And another thing…

Where is the report for this?

While I completely disagree with an elected Lords in the first place, it seems odd that I haven’t heard anything regarding the consultation required to understand which system would be the best…

If there has been one, someone please direct me to it. Thanks

I’d prefer we reform it entirely and call it a Senate, and limit it to 100 or similar, with an independent speaker/minister that holds the tie-break.
Seems to work well in the US. Of course, elections for said role would be essential. I like democracy, it’s a nice idea, one that Labour obviously aren’t so enamoured with (like the democratic right of the people to have referendums on things their government have promised them, or like unelected cronies like Peter Mandelson being allowed into Government as a Minister, not even a minor Minster either, when they’re too crooked and inept to get elected any more)….
I think Straw is right on the AV system for Parliament, as well as a properly elected Upper House, although I’d prefer to see said House being elected by FPTP.
Course, it doesn’t matter what myself or Jack Straw think. I’m not going to be in the next UK government, so I can’t bring in these changes. Neither’s Jack.

OH Manisfesto for the Lords

If you’ve sat in the Commons, you can’t sit in the Lords.

If you are a member of ANY political party, you can’t sit in the Lords

If you are not elected, you cannot sit in the Lords.

God, I hate Mandelson.

I fully endorse Straw’s decision to have the Lords elected by PR, having been advocating that for some time. I believe that the system should not be uniform, as the country is not.

I am surprised that the H o C system is to be reformed at the same time.

Some at least of the Lords should represent counties, cities etc, on a multi member basis where the numbers stack up, which would make a more even allocation of voters per seat for the Commons, which is often advocated on grounds of fairness, less of a problem so far as maintaining the link of communities with Westminster.

Elections to the Lords should be by thirds in my view, with a 6 year term.

I don’t think that changing both in the same parliament is viable, there will be too many disagreements. Remember how long it has taken to bring the H o L this far?

And I suspect that Jack Straw knows that, and only expects to take the Lords to complete reform in the next parliament.

After a 6 year term there should then be a Constitutional Referendum in which various further options should be put to the people, including a Bill of Rights, and the positions of Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, I O M, Channel Isles, monarchy etc.

So you aren’t likely to be voting for Jack Straw to be the next labour party leader then.

The idea of PR appeals to party insiders/controllers.
They get to decide the lists and so control who gets in and it helps ensure that those foisted on the electorate do what they’re told.

You say that a member of the Lords shouldn’t be able to “second guess” an MP. I suspect that I’m not the only one who thinks that based on their current collective performance and standards, second-guessing MPs should be obligatory. In any case second chamber regional representation works in lots of places.

MPs suggesting that they are so competent that they don’t need some additional oversight also sounds odd just when they’ve admitted that they are incapable of managing themselves. Only when MPs have demonstrated that they don’t just see themselves as glorified replacements for the Citizens Advice Bureau and get back to holding governments to account as their main job might we see them as relevant. We’ll need a raft of new blood though, the intake of 1997 and 2001 have not distinguished themselves.

I would prefer heredatary peers. They are lees open to coruption as we have now seen. The changes Labour made to the House of Lords should have first gone to a referendum.
as should hanging
As should the EU
and any changes to our voting. MPs cannot be trusted any more as we have all learned to our cost.

I don’t really mind who gets voted where and by what means, I just want to be able to receive my wage packet free from the burden of taxation.

Once I get this I’ll leave the experts to quarrel amongst themselves about the best ways to get elected.

Surely the future make up and constitution of the upper house, and how it is chosed should me for US to decide, after propper open public debate?

damn thick fingers

Since most politicians are either liars or corrupt or incompetent – or any combination of the three – a change in how we vote them IN is irrelevant.

The problem is not Voting them IN: it’s getting the b######s out when they do something wrong.

All this discussion about voting systems is irrelevant rubbish. I as a voter want my vote to go to someone who is honest and truthful. And I want some sanctions if they subsequently prove to lie or be a thief.

At present all liars and thieves get is a peerage or a great big pension.

What Straw suggests is tinkering at the edges.. but then that is all he ever has done.

Waste of time.

I would support House of Lords elected by PR but wiuth far fewer of them than now. To work properly we would probably need fixed terms for both Commons and Lords (which will need to be renamed as they won’t be Lords)

The locality issue is interesting. I would have thought the same regions as for the Euro elections would be sensible.

Bloke I used to work with was a student politico same time as Straw – early 70s, in the NUS. He said of Straw – “He was a p…k back then, and he’s a p…k right now”

I guess that’s one way of putting it. Quite kind, I would say really

I have to say that the Lords have on the whole performed well in their role as a control on the government, given the madness since 9/11, and the consequent assault on our rights. I’m pleasantly surprised; I do believe that many hereditary peers took their constitutional role very very seriously.

Tip of the hat to them. I’m not sure any Labour sponsored re-invention will serve the country well. If it has any powers taken away from it, then – game over.

I wonder if, in another hundred and fifty years or so, our quaint system, whereby the choice of government is in the hands of a few thousand floating voters in a few score of marginal seats, will appear then as odd as rotten and/or pocket boroughs appear to us now…

I’m all in favour of having hereditary peers … people who have a long view of the national interest (or even self-interest) rather than what’ll get them through the next election. It seems to be life peers who are doing the most to defend our liberties from the National Socialists regime.

Johnny Norfolk

Hereditary peers? Are you mad? You seriously think it was fairer having hundreds more peers on the payroll, with the vast majority of them not even bothering to turn up?

For someone who likes to brag on about corruption etc. you seem to have double standards when it comes to nepotism.

I’m surprised to learn that I agree with the tedious Bragg, but he’s damn right on this one.

A Lords elected proportionally to votes in an FPTP Commons general election would also have twin advantages of reducing negative voting (“tactical”? yeah, right) and encouraging turnout in “safe seats”.

I wouldn’t worry about this. It took 12 years for Labour to even think of a plan for the House of Lords, so – with all due respect – I don’t think the next seven months will see much concerted action.

In questions like these it’s probably worth remembering the “Golden Rule”.

“If Straw wants something then best go with the opposite.”

Everything he does makes the Country worse not better.

Bloke I once met said, I was at university with Gordon Brown. Yes, he thought of himself as a radical, but he was just an ars*h*l*.

>> Seems to work well in the US. [...] or like unelected cronies like Peter Mandelson being allowed into Government as a Minister, not even a minor Minster either,

How many of the US Cabinet don’t stand for election?

How about abandoning the term “Lords” as it makes us proles feel inadequate.

How about some term that reminds the occupants that they work FOR US, on OUR behalf and in OUR interests.

Althought the way things work ‘The Trough’ might be a better name. Or ‘Domus Porcus’.

Is there any good reason why the new Scottish Parliament didn’t elect the leader of its Executive through a direct vote?

It’s been some time since I did Latin, but would Domus Porcuum not be better? Or Aedivus Porcuum.

I despair of the ignorance of some of your trolls, Tom.

Changing the House of Lords has been a big problem since the Lloyd-George budget before WW1.

In the ’70s Michael Foot (monocameralist) and Enoch Powell (Traditionalst) and supporters joined forces to defeat Callaghan’s proposals.

I’m sure that NastyPolGeek and his mates will sort it out over a few cans of Cobra next thurs . . .

I would much prefer to have a list of inalienable rights that cannot be affected under any circumstances by either House before deciding the make-up of Parliament.

Alec – sus is Latin for pig. It has been way too long for me to figure out how to make the house belong to the pig.

Aye, Paul… although porcus means hog, as in to hog or eat greedily. Rather like dog having originally meant tired-out, but coming to refer to canines after hounds were tied to little wheels which turned the spit over the fire.

Lloyd George certainly was keen to sell peerages.

Heaven forfend that the will of the people should have any influence on the composition of the House of Lords. Mark my words, next they will be wanting the House of Commons to represent their will into the bargain, and then where would we be? God in his wisdom has granted us this fine, ermine clad body of lords and ladies. It would be sacrilege to replace them with beer-bellied, cap-wearing oiks fiddling with their mobile iPod phones, practising skateboarding skills in the hallowed corridors of power. We would be an absolute laughing stock.

@Scott Speight: there have been several consultations on this issue over the last 10 years. Most recent publication was the Govt’s White Paper in July 08: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/elected-second-chamber.htm

I disagree:
http://www.twodoctors.org/2009/11/tom-harris-in-wrong-on-pr-shoc.html

OT but relevant to Tom’s brave new world.

RIPA used to abuse a man and then a tame shrink sections him so 13 months becomes however long the police wish.

Note the judge accepted he wasn’t a threat to national security.

The first person jailed under draconian UK police powers that Ministers said were vital to battle terrorism and serious crime has been identified by The Register as a schizophrenic science hobbyist with no previous criminal record.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/

Draco’s legal code prescribed death for minor offences.

Surely schizophrenics have often been held for their own and others’ protection against their will? Here and almost everywhere else.

Shurely shome hyperbole in proshesh?

@Quietzapple

May I suggest that you read the article prior to spouting your gibberish.

Wills, suggest you consult Chris.

Home time!