Lords Reform
Posted by Jo Swinson, MP for East Dunbartonshire, at 12:13, Tue 27 February 2007:
Given the controversial debate coming up next week about House of Lords Reform, I wanted to ask you as my constituent what your view is.
On Wednesday MPs will be voting on a range of options for how a new House of Lords could be composed, ranging from 100% elected through to 100% appointed. My personal view since before I was elected has been we should have a fully elected House of Lords, but I would be interested to know if that chimes with what constituents think.
Do let me know what your preference would be:
- 100% elected
- 80% elected, 20% appointed
- 60% elected, 40% appointed
- 50% elected, 50% appointed
- 40% elected, 60% appointed
- 20% elected, 80% appointed
- 100% appointed
As always, you can find out more about the issues I am raising on behalf of East Dunbartonshire at www.joswinson.org.uk
Kind regards
Jo
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by James, 12:31, Tue 27 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I would strongly urge you to vote for ALL of the majority elected options, i.e. 60% elected, 80% elected and 100% elected. If this vote ends up as a train wreck, as it did 4 years ago, we won't get another chance for decades.
Posted by sally mulholland, 12:41, Tue 27 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
Yes I believe they should 100% elected. Sally
Posted by Alastair McPhee, 14:00, Tue 27 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
As I believe that the second chamber should in fact be non political and as I would rather see captains of industry, the voluntary sector, the arts and science being represented I would wish to see a proportion of the chamber being appointed by an independant panel. If former politicians had to be represented I would much rather see them sitting as cross benchers than having to run with the whip.
Remember the Commons can overturn the 2nd chamber anyway so why not allow for non political viewpoints to be expressed. An independant panel woud again not be made up of politicians but representatives of the people.
Posted by Thomas Shepherd, 15:59, Tue 27 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
If a second chamber is deemed necessary to act as a check and balance, then I believe that in a democracy, as we claim to be, only those elected by the wider public, or ultimately held accountable by an elected person, for a fixed period of time, should hold office. In answer to the specific question, 100pc elected.
Posted by Elizabeth Davies, 17:05, Tue 27 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
100% elected, but with longer terms and only a fraction elected each time round...and if we're going to keep FPTP in the first chamber it should be elected by PR. Although I think it would actually be better if you're going to do it that way to have the chamber with the short terms elected with PR and the other with FPTP. But I guess that's not the issue right now.
Posted by Tom McKay, 11:08, Wed 28 February 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
100% elected by proportional representation but to include a minimum from non political parties. Tom McKay
Posted by Eric Glen, 13:51, Thu 1 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I would prefer 80% elected,20% appointed since there are, and could be in the future, some very able Lords who might miss out in elections.
Posted by Jo Swinson, 15:59, Thu 1 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thanks everyone for your responses - this is really interesting to know. The vote is on Wednesday, and as we have a bizarre series of nine votes in the issue, rather than a simple preferential system on one ballot paper, the danger is that nothing gets through and we end up stuck with the status quo! That's what happened in 2003, but hopefully this time we will do better. I will certainly vote for both the 100% and 80% elected options.
Posted by Harry Marron, 13:41, Fri 2 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
Hi Jo,
I agree with you and would prefer 100% elected, although almost anything would be better than the current mess! If it means getting a result I could live with a small percentage non elected.
Regards,
harry
Posted by Neil Wilson, 07:59, Tue 6 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I am for 100% - transition for those working peers (attending, participating in debates, voting, etc) with replacement by an elected member once they retire.