Is it time to reform the House of Lords?

This week's  scandal surrounding four Labour members of the House of Lords - "cash for amendments", "peers for hire" or "Ermine-gate" as it is variously being branded - has prompted discussion among the commentariat as to whether it is time to reform the House of Lords (and for "reform" we should generally read "elect").

This morning, a leader in the FT suggests that a fully elected second chamber - as backed by MPs in 2007 - remains "the right way forward".

Mary Riddell in the Telegraph agrees:

"Move to a fully elected chamber, with peers nominated for their expertise and paid a salary. Drop the titles; Lords and Ladies belong in Shakespeare, or on grouse moors. Fulfil a Labour promise first made in 1967: don't replace the last 92 hereditaries when they die. Get rid of the bishops (a move first attempted by the Commons in 1836) on the basis that the Church should have no formal role in the legislature."

The Conservatives have long made made noises - though often half-hearted - about a more democratic House of Lords. In 2007, David Cameron voted in favour of an 80%-elected second chamber, but, as Fraser Nelson points out in today's Spectator, it would by no means be a priority for a Cameron premiership:

"Being able to appoint Lords has its uses for him, too. There is the small matter of the as yet un-nobled Stanley Fink, the billionaire who has kindly agreed to be Tory Treasurer. And Mr Cameron is expected to follow Mr Brown’s lead in appointing what the Prime Minister memorably called a ‘government of all the talents’ or ‘goats’ — outsiders brought into his government. Being able to offer ermine is a powerful negotiating tool when seeking to hire outsiders on a Whitehall salary."

Whilst the House of Lords rules should be changed to make peers subject to the same kind of sanctions as MPs if they are found to have abused their position, I have long believed that electing the second chamber would be unwise.

The current set-up may not be democratic and I accept that if you were setting up the system from scratch today that a wholly appointed chamber would be an unlikely starting point.

But overall, I believe the current House of Lords is not broken - and therefore doesn't need fixing.

Being unelected means that there are not permanent clashes with the Commons over who has a superior mandate - yet not having to be accountable to electorates (or necessarily to party whips) enables their Lordships to vote in a wider general interest.

And the sheer wealth of expertise and experience across all fields of life there contributes massively to Lords debates and scrutiny of legislation. There are many, many members of the Lords who would not dream of putting themselves up for election - the former Cabinet ministers, ex-permanent secretaries, army chiefs etc - but whose presence there is extremely valuable.

I hope that whatever the outcome of the investigations into the scandal of the moment, David Cameron will not be pressured into committing the Conservatives to changing the Lords in a way that will be detrimental to Parliament in the long run.

If he does form a government after the next election, as we hope he will, there will in any case be far bigger priorities in his in-tray than meddling with the House of Lords. He will, however, need to appoint a new raft of Tory peers, which is why ConservativeHome has been seeking your suggestions as to who he should nominate.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[London Tory]

Without a doubt, yes.

I cringe every time I see the likes of "Lord" Strathclyde speaking for our Party.

His idea of feeling the pinch is Nanny not bringing a second helping of pudders.

[A Williams]

While we do need a second house to reveiw and revise legislation, we do not need two elected chambers or a second house appointed by the first. A House of Juriors, appointed in the same way as criminal court juries to serve for fixed terms or for specific legislation, would be the best way for the second House to maintain the required independance. Any attempts at fovours for cash could be treated the same way they would in a criminal court.

[Martin Coxall]

No, it's not time to reform the Lords. The time to reform the house of Lords was the mid 19th Century, we're just running a little late.

@A Williams:

I'm a big fan of the idea of sortition in place of elections. However, wouldn't it make more sense for the Commons to be chosen by Sortition, not the Lords? The Commons, is after all supposed to be the chamber 'of the people'.

[John Coles]

Well done the Labour Party. Four Labour Peers are found to be on the fiddle, but the Labour Party and its media friends (mainly the BBC and Channel 4) turn the whole matter into a debate about House of Lords reform. And everyone buys into this. Conservative Home included. It's not about reform, it's about 4 ghastly money-grabbing Labour politicians: if the debate is about anything then it is the damage that Blair did to our institutions.
Give me a second chamber packed with Hereditary and Life-time Peers, where, with all of its faults, noblesse oblige is the driving force.

[Neil Winton]

The Very Existence Of A House Of Lords Shames Britain
It isn’t just that the House of Lords is a shameful hotbed of corruption. Surely the most despicable thing of all is its existence in the first place, and what that says about the British.
No other mature democracy would allow itself to be governed by this bunch of played-out, second rate old farts who probably never had an original idea during their failed careers as backbenchers, union whingers, legal chancers, or Church of England hand-wringers.
Just turn on the TV one day, look at the Parliament channel when the red benches are in action and shed tears of shame.
What a sham of a democracy we have in Britain. The lower House is supposed to hold the government to account, but is in hock to it. The opposition doesn’t have the courage of its convictions, which, if you’ve forgotten, used to be lower taxes, small government, and equal opportunity for all via education. The LibDems are simply awful, professional moaners. Ask yourself, what is the raison d’être of a Lib Dem? What is at the heart of its philosophy? Not being the government is their great rallying cry.
But most shameful of all is the House of Lords. Not an ounce of credibility. One day it will be reformed. Let’s call it the Senate. It will be wholly elected. Members will serve one 5 year term. No repeats allowed. No pay either. When the Lords are reformed, we must make sure that party politics is kept to a minimum, so no gravy train career for its members. No former politicians so no House of Commons members need apply, no former union officials, no clergymen of any stripe, no Lords or Royals. Hopefully citizens over 50 who perhaps have retired and have a huge backpack of experience in the real world will be tempted to participate. They will probably have a comfortable pension so can’t be corrupted either by bribes, or the siren songs of government. It’s not the age of the House of Lords that’s the problem. It’s the participants. The failed remnants of a corrupt Lower House shouldn’t have any power over us. To coin a phrase, let’s have some change we can believe in.
Neil Winton – January 27, 2009

[Martin Coxall]

It absolutely is about reform as much as it's about about Labour Sleaze.

The entire system of patronage that underlies our second chamber has shown itself to be both widely corrupted and corruptible.

Unless we reform it, don't delude yourself into thinking things will miraculously get better just by having more Tory peers. They won't.

Massive Labour sleaze is not an argument for not reforming the Lords, if anything, it makes it more important so that we are able to limit the damage that corrupt Labour peers can do.

[Ron Sushkind]

Scrapping the House of Lords and replacing it with something democratic is absolutely the right thing to do.

It was time to reform the Lords a hundred years ago. The age of patronage and cronyism needs to end.

Its an absolute joke that we have unelected millionaire party donors making laws in this country with no reference or accountability to the people.

Meanwhile we have the temerity to bomb, sanction and lambast other countries for being "undemocratic".

Before we remove the moat (out of another's eye, we should first remove the beam out of our own eye.

[B G Henderson]

The Lords must retain those that can bring their own expertise and experience. If I were such a person, I would not wish to subject myself to the grubbiness of Common(s)politics!in order to hopefully make a contribution to the country's affairs.

There are, however groups who definately should not be put in the Lords.

The groups include time servers, usually back benchers to whom the PM feels indebted, and also quick fix add-ons to the PM's cabinet. That is not to say that the PM should not be able to bring unelected people into cabinet, but a better way has to be found

In essence the invitation to jouin the LOrds should have a very high bar and entry checked by a group who have a responsibility for preserving the quality of the Lords

[Peter Scott]

I agree with many writers here. We claim to hold democracy and the will of the people as a self-evident and sacred truth, and yet we have an upper-house full of political appointess paid £350 per day. This is a scanderless state of affairs!

We should have an upper house similar to the US Senate, with Senators (or other title) sitting for 6 year terms, a third elected every 2 years. They would at least have the legitimacy of being elected, would most probably be made up of experienced former MPs and business leaders anyway, would actually create checks and balances and prevent some of Labours more ludicrous legislation passing. It would also increase participation and interest in politics.

You or I should stop kidding ourselves that maybe one day we'll be Lords and Ladies, and give ourselves a real chance of entering the Upper House, through democratic elections and by the will of the people!

[DAVID TUFNELL]

Proponents of a fully elected house should ask themselves "What is the function of the Upper House"?
I believe it is to scrutinise legislation and to do this one needs experience which career politicians do not have. It needs a strong core of professional people with real experience to assess whether legislation proposed by the politicians is practical. An independent commission would determine which interest groups should be represented and their number. The actual selection would be done by the interest body possibly by election by their peers. Government is becoming more and more technical and it is clear the governments cannot find ministers who are capable and experienced.

[Josh]

Businesses don't elect advisors. The House of Lords needs independent, non party political members, whether elected or not. We already have an elected chamber. Let the Lords of the Realm do what they do best. Remember 42 days?

[Steve Tierney]

No. Just introduce powers to get rid of the corrupt ones.

[Marjorie Baylis]

It is only the House of Lords that is paying some sort of service to scrutinising the Goverment and EU legislation that is to be brought into effect. The H of C over the last 12 years has done precious little of that and the consequence is that there are many laws that are passed which have unintended consequences - just think about laws on terror and how they have been misused by the police. So, the Lords act as a buttress against badly drawn legislation.

If you have an elected second chamber, the same party groups will put up for election -many of the new MP's are totally inexperienced about lawmaking when they get to the H of C and many are lamentable and should not be there anyway. Why would we want a second chamber made up in the same way that would be able to say 'We have been elected by the people, our votes have as much validity as those of the Commons'?

The essential thing about the Lords, 'boring old farts' though they may be, is that the vast majority are experienced people who can sort the wheat from the chaff with government legislation. I think it should be appointed, not necessarily by the government, and should contain many experts in their fields. It is also good to have a few retreads from parliament through as well, because many are very knowledgeable.

I think one should say that whoever goes into the Lords should be over 45 - which excludes inexperienced youngsters, with no sense of history, being appointed.

There is no reason why heriditary Lords should not be appointed if they have something to contribute. As for London Tory - have you ever heard Lord Strathclyde speak? He is brilliant.I think your ignorance and inexperience spilleth over.

It would be an honour to serve as a Lord and for industrialists and outstanding people, it is a way of getting them to work for the country for very little and giving them an inexpensive perk for doing so.

[Jeremy Savage]

There is a danger of a kneejerk reaction from people with little understanding ofourconstitution . A great deal of harm has been done to the independance of the HOUSE OF lords by the present half way house .We need to maintain the independance by maintaining an element of the hereditary peeragewho leaven the house with a wide range of experience,this balances the rest of the membership of which part should be elected and part selected .This tripartite hous would maintain the balances and checks necessary in a good constitution and with a slight disregard for logic to give a passing nod to history .jeremy savage vice chairman south norfolk and district councillor

[Anthony Scholefield]

The 'scandal'this week was the surrender of the House of L The four'willing to be corrupt' peers is a complete sideshow and diversion .

[Anthony Scholefield]

The 'scandal'this week was the surrender of the House of Lords'authorities' to a threatened mob action led by one of its members who is a convicted criminal.
The four'willing to be corrupt' peers is a complete sideshow and diversion .

[Martin Coxall]

If we want an elected Senate to be gerontocratic, it's very easy to place a minimum age of entry: 45 seems like a good lower bound.

They would also be elected for longer terms, over larger constituencies, and with STV to make government majorities in the Senate unlikely.

This would give an Upper House with an entirely different, more sombre and deliberative timbre, but still with the full democratic legitimacy to challenge HM Govt.

[Man in a Shed]

This is another Labour trap.

Surely the answer to the question is a no brainer for readers of this site.

The time to reform the House of Lords is when we are in power !

[Man in a Shed]

PS The clue about the trap is that Mary Riddell is writing about it, given her left wing politics.

[Malcolm Dunn]

No. As others have stated the Lords need to be independant and in an ideal world non party political.
An elected second chamber will result in more party apparatchiks and as the real power lies with the Commons probably second rate politicians.
Perhaps there might be reform of the method of appointing Lords but I would hope we maintain a 100% appointed house.

[Sally Roberts]

As someone else has said above, leave the House of Lords as it is but take concrete action against any member found to be corrupt - including removal!

[john broughton]

If Mary Riddell thinks a fully elected house is the way forward then, self-evidently, it is the wrong answer.

While it was and remains difficult to justify the hereditaries plus bishops and judges it was a house that got the right answer more often than not.

[James Burdett]

Sally - I tend to disagree, I think that an appointment system is almost by definition somewhat corrupt as it is down to personal preferment by those in power.

[David Roberts]

Labour has, predictably carried its sleaze to contaminate the Upper House. Is anyone surprised?

It is my opinion that matters were very much better in the old, pre-"reform" days of the hereditaries.

"Come back. All is forgiven!"

Pity it's not possible to turn the clock back but no politician would dare.

[Myles Bailey]

Robert Blake was right when he said that Blair's "reform" would simply create the biggest quango of all time, a house which owes its seats solely to prime ministerial patronage. If these people have been placed in the Lords because of their demonstrated ability to do favours for people (in this case the government) why should we be surprised that they do favours for other people once there?

The House of Lords should be a house of Lords. Call me Burkean but I believe that our constitution symbolises something Great about Great Britain. That it illustrates that in this country we gradually over centuries evolved a system of government wherein people did things because they thought it was right not because they were forced to. The very existence of the house of Lords is testament to the British convinction that conventions and time honoured traditions are important and we should not abandon that. An elected upper chamber would not follow the pattern of organic development our Parliament has taken since Magna Carta it would be a false 'modernising' touch that doesn't fit with the rest of the system.

In our country we created a system where the King-In-Parliament brought together the commons, the aristocracy and the crown as one body, one will, where everyone regardless of their ancient standing was represented and acted in concert. By abolishing the hereditaries we risk taking the heart out of our system, the lessons and the symbols passed onto us by previous generations.

Only hereditaries should have the right to sit in Parliament but the number of Lords should be limited to 100. All hereditaries should be interviewed by non-sitting members of the Privy Council and the 100 with the greatest political acumen should be the ones to take their seats in the Lords. Lords' terms should be 7 years to ensure the selection doesnt take place simultaneously with a general election, it should be televised like the Senate confirmation hearings, and Lords should be allowed to be reappointed indefinately. The role of the Lords and of the Crown is to protect their subjects and the only way they can do so in this day and age is scrutinising law on our behalf. Give them back their rightful place and kick out the quango.

[Stuart Crow]

The HoL as currently constituted is a result of botched reform. That does not mean the whole thing should be swept away and replaced. Calling it an "upper house" is massively anachronistic in the context of modern history, even before the arrival of the Parliament Acts.

I would be happy to see it left as it is, but with proper rules governing interests and real sanctions against miscreants. It does a lot of does a lot of quiet good work.

If the left now calls for abolition it merely suggests that they are starting to resent the loss of Prime Ministerial patronage in the near future.

[John Haynes]

As usual, a current "story" in the Media leads us away from the real issues. I have written many times on numerous blogs etc that reforming the House of Lords right now is about as useful as complaining about too much ice in your drink shortly after the Titanic hit the iceberg.

The most pressing area that needs radical reform is the House of Commons and the relationship between the Prime Minister and it. We need to examine a clear "Separation of Powers" between the Executive and the Legislature, dealing with the Second Chamber is very downstream from that as is the methods by which they are appointed.

So can we please turn the telescope round and look at it through the right end ?

[RichardJ]

Yes, turn it back into what it was before 1997.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Damn Mary Riddell and Damn Labour promises. The Press has overlooked again and again the fact that the sewers who took the money were not hereditary peers, who at least have some idea what Duty looks like and aren't attempting to win a popularity contest but to do their job, but Tony's Cronies, bunged into the HofL to shove through some of the Labour Party's nastier ideas. Their behaviour is in keeping with that of the whole damnable government which pays private PR firms £12+ million a year to lobby parliament. There's no difference between that and the spurious peers' actions, as far as I can see.

[NorthernMonkey]

We're supposed to be a democracy for goodness sake.

Get rid of the nobility, get rid of the bishops, get rid of the cronies and let's have democratic elections for EVERY person who votes on our laws in the second chamber.

[Paul Owen]

If Cameron doesn't do something about House of Lord reform it will stink. Yes it may be more convenient for PMs to be able to appoint people and bring in outside talent but it is still patronage and corrupt. Democracy is about holding governments to account and making them justify their decisions. If we want experience and expertise then design a system that allows for this. Stop using the upper house as a place to dump political has beens and convenient cronies. The U.S Senate has real clout and gravitas, wouldn't it be nice if we had the same. Cameron is keen on remaking the Conservatives as modern and forward looking. So promise real constitutional reform. It would make him look principled rather than opportunistic. That's the kind of clear blue water between the parties that the electorate would respect.

[Martin Cox]

The Lords should certainly be reformed, initially by reduning its size. At about 750 members it exceeds the overblown Commons.
Governments use the HofL as a retirement home for no longer useful MPs, and also as an easy way to slip in Party hacks without the democratic inconvenience of an election.
In theory there is infinite scope for enlargement, as there is no means of sacking either redundant or naughty peers.
Why do we need such a large amending Chamber when most democracies function well on less than half of our complement?
The answer perhaps could be a fixed time appointments (senators, rather than 'peers', they are not proper peers anyway), coupled with a retirement age, and a maximum membership.

[SG]

"And the sheer wealth of expertise and experience across all fields of life there contributes massively to Lords debates and scrutiny of legislation."

This argument is often used in favour of having a non-elected House of Lords, or at least a non-elected element. I used to believe it myself. But the last 12 years of Labour government has been marked for the poor quality of legislation that it has produced. What is the point of having all this expertise if it does not translate into good quality legislation?

[johnC]

'Yes, turn it back into what it was before 1997.'

Surely it would be better to turn it back into what it was before 1958 - a largely hereditary house in which membership depended on (a) an accident of birth or (b) reaching the top of the clerical and legal professions, and in which there was no opportunity for bribery, cronyism or sleaze. It is 4 Labour life peers who have been caught with their fingers in the till -not any hereditary ones. To use this as a reason for getting rid of the last vestiges of the hereditary principle is perverse.

[Super Blue]

"'Yes, turn it back into what it was before 1997.'

Surely it would be better to turn it back into what it was before 1958 - a largely hereditary house in which membership depended on (a) an accident of birth or (b) reaching the top of the clerical and legal professions, and in which there was no opportunity for bribery, cronyism or sleaze. It is 4 Labour life peers who have been caught with their fingers in the till -not any hereditary ones. To use this as a reason for getting rid of the last vestiges of the hereditary principle is perverse"

Correct, John (and Richard). Removing hereditary peers made the four suspects more significant and creating life peerages made them more possible. We already have one elected House and just need the kind of revising chamber that the Lords is, but was even more. If a Labour "reform" (fiddle) hasn't worked then we must reverse it.

Otherwise, the words "baby" and "bathwater" come to mind.

[James E. Petts]

Reform of the House of Lords is urgently needed, not just because the present system is a halfway house between the past and nothing in particular, but because there is a very urgent need for more checks on the power of the executive, which power the present destitute little administration has relentlessly abused.

What is really needed is for the House of Lords to become a means of giving a substantial amount of power to a group of people none or few of whom are career politicians. A directly elected House of Lords, therefore, would be quite useless - it would not be distinct in any meaningful way from the House of Commons. There is only point in having two chambers at all if one is substantially different from the other.

The most sensible system is one in which there is a directly elected appointments panel, responsible for appointing all new members of the House. It would be established by a revised Parliament Act that could only be repealed with a majority in the Lords as well as the Commons. It would establish an overall quota of members (in a range), and also prescribe the qualifying conditions.

The appointments commission should be prohibited from accepting or soliciting any sort of application to be a member: appointment should be solely on the initiative of the commission. Prospective appointees should not even be permitted to be told of their appointment until it has been finally decided upon (whereupon they would be entitled to accept or reject it, although should be encouraged - but not forced - to accept).

Those appointed should be appointed on the basis of outstanding achievements in one of a large range of professions and fields (there would be a quota - with some degree of flexibility - for each field). Such fields would include medicine, law, education/academia, business, engineering, politics, the civil service, agriculture, and no doubt many others, along with a requirement that they demonstrate the requisite temperament, integrity and sense of judgment necessary for a seriously responsible position. There should be an express prohibition on appointments made on the basis of membership of a political party, and of anybody known to a potential appointee having any influence over the decision to appoint.

The House of Lords' powers should then be substantially increased, giving the Lords parity with the Commons (i.e., the power to block a bill introduced into the commons by a simple majority) in a number of specific respects defined by the Act, including matters such as any change to the rights of trial by jury or habius corpus, any change to rules governing elections to Parliament, any ratification of foreign treaties that require enforcement in domestic law, and any legislation that empowers the executive to amend or repeal any primary legislation.

This would have the effect of returning the House of Lords to its traditional position as a balance to the elected House of Commons, but in an updated form that can properly be said to be democratic and accountable in the modern way. It would also introduce substantial constitutional safeguards that the present administration have proven beyond any possible question are both absent and very urgently needed indeed.

[The Bishop Swine]

4 Labour life peers who have been caught with their fingers in the till -not any hereditary ones.

its not really a fair comparison. As we know it takes a bloody minded person to climb the slippy pole. It should come as no suprises that corruption is everywhere.
Perhaps we need either to insist that all peers be billionaires or find a better way of appointing the lifers. I don't think the Lords should only contain career politicians.
Indeed we could insist that no politicians be appointed. The great and the wise is what we are looking for not the corrupted and the greedy.

[A Williams]

If the Lords in the Second Chamber were replaced by Jurors, selected by a similar method to that used by the courts, it would fill the chamber with a healthy cross-section of people from all walks of life, something that the other proposed selection methods (selection by Government, by election or by aristocratic birth)lack.

The Chamber could be refreshed with new members either after a short term of service, or for each new piece of legislation. This would give everyone eligible for jury service a chance to participate in the running of their country.

This method has proven itself in the courts and is likely to be accepted as it has been accepted in the judicial system as a fair and impartial means of reviewing and appraising the facts. Not everyone will be happy to serve but then the same is true of jury service and far more Jurors will serve in the courts than would serve in a reformed Second Chamber.

Greater interest would be taken in the political process if there was a chance, no matter how remote, of individuals taking an active role in the legislation process. The jurors in courts are deemed fit to test the proposed innocence of individuals accused of breaking the law, so why should they not be fit to test the "reasonableness" of the actions/wishes of the Commons? They are after all selected from the same group of people who gave the Commons their democratic mandate in the first place.

Thanks to the Parliament Act the Second Chamber cannot stop any legislation, only delay it for further review. An elected Second Chamber will require changes to the Act since it would also have a democratic mandate and so would become an extension of the Commons rather than a separate reviewing body. The Commons must always have priority since its members are elected but we do not need a second, lesser, elected House.

Whatever is chosen to replace the House of Lords (and it is not likely to come up till after the next general election) should be decided by a referendum. It is the selection process to the Second Chamber that should be decided by direct election, not the members in that Chamber.

[Old Hack]

Yes, its time for a *reconstituted* House of Lords. I avoid use of the word reform, a term much abused by the left to justify all sorts of bigotry and prejudice.

What we should also do when we consider how to reconstitute the Lords, is think carefully about just what we want the outcomes of reconstitution to be.

Labour hated the hereditary principle and wanted it gone without thinking much of what would replace it. Typical socialist bigotry.

For our part, there is too much cosy convenience to the Lords as a place of patronage. It is in danger of becoming a place of those who have either bribed or been bribed for political or financial reasons.

That is simply not good enough.

We know that we need the Upper Chamber (is that a good replacement name?) because there have been many times when it has been the Lords that has held bad legislation in check, when the Lower House (they won't like that as a replacement name) has proven supine and craven.

I'm not convinced that a wholly elected upper chamber is a good thing. There should be a proportion, say no more than a quarter, that is appointed. Give places to people who may not otherwise participate in politics. However none of the appointees should hold a declared allegiance to any political party. There will already be plenty of elected representatives who do.

Furthermore, consider implementing more than one system of electing members. An additional member system perhaps?

One thing is certain, Labour's bodge job must not stand. It is a travesty. But we should not repeat Labour's folly.

Instead we should constitute a second chamber that complements the Commons, acts as a check to bad or overmighty government, performs as a guardian of civil liberties and helps unite the Kingdom. That would be real reform.

[IRJMilne]

"He will, however, need to appoint a new raft of Tory peers"

That or let the old ones back in and just suggest a few names for ennoblement to Her Majesty, rather than packing the House of Lords with a guaranteed Conservative Party Loyalist majority.

The Conservatives should always support the peerage of the realm, the hereditary principle, and the place of the CoE in British constitutional arrangements.

The very fact that the left oppose all these things historically and in present times, and so violently, shows that they are a force for liberty, morality, and good.

[Felix Bungay]

I think its about time the country moved forward to having a truly bi-cameral parliament and away from the current constitutional mess. A fully elected house of lords, with elections placed at mid points for PM terms (which would need to be introduced) would create an effective upper chamber and provide some real checks on the power of the executive which are currently non-existent. A US style approach to government has long been needed, and those Tories who support a minimal state roll should support such measures for creating proper checks and balances on the power of the executive. All this talk of supporting the peerage and the church for the sake of 'historical precedent' is a non-argument. Let us move away from this out dated hereditary and appointed system and towards a real democratic UK.

[Simon Denis]

Of course we should reform the lords - restore the voting rights of the hereditary peers! Democracy is necessarily imperfect. What then is so wrong with this particular "imperfection"? The electorate more or less gets its way - or as much of it as our left liberal masters are prepared to concede - and the hereditaries are relatively impervious to corruption. The alternatives are sleaze or logjam. So bring 'em back and fast. Whilst you're at it, abolish the London mayor, the Scottish "parliament" and the Welsh Assembly. Every vestige of wasteful Bliarism should be scrapped.

[Adam in London]

Exactly how is making the Upper House elected supposed to improve things. Are we supposed to believe that the Lords as is, is a cesspit of corruption whilst scandal has never touched the democratically elected Commons? Pull the other one - it's got bells on.

Let's not forget that these peers did not start their political careers in the Lords. Lord Truscott was MEP for Hertfordshire in the 1990s. Lord Moonie was MP for Kirkcaldy (Gordon Brown's neighbour) 1987-2005. Lord Snape was MP for West Bromwich East 1974-2001 (and nominated Michael Martin for Speaker). If they managed to get themselves elected in other places how is democracy a guard against them?

[IRJMilne]

"All this talk of supporting the peerage and the church for the sake of 'historical precedent' is a non-argument."

I don't think we should support it purely out of "historical precedent", although maintenance of tradition for tradition's sake is frequently the best course in my opinion. I support the maintenance of the hereditary peerage chiefly because I believe the Conservatives should continue to resist the transformation of Great Britain from a polity to a democracy, considering absolute democracy to be merely another form of tyranny, invariably leading to mob power and its manipulation by able demagogues. As for the church, reasons for retaining it are obvious enough. For example, there would be few or no religous leaders in an elected House (I cannot recall any other than Paisley in the Commons in recent memory), and thus a sort of agnostic middle class tyranny would be imposed upon the faithful. In the case of both the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal, I think it is also important to give the "old establishment" as much power as possible, in order to counterbalance the "new establishment".

"Let us move away from this out dated hereditary and appointed system and towards a real democratic UK."

I have no desire for a "real democratic UK" - it is certainly not what the Conservative Party has fought for in the past. Besides which, if we're talking about non-arguments, I don't see why saying that an institution is "outdated" is any more valid than saying that it should be supported on grounds of traditionalism and respect for historical precedent.

I'm glad to see numerous supporters of the pre-Blair House commenting here. Can't let the democratic-leftists make all the running!

[CJT]

Adam in London is right. Democracy is no safeguard against sleaze. A brief reflection on the history of the Commons, or any elected assembly anywhere (including especially the US Senate so admired by some contributors) will quickly dispel the notion that it is.
Actually the HofL in its current form works rather wellas a revising chamber, given the existence of a government that equates passing new laws with running the country properly and spews out more and more of it with every year that passes.
Introducing any kind of elecetd second chamber would drastically alter the whole constitutional arrangements of this country and be a recipe for endless constitutional rows between the two Houses, if one was controlled by a different party than the other.
And hoping for a House independent and free of party politics is baying for the moon. Nowadays we have political groupings on many small parish councils and, where we don't, very few people stand for election so they tend to become self-perpetuating oligarchies. If that happened to the second chamber you might as well go back to all hereditaries and have done with it.

[Andy]

Actually I liked the old house better as I think the hereditary peers brought much needed common sense to the political process. Suppose you can't turn the clock back, so I would prefer to have an elected house, perhaps on a 7 year cycle and a maximum of 2 terms.

But there is one very important thing I do want: repeal of the Parliament Acts. Being able to 'impose' has allowed the Commons to behave in an arrogant fashion and has resulted in far too much bad law, and far too many assaults on our liberty.