The scale of Clegg's Lords challenge

Heartless Curmudgeon

You see, while both halves of the coalition committed to a fully- or ‘mainly-elected’ upper chamber in their respective manifestos, only one half of the coalition is particularly eager to force it through now. . .

A perfect moment therefore, for the H2B to emulate his Hero, and introduce the fatuous “Thrid Way” !

Rhoda Klapp

Is it just me, or is there no real distinction between a house full of placemen selected by the parties directly and a house full of placemen elcted after being picked by the parties? How about disqualifying anybody who has already held a position in parliament? How about a lottery of UK citizens? Just so it doesn't look like a complete establishment stitchup.

Jeremy

The so-called reform of the House of Lords has been a catastrophic error from start to finish.

The hereditary peers, by virtue of their long association with this country (and their material stake in it) have a natural interest in its continued wellbeing. Plus, of course, the Lords are there to act as a steadying influence upon the Commons, so that we are not (as very nearly happened under Blair/Brown) subjected to the worst excesses of republican tyranny.

That is the argument both for the hereditary peerage and for the House of Lords as it traditionally was.

To take a wrecking ball to this essential part of our constitutional arrangements (in themselves, a work of genius) is an historic error which already has - and will continue to do - lasting damage to the wellbeing and good governance of the country.

Either swamping or substituting the hereditary peers for hacks who owe their allegiance to nothing but their party, degrades not only the Lords - and the political process by which we govern ourselves - but by extension it degrades the rest of us, too.

We already have enough politicians and enough elections. We do not need more.

And then there is the point that having got the House of Lords out of their way, what is to stop the wrecking republicans from going for the the monarchy?

strapworld

Rhoda, Happy New Year. You do talk too much common sense. Local people could nominate so many good people, known locally for their involvement in business, science, learning or charities etc which would add so much to the upper chamber.

Former civil servants,parliamentarians and the pitiful Lords Spiritual should all be moved. As should all political and PC appointments.

Make the Upper Chamber one of the people for the people.

fergus pickering

I like the lottery idea £50,000 a year for life and serve for life. How about that?

Peter From Maidstone

Why must meddling by politicians always be described as 'reform' when there is no self evident method for determining that it is a reform at all, or even that any change is required?

Hexhamgeezer

More AV navel gazing from (what should be) an irrelevant but annoying little eurobot weasel. Don't ordinary LibDems tell their MPs what an utter irrelevancy AV or HoL reform is at the moment to the country at large?

If only the Cons were lead by a Tory they could strike now with an early election and dispense with these self-abusing loons.

Such a shame that dave is so ideologically comfortable with little nick.

starfish

There is already a prefectly accepptable way of selecting citizens randomly - the same one used for jury service

6 months on full expenses?

Cynic

If I were given a choice I'd have the hereditaries back. Unlike political placemen and those saying anything to get elected, the traditional peers were truly independent.

tom jones

We need to be a bit careful here. Clegg and Cameron joined forces in opposition over the Gurkhas and then went on to form the coalition. If Clegg and Milliband were to team up over lords reform then it could usher in a 2015 coalition consisting of Labour and the Lib Dems. This would be the worst case scenario imo. Labour win = terrible. LibLab pact that could last forever = bye bye Britain's future.

daniel maris

Here's a novel suggestion. Why not allow electors to group in numbers of 250,000 to gain the right to appoint a Lord/Lady.

What sort of House would that produce. Who would you join with? You might be an angler who wants to join with 250,000 others, or a cricketer wanting to join with 250,000 cricketers. Or you might be a fan of the arts. Perhaps Melvyn will lead an Arts Consortium and try and get your "vote".

fergus pickering

I a prepared to bet real money that nothing will happen about the House of Lords because Cameron does't want it to happen. What Nick wants doesn't matter at all.

Dimoto

daniel maris - nice try.
As you well know, "Melvyn" is one of your lot - a schoolboy socialist.

He is very heavily compromised, not the "independent spokesman for the arts" that you are suggesting/imagining.

Of course, the anglers and cricketers spokespeople would probably also hold inconvenient opinions.

Membership of the upper house is a political office, it has to be based on political opinion.

TomTom

The real reason The Lords will not be elected is that it would mean the Parliament Acts would be rescinded but it is the only way to hold the Union together

Nicholas

Thank you for your post Jeremy. Well considered, excellently constructed and I fully concur. The demise of the HoL was a major blow to British constitutional strength and a victory for the professional political elite.

Tarka the Rotter

I am of the opinion that constitutional reform is the business of the people, not merely politicians who tinker with things to their own advantage. Once, we had a balance between the Commons, Lords and the executive (the monarch). Now we have a new form of tyranny and it is getting worse. It's time to rewrite the rule book.

Dimoto

Tarka - a bit difficult to do a "rewrite" on a book that has never been written.

Forlornehope

Three hundred people selected at random would automatically have pretty good balance between any groups you care to name. You can use the binomial distribution to work it out if you are so minded. It's also pretty clear that such a house would never have approved either the Poll Tax or the Iraq war. This could be an idea whose time has come. Is there a rich man, or woman, out there who would like to sponsor an unofficial pilot of the idea?

David Lindsay

Each current Life Peer, at least who attends very or fairly regularly, should be entitled to name a soul mate as heir.

That heir would become a Peer upon his or her nominator's death, and would thus acquire the same right of nomination.

David Lindsay

If there must be an elected second chamber, then let each of the English ceremonial counties, the Scottish lieutenancy areas, the Welsh preserved counties, and the traditional six counties of Northern Ireland, elect an equal number (say, six), with each of us voting for one candidate, with the requisite number declared elected at the end, with no Ministers in that House although they would appear before it for Departmental Question Times, and, which is perhaps the most important point of all, with parties that contested elections to the House of Commons banned from contesting elections to the second chamber.

Nicholas

David Lindsay. It wouldn't work. They would just nominate family members claiming them to be soul mates. This would be more croneyism than the system replaced. The original HoL served this country well for centuries but the arrogant fools, the transient caretakers, decided they knew better and pushed through "reforms" conceived on the back of a fag packet to further their party political aims, all dressed up as "democracy" as usual.