Wonko`s World
As long as you think it was worth it.
I think it was worth it!
With your penultimate paragraph you destroyed my beliefs... A binding referendum would solve my concerns at a stroke -- it is democratic and fair.
But, and this I think damages your argument, if the people (the electorate) cannot be trusted to "protect their own interests" and would vote for the same party whether they fielded non-mammals or humans, why should they ultimately be trusted with a referendum?
I like the idea, but why do you!?
Well, what can I say? You caved in easier than I expected. 
I can answer your concern for you. The people will vote for a party in an election but voting on an issue is different. Sure, one party will often be supporting the issue more than others but the crucial thing is, the bill must have been passed by a majority in the Commons to come before the Lords so there must be a consensus in the Commons between all parties. Therefore, most people would vote on the merits of the issue in question rather than the party that originally introduced the bill.
Personally I have a lot of faith in the power of referenda. I don't think I've caved in!
Do you know why referenda are not allowed in the German constitution?
yes, its because Hitler used referenda to gain powers, so the German government don't allow them anymore.
I can see problems with both ideas, an elected lords leads to the problems wonk mentioned about party loyalty, but there is a lot of problems with hereditary Lords.
For example:
* The changing demographics of this country. We might be only 10% ethnic minority at the moment but there is a huge disparity for people of different age groups. In 20-40 years when a lot of the older whites have died, the highly mixed race country that then exists wont want to see a 95% white hereditary lords chamber.
* Unaccountable, we had a loyal and patriotic Lords in the past but what if that was not the case and we couldn't get rid of them? What if they have radical Islam sympathies for example.
* I am conservative, but is it fair that a Conservative revising chamber continually blocks changes from a left liberal government if that government won overwhelmingly at the general election? I don't think so. By your rules how could this be stopped?
* What if the hereditary peer just wasn't smart enough, what if a peer dies but had no children? It means more appointment of some kind..
There are other ways of electing that might not produce the same party loyalty you are worried about, perhaps we could have a PR system as Gavin said but instead of being over the last elections results being over the last 3 or 4, and only changing a few Lords each time so that they were not connected to the main electoral cycle and had a long period of time in the house maybe 10-15+ years so they couldn't easily be manipulated by the party leadership.
To stop career politicans I think if the Lords is only revising and doesn't have powers to alter laws it won't be a big enough thrill for that kind of people? They want more than that.
If there was a Tory majority in the Lords and a Labour majority in the Commons and the Lords blocked a Labour policy 3 times in line with the Parliament Act then a public referendum would be called and it would be up to the electorate to decide. This means the political makeup of both houses is irrelevant when it comes to deadlocks as it will be the people that decide. Allowing the Commons the right to pass a law blocked by the Lords 3 times is like allowing a criminal to commit a crime after being caught 3 times. Ok, not entirely like that but a similar principle - it has been decided that stealing a car is wrong so the criminal has been told not to steal a car but if the criminal thinks it's ok then after being caught 3 times he can continue to steal cars with impunity. You see the parallel? The Lords block legislation for a reason and who is to say that they are right or wrong? In these cases the people would decide what they want.
Re a peer dying with no heirs - there are laws in place already that deal with succession of peerages so that's a non-issue.
The Lords should be elected - absolutely no doubt about it. I can't see how we can rein against the legitimacy of unelected regional assemblies on one hand and tamely aquiesce to a benevolent legislatative club where entry is via an accident of birth on the other.
It has to be elected - but I would time the elections to be held at the mid term time of a Commons Parliament. That way a balance will be achieved because cynism and weariness of an incumbent leader will have taken its toll on the electorate..... They do it in many other countries, and it works - most notably in the States - were the incumbent President is subject to the natural checks and balances between the House of Representatives and the Senat -.both of which quite often have majorities from the 2 main parties at the same time.
This way, you are more likely to get say a Labour majority in the Commons and a Tory majority in the Lords - and thus a natural balance is achieved. Making the Lords a PR project will increase the representational mix even more.
To combat the 'career politician' concern, I would stick an age limit on entry. Say 35 years of age - so the candidate will already have had a career in industry/commerce etc.- and they would therefore be able to bring a knowledge of note to the Lords.... - rather be just another Tory boy or Blairite clone.
BUT - all this is in an ideal world, obviously. When England gets its own legislature, what happens to it then?
What would be the point of having two elected chambers??
If you want an elected House of Lords (as well as an elected House of Commons) then you're basically calling for a wasteful duplication. Waste of time, space and money.
Instead it would be better to have a single-chamber Parliament.
Better still would be to go back to how things were. A House of Lords - hereditary (and of course there would be the occasional awarding of new peerages) - and a House of Commons - elected (and the chamber where most government ministers would come from).
Let me just say that democracy is okay, but in moderation. You can have a democratic system of government without having all its institutions democratically elected. Our government is democratic, yet we have an undemocratic chamber of Parliament and a monarchy at the top.
I therefore oppose a fully-elected House of Lords. I suspect a compromise will be the eventual result of the reforms. A 60% elected house, with appointments given to non-political (and meritocratic) membership.
wonk, your referenda idea doesn't solve the problem of the Lords abusively blocking legislation because if had to block it 3 times before the referendum, they could slow down the parliament so much that the elected government couldn't get much done.
And what is your answer to the changing demographics of this country? not a small issue.
A hereditary white Lords will not be acceptible when whites are no longer the majority in the country, as predicted by 2100 by the current rate of change.
Humpf.
I still don’t know what I believe. Both arguments are compelling, but both have flaws.
Can’t I just stick my head in the sand?
Alfie, Labour are in their third term - we'd have seen a Labour majority in both houses for at least two terms by now. Also, putting an age restriction on MP's means you're always stuck with older people in the Commobs, no fresh blood. Also, to leave your job at 35 to become an MP is worse, career politician-wise, than someone who is in politics from the start of their working lives.
Salopian, a single chamber parliament means you are removing a (potentially) valuable oversight and check on the power of the Commons. It would be better to go back to hereditary peers, that's my preferred approach along with the amendment to the Parliament Act I mentioned at the end of my piece. Your final suggestion has one major flaw - non-politically motivated appointments to the Lords is supposed to happen now but it doesn't and won't.
Dave, the current Parliament Act has the 3 sessions of parliament clause already - my suggestion was only changing what happens after that has happened. If a law is that good that it is worth pursuing for 3 sessions of parliament then a delay isn't going to be an issue is it?
AJD, of course you can bury your head in the sand. Be my guest. 
No, I said only people going to the House of Lords would have the 35 year old age limit. MPs would go into the Commons as happens now - so all those budding 18 year old William Hagues out there would be safe. Also - I think the Lords is currently populated with people that have jobs as well as a seat in the Upper Chamber. The Lords, after all is a reviewer and discusser of legislation - hardly ever an instigater of it. And regarding the voting - well if it the Lords elections were timed for a Commons mid term time, then the most recent one would have fallen right around the Iraq War, David Kelly, etc, etc. Somehow, I just don't think Blair would have won a majority in the Lords then....
Sorry, misread what you wrote about the age limit. Um, well I suppose I don't see much of a problem with putting age restrictions on the Lords.
I can see what you're saying about the war and David Kelly damaging Labour but they gained popularity between the last Tory win and their first term so they would have taken the House of Lords a couple of years prior to taking the Commons.
Until the Lords can enact legislation that imposes the burden of taxation upon me, I don't care who they are and how they got there.
The Lords can introduce a bill imposes taxes and send it to the Commons. Also, the Commons don't get to over-rule the Lords on money bills.
When you have finished posting your comment, please click here for the most up-to-date version of this blog.
Commenting by HaloScan
