Looks like this is the Lib Dems' new pet project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqNHF7dFReI) since electoral reform crashed and burned. I've looked at the case for and against in the last couple of weeks for a uni essay and I'd be interested to see what the general consensus on this is. I'd start by saying that the Lords as it currently exists does a reasonable job in holding the government to account (to date there have been 43 government defeats in the Lords since the coalition came into power) However, its effectiveness as a check and balance on the Commons could be helped by at least an element of democracy as it could lead to an enhancement of its powers over the simple delay/amendment powers it currently has. I think a partially elected, partially appointed house would maintain a level of expertise and the neutral cross-bench element while the democratisation element could mean there is more scope for the upper chamber to influence bills. At the same time I wouldn't make it majority elected as it would simply be another layer of heavily whipped career politicians who offer nothing in the way of scrutiny. I would also get rid of the hereditary peers and the Bishops; we are currently one of two countries with religious figures sitting in the legislature. The other is Iran.
Ultimately it boils down to what you prefer: the ease of passing bills or making sure that what is passed is good legislation. I think the latter can only be achieved with the upper chamber having more power than it currently does, which could come with democratisation. (repeal of the Parliament Act, perhaps?)
Interesting that when Clegg was standing in at PMQs last week and got an awkward question on Lords reform from a Tory backbencher, along the lines of 'why do the public care about this at a time when other things are more important to them', he cited the boundary changes/reduction of MP numbers as something else. Could be very interesting if the Tories block the Lib Dems on this, because it could become a pretty big sticking point for the entire coalition, bigger than tuition fees without doubt and potentially bigger than the division caused by the AV referendum.
So, thoughts?
Ultimately it boils down to what you prefer: the ease of passing bills or making sure that what is passed is good legislation. I think the latter can only be achieved with the upper chamber having more power than it currently does, which could come with democratisation. (repeal of the Parliament Act, perhaps?)
Interesting that when Clegg was standing in at PMQs last week and got an awkward question on Lords reform from a Tory backbencher, along the lines of 'why do the public care about this at a time when other things are more important to them', he cited the boundary changes/reduction of MP numbers as something else. Could be very interesting if the Tories block the Lib Dems on this, because it could become a pretty big sticking point for the entire coalition, bigger than tuition fees without doubt and potentially bigger than the division caused by the AV referendum.
So, thoughts?
