by Stephen Tall on November 15, 2006
Pop over to my other gaff, and you can register your view on the following question:
The Government has said (again) it will bring forward proposals to reform the House of Lords (again). What do you think should happen with the second chamber? Should it be…?
- Wholly elected
- 80% elected, 20% appointed
- 50% elected, 50% appointed
- 20% elected, 80% appointed
- Wholly appointed
My view… Those who make laws should be accountable to those who have to live by those laws. It is a nonsense that a reformed second chamber should be anything other than wholly elected if it is to have any democratic legitimacy.
There is no reason why this should pose a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons – its powers can be carefully defined, just as local councils’ powers are subject to national government.
That the Labour Party has still not legislated for an elected House of Lords after 10 years of government is an indictment of its decade of wasted opportunity.
If you agree the second chamber should be wholly elected, don’t forget to visit Elect The Lords, and sign-up to show your support.
Result of last poll: only 25% of you predicted the Democrats would control both the House of Representatives and Senate (and some of those votes were cast after the results were known, which was slightly cheating). The vast majority wrongly guessed – like me – that the Dems would win the House but fail to take the Senate.