Comments on: Electing the House of Lords

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:02:23 +0000

Mark, making the Lords elected should of course come along with a much larger constitutional settlement, including things like the balance of power between the Commons and the Lords. The trouble with the current piecemeal “reforms” is that no one is looking at the bigger picture.

By: Mark Green

Mark Green — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:55:03 +0000

Everyone seems to be forgetting the important thing – the Parliament Act. If we are to have an elected Lords then the Parliament Act has to go otherwise we’ll just have the ridicualous situation of one set of elected representatives being overruled by another.

By: Wolfie

Wolfie — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:12:32 +0000

I liked it just the way it was.

We already have an elected chamber, why ever do we need another?

I find this quite depressing.

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:41:00 +0000

That was just my point, Phil. Almost any way you structure representative democracy on a large scale will ultimately tend towards professional politicians and a party system. It’s very close to being an inevitability.

Don’t get me wrong, independent candidates can — and do — have an impact from time to time, but they’ll always be greatly overshadowed by those who choose to pool their resources.

I wasn’t suggesting that I had an alternative way of electing the Lords that would get around this problem. Merely that stating “Only if that’s who people vote for” is pretty much guaranteed not to get around it.

In truth though I’m the last person you want to be discussing this with. I find the whole notion of representative democracy faintly ridiculous and would replace it entirely if it were up to me. However that would take this thread waaay off topic. So perhaps another time…

By: Phil Hunt

Phil Hunt — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:04:36 +0000

Jim,

that’s likely to be an effect in any system that elects people. So what system would you have instead? Choosing people at random from the electoral roll?

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:11 +0000

I have to take issue with that response, Phil. Most people with a fulltime job outside politics or a family to support simply aren’t in a position to run for election without the support of a party. It’s an expensive and time-consuming process. Perhaps it won’t be exclusively party politicians, but I’m not sure adding a new bunch of idle rich people into the mix will necessarily make things much better.

By: Phil Hunt

Phil Hunt — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:14:00 +0000

G. Tingey: “The thing that bothers me is that all of these people will be PARTY POLITICIANS. None of them will be scientists or writers or artists or anything worthwhile, really”

Only if that’s who people vote for

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:00:28 +0000

The thing that bothers me is that all of these people will be PARTY POLITICIANS.

None of them will be scientists or writers or artists or anything worthwhile, really ……

By: jim jay

jim jay — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:04:41 +0000

I’m not sure what they are called is such a big deal although calling them lords if elected does seem odd to me – mind you senators seems strange too…

By: Phil Hunt

Phil Hunt — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:47:09 +0000

Ken,

yes, but how they’re elected and for how long has a big effect on how independent from the parties they will be.