.

david

But anger over Lords’ reform could be particularly intense as it involves matters of grave constitutional principle.

The main, 'constitutional principle' being of course the ago old right of a PM to stuff the place with the usual crowd of arse likking sycophants.

TrevorsDen

'Grave constitutional principle'? Whats wrong with a fully elected lords?

Why is it worse than having the Lords filled with people lucky enough to be born in the right bed?
Or people wealthy enough to buy the ermine?
Or placemen grubby enough to suck up to establishment?
Or lucky sods plain lucky enough to live long enough?

Grave constitutional issues my arse.

The easiest solution to the Lords is to abolish the second chamber entirely.

No matter hat the solution I fail to see why it should move anyone to any kind of tantrum or emotion.

perdix

Agree with TrevorsDen.There was a time when the HoL was widely respected but particularly after Liebour's messing about it has become perceived as a corrupt body.Time to abolish it and save money to boot!

TomTom

An elected Upper House means the Parliament Acts must be repealed. No other system stops the Upper Chamber blocking legislation - it is an abuse of a Revising Chamber and one of the reasons Britain has been so badly governed by fiscally irresponsible legislators

Oedipus Rex

The function of the HoL? - "To revise and scrutinize legislation"

Abolish the so-called 'Lords' - have the HoC committees permanently advised by experts to revise & scrutinize legislation.
It would be cheaper and less corrupt, for starters.

Can you imagine an election campaign for a 2nd chamber where the candidates have to canvas your support on their ability to revise and scrutinize? It's utter bollocks.

Richard Manns

@ TrevorsDen

Don't you think there might be a reason for having a 2nd house? You might not think much of the current lot (with quite some justification), but that doesn't mean that the job shouldn't be done.

TrevorsDen

I agree with rex and Tom Tom is just plain wrong.

Why should an elected 'lords' upset the commons?
It all depends on what it is elected to do.

John Goode

I think retaining a certain amount for appointments is a good thing if it is composed etirely of cross-benchers. I believe the cross benchers have contributed greatly to the country. There should also be a rule that new Lords appointed should satisfy certain standards such as meritious service to the nation. If they have been sacked from their previous jobs such as the former speaker then they should be bared

Andrew SW18

But an elected Upper House might induce legislative grid-lock and prevent any laws from being... oh, no, wait,

Verity

Where's David Blackburn,then? We haven't seen hide nor hair of him over this ghastly holiday season on The Speccie.

normanc

If we do have an elected Upper House (and I've nothing against it) let's hope they have the good sense to stagger it like in the USA mid-terms.

Would completely destroy the purpose of the HoL if elections to there and the Commons was held at the same time.

You wouldn't put any amount of idiocy past this current crop though.

TomTom

"Tom Tom is just plain wrong."

That is not an argument: it is a prejudice.

Tarka the Rotter

No elected Lords, but an elected Upper House as a constitutional check on the lower house and the executive - for God's sake, YES. So, who should sit there? Well, forgive me for being niave, but ORDINARY PEOPLE. Professional politicians (dread phrase) should be banned from standing, and a representative group elected to represent the people of this country. There should be a clear and precise remit for the new house - no titles go with it - and serving there should have a fixed term. I also believe serving in the Commons should have a time-limit of two terms only. People elected to the Commons should also be barred from standing for election in the Upper House.

Fergus Pickering

The House of Lords was widely respected. When was that, old fruit? W.S. Gilbert didn't respect it much. Nor did Disraeli ('I am dead but in the Elysian Fields'). Most of the old Lords were there because their grandfather lent the king money or got him mistresses or slept with him if he was batting for the other side.

TrevorsDen

Richard Manns - no I cannot really think of a reason for the House of Lords. Apparently legislation needs revising. Does not say much about the civil servants who draw up the legislation.

But assuming that legislation does need revising then the various readings can surely be worked out so that the revising and measured considering that the legislation needs can be carried out by elected officials.

The composition of the 'lords' can be qualified in some way and the role of the 'lords' can be limited in some way --- OR ---- the process can be done by commons committees, maybe they can annex additional experts to help them.

But why should countless nobodies and has-beens be shuffled in to some sad pathetic ceremonial charade.
The likes of Sugar and Prescott are typical, but its the same for all parties.

Publius

Fergus Pickering writes: "Most of the old Lords were there because their grandfather lent the king money or got him mistresses or slept with him..."

-- Aren't you confusing the nature of a thing with its origins? After all, oak trees come from acorns. But oak trees are not acorns.

As for the increasingly bewildering TrevorsDen, he seems to want to replace politics with administration. Very Hegelian.

DavidDP

The key role of the Lords is as a revising chamber, and the most valuable aspect it brings here is the fact that it is stuffed with experts from a wide range of industry, business and science (as by-product of the enoblement issue, but valuable nonetheless). Any reform really needs to try and keep this expertise in place.

Perhaps the professional bodies (Royal Society of Medicine, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors etc) should be given some sort of nomination role for time and term limited appointments.

Publius

There are (at least) three linked difficulties both with the current HOL and with any proposed change: composition, legitimacy and powers.

Legitimacy and powers are closely bound together, and you can't just limit powers by law, without addressing the question of legitimacy. Why not? Because law presupposes legitimacy, and, ultimately, law is subservient to legitimacy. Think about it.

Legitimacy itself is no easy question, and cannot be resolved by some mere formula. But if a new HOL has more legitimacy than, say, the HOC, then you are going to have a problem.

The suggestion that the HOL should just be elected on, say, PR, is simplistic, and does not deal with these questions -- questions that will inevitably arise thereafter and risk a complete breakdown of the constitution.

Leo McKinstry

Well said, TrevorsDen. Whos's afraid of democracy? The House of Lords is a ridiculous institution, a grotesque anachronism, and a source of deep corruption within our political life. Why on earth would any democrat fight to defend the privileges of Baroness Uddin? It's a farce. The 5th Earl of Rosebery, the last Liberal peer to become Prime Minister, spent most of his political life trying to bring about an elected second chamber. He would be amazed, 115 years after he left office, that we still have this monstrosity in our midst. Bring on reform, as soon as possible.

Boudicca

I find it extremely demoralising that some Conservatives will get very exercised about the Constitutional principle of an elected Upper Chamber, but ignore far greater Constitutional Principles:

1) Our membership of the EU - which has never been sanctioned by the electorate in a Referendum. Approximately 80% of our laws now originate in Brussels, yet the British electorate cannot prevent this or 'kick the b+stards out.' Our political elite support or accept our membership and conspire to prevent a Referendum so we are in effect living under a foreign dictatorship.

2) The democratic deficit England is under, following Blair's botched devolution settlements. When will the West Lothian Question be satisfactorily addressed - ie English votes ONLY for English Laws

Personally, I think the Lords should be elected and the numbers reduced to no more than 300. We don't need 1000 people - most of whom contribute little or nothing to the governance of the country - leeching off the taxpayer. If the Commons could be reduced to 450 as well, so much the better.

stephen bennetts

An elected House of Lords gives us a Commons MK2,if the House of Commons is to be the benchmark for the quality of its members, god help us !