Common sense prevails

So the House of Commons has finally voted in favour of reforming the upper chamber. The 80% elected 20% appointed option was the one that was expected to come out on top so I was delighted that whereas that option got a majority of 38 the option of 100% elected got an even bigger majority of 113.

The only thing that stuns me is that in this day and age 224 Member of Parliament could oppose the concept of a wholly elected chamber in the first place. Does anyone know where we can see a list of who voted against?

In some parts of the world I should imagine we must be a bit of a laughing stock but at least at long last this is a step in the right direction. MP’s also voted for the remaining 92 hereditary peers to be removed. Another no brainer. As far as I can tell they were not offered a vote on the retention of Bishops and Archbishops but they too should be removed from the second chamber.

I assume that the government will now push forward with this option. There is obviously a long way to go yet.

Doubtless the Lords will reject these proposals out of hand.

The major political parties need to get together and agree the details of how a wholly elected second chamber might work. This needs to address the mechanics of electing a second chamber and just as importantly what the role and powers of that second chamber should be. Proposals then need to be included in election manifestos for the next general election thereby weakening the ability of the Lords to oppose such proposals.

Before we get too excited it looks like it could be at least 2010 or 2011 before the Lords is finally killed off and replaced with an elected chamber.

Oh the joys of living in a modern democracy

Straw man

Jack Straw has published his proposals for reform of the House of Lords but I have some serious concerns about what the government are proposing.

Their proposals are summarised on the BBC site as follows:

• A 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peers
• Reduce size of House from 746 to 540 members
• End hereditary and life peerages over time
• Elected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro elections
• Maximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peers
• Appointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figures
• Lords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'
• Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats

In contrast with this Liberal Democrat policy is that:

1. The majority of the House of Lords should be elected, with no more than 20% appointed by an Independent Appointments Commission.
2. There should be no additional political appointees.
3. No more hereditaries and no more life peers created. Hereditaries should cease to serve at the date of the first elections.
4. Members should be elected under a system that gives voters real choice (such as the Single Transferable Vote).
5. Members should serve for three fixed 4 year terms, i.e 12 years non-renewable.
6. The Reformed Lords (and Commons) should retain its powers of scrutiny over the government.

I support 4, 5 and 6 but quite frankly in a modern democracy the first three are too weak. One hundred percent of the members of the second chamber should be elected. There should be no appointed members whatsoever. Aside from the lack of democracy involved in appointed members it would also help to avoid so many of the questions about cash or loans for peerages. Hereditary and life peers should lose their seats immediately and there should be no places for bishops and archbishops. If they want to take part then they can stand and get elected like everyone else.

Labour support for a written constitution

Well at last some sense from the attorney general who says that a written constitution for the UK should be "seriously" considered. He went on to oppose Camerons suggestion of a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. He now says there are strong reasons in principle to consider a written constitution. I agree with him although I am slightly puzzled as to why he has come out now and made this statement. Have I missed something?