The 17th Century English Musicians electronic reincarnation
The House of Lords fiasco!
Published on March 22, 2004 By Syre William Byrd In Politics
Yet again I listen to an interview about the current arguments, proposals concerning the British Constitution. What role the Judiciary in the new era? A supreme Court etc? What role the House of Lords? Should it be elected or nominated? Nominated?! What a joke! It should be elected! This is a democracy! But the answer always comes back...if it is elected that will give it legitimacy and it may use its democratic mandate to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in the House of Commons!
Now I may not be an expert on Britsh politics, but what is wrong with A) Legitimacy?
Giving an elected House of Lords a written job description that we ordinary folks have out here in the real world/ i.e. "The role of the House will be X, Y & Z but not A, B or C because the House of Commons is Sovereign". Simple.
But no! Our democratic leaders are either incapable of giving a second chamber a code of practice/rules or are scared that the executive will be held to account(God forbid!) by an elected House of Lords...well at least upto 3 times anyway. Am I the only person to think this is all a matter of will, that the solutions are there, but our representatives are going to mars? Who do you think that they will ' nominate '......I guess, without genuine cynicism.......themselves!

Comments
on Mar 22, 2004
An elected upper house would eventualyl end up being a copy of an elected lower house with the same parties getting roughly equal shares of the two houses. Far more important is the basic question of WHY?

Why is there an upper house?
Why can't the lower house do that?

Once these questions are answered you can look at how to appoint members of the upper house. If you elect them then, in reality they are identical to the lower house and so not needed.

Paul.