Lords Reform ...

[omnirook]

Lords "Reform" is once again underway. Mr Straw is set to put an unusual type of vote to the Parliament - members would be asked to rank their preferences among 7 options, the option getting the most votes would win. It's more complex than that, yes, the least favorite choice being striken and the "second choice" on those ballots being credited, etc, until there's a clear majority opinion. All this in hopes of avoiding the mess of the last attempt in 2003, when a complete stalemate was achieved.

Now, it's no secret that I have been against Lords "Reform" from the get - not that what I think matters one jot over at Westminster. Still, I thought that it was a bad idea, more popularist crap that would do far more harm than good. The system worked - why tinker w/it? - to win a few cheers from the mob who feel slighted because some people have hereditary advantages? Fine. Get rid of the real problem: inherited wealth - a 100% death tax would do that nicely - isn't going to happen, is it? The hereditary peers were a built-in conservative element that, really, could only put the brakes on - could not stop the elected government from doing as it wanted, especially w/the Salisbury Convention in place.

[omnirook]

And, yes, I find this "push to get on w/it" suspicious in light of the recent honours scandals.

[zhang_bob]

I support a system of an entirely elected upper house, voted by proportional representation. With a limit of two terms, a minimum age of at least 35, and ex-Members of Parliament being prohibited from running in the upper house for a minimum of 5 years.


Some food for thought.

Should Parliament be composed of two legislative chambers, or a single legislative chamber?

If there is to be a second chamber what powers should it have, if not what powers should the parliamentary committees have?

Would there be time limit in place to stop the upper house becoming a "feeder body" filled by Members of Parliament who lose their seats?

Scottish Parliament has devolved powers over areas like Health and Education. The Scottish Parliament does not have an upper chamber, but instead MSPs scrutinise legislation in a committee system. Therefore legislation on English health and education is subject to the House of Lords, whilst Scottish legislation is not. Should that carry on?

[mancroft]

Why not just make Bliar "Dictator for Life"?

[Theodoret]

I'm in favour of an elected upper house, but there needs to be some mechanism to keep the election timings out of phase. If you have upper and lower house elections at the same time, then the government could do a clean sweep of both houses. This would be particularly unhealthy if the upper house is elected by first-past-the-post, as the lower house currently is. At the moment the Lords is the only safeguard to prevent 38% of the population ruling tyrannically over the other 62%.

One way could be to have ten year terms in the upper house (or conversely, two year terms).

Whilst I would like to see proportional representation, I doubt the government will propose it, because a proportionally elected upper house would be more democratic than the Commons, and one of the stated aims of the government is to preserve lower house supremacy in Parliament.