Hereward77

I disagree, I am opposed to an elite-appointed system. We should either have a completely elected second chamber or have nothing at all. Any half-way measure would inevitably allow for corruption.

__________________
"The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history."
David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

Internationalist

Though I think the word "illegal" is a bit strong, you could do this with an appointed house (just as people in certain positions such as judges must step down from active participation in politics). However, an elected house almost presupposes electoral organisation, which means parties one way or another.

It all depends what you think the House of Lords is there to do. If it is merely a revising chamber, aiming to draw upon the experience and wisdom of people who have had active lives in (for example) business or education, electing people might mot be the best answer. As long as the main chamber supporting the government (the Commons) is elected there is no need to have a second elected chamber.

The great thing about hereditary peers in the past was that they did not for the most part have to owe allegiance to party whips. I suspect the time has passed for a hereditary house though.

As long as we do have appointments it would be wise to remove the powers of patronage from the prime minister and put the system under the control of an independent advisory panel who would then submit names to the Queen.

rjt

Yes I tend to agree, it is an absolute scandel, if the HOL is ever going to do anything useful then it requires democratic legitimacy, otherwise put them out of their misery.

mkpdavies

I see no one has addressed the points I brought up. Interesting.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

Leigh Quilter

Your right with the points you made. That's why we need to make an intellectual case for the restoration of the hereditary peerage. So that the arguments of the left are muffled out.

The benefits of the hereditary peerage were as follows:

~ No political axe to grind
~ Didn't necessarily have a party alliegance
~ Incredibly experienced in world of business, academia
~ Didn't rely on election for position therefore can dedicate time and effort to politics
~ Didn't have to take party whip and were far more capable of resisting pressures of party leaders and the Commons (unlike appointed peers from the HOC)
~ Most didn't rely on membership for a living and therefore weren't in it for the money
~ Due to privilaged upbringing in most cases, peers were very well educated

You should read the book 'The Lords' by the Viscount Masereene and Ferrard. Although written some years ago now it contains a very good defence of the hereditary peerage.

g hall

How about a second chamber determined by lot and serving 2 years
Need to have two thirds voting Yes to enact a law or more then one third rejecting abstentions allowed so figures would be 67 % of reps or 34% of reps.

If 1 in 3 think a law is bad then they could be onto something

Nick Moody

I have long argued for the return of the hereditary peers. I think it was a dreadful mistake to remove them and was simply done out of class hatred and the desire for Blair to completely control Parliament. It has damaged democracy and therefore the way that this country is governed. In a mature democracy such as ours, it should be realised that just to do the bidding of the majority, as seen in the Commons, is not neccessarily the wisest or moral course. Their Lordships had wide experience outside politics and were not yes men for the incumbent party. I look forward to the day that they are restored and wish it could be UKIP policy.

harryaldridge

This is a difficult issue. I know UKIPs position is to support an elected house of lords in some form.

I saw some MPs debating this on TV the otehr day and it is tricky. We currently have one of the best legislatures in the world (pitty it now just rubber stamps). This is because the HoL is made up generally of expereinced and expert people who contribute helpfully to the law making process. Having an elected upper chamber, while dmeocratic, adds more politics to what should be a sober revising chamber.

I personally support an elected HoL in some form, maybe indirectly elected, as i think it is the least worst option.

One of my recent ideas for HoL reform was to have councillors elect a chairman or mayor to sit in the HoL. This would re-engage local politics as the elected councillors would have the chance to vote in the HoL. Also it provides a local link to each Lord, similar to MPs. It provides a voice for local government inside the legislature and by being indirectly elected it should remove some of the politics and not undermine the primacy of the House of Commons.

Thoughts??

mkpdavies

Sometimes I think you can have democracy for the sake of it. As long as the HOP is democratic and has primacy, I can't see any real value in having democracy again. Indeed I can see good reason not to and have a totally different selection method.

If someone can make a strong case for why a democratically elected second house will improve things, then I am open to changing my mind. I used to want it, but have changed my mind over time.

As I said though, it is least of my worries, so I'll go with the flow if need be.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

ChrisB

Wow. I thought I was the only one who wanted to bring back hereditary peers (and I am still perhaps the only working class person to want so). Nice to see some support for it here. I agree strongly with every word from Nick Moody's post above, so there's no point in me repeating it.