“…Therefore, having a second chamber that’s immune from political concerns is a Good Idea”
and
“the government of the time used the Parliament Act”
This isn’t an argument for electing the lords; it’s an argument for scrapping the parliament act.
Given that any elected second chamber would be, well, elected, it would hardly be immune from popular sentiment. It would simply lead to duplication of the party system that dominates the commons, and until that is addressed, I’m all for sticking with what we’ve got..
]]>My whole objection to electing the Lords is that hereditary Lords are less likely to have a strong political affiliation and to toe the party line whereas elected Lords and life peers will be tied to a party in the same way as the Commons. The only reform needed is to amend the Parliament Act so that instead of career politicians (who so rarely seem to have the best interests of the country or the people at heart) being able to over-rule the Lords any disputed legislation should go to public referendum.
]]>