Blog powered by Typepad

« Spud suckers? Or 'Spud-U-Like'? | Main | What do we do if the USA turns totalitarian? »

Friday, 16 October 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good in principal- it ensures that the Lords (I prefer the old name) are elected in the main at a different time from the general election appointing the commons- which should get in the way of temporary bandwagons. The electons should also be on some other basis than first past the post (assuming that system is retained for the commons)- STV perhaps- again to prevent bandwagons being created.
Not so good is the idea of non elected members voting- it would be simple for a government to appoint people favourable to itself and hence obtain a lasting majority in the Lords. Their presence as advisors would of course be very useful.
I can't see anyone introducing this though- its far to tempting for the government of the day to simply take over the powers of patronage beque3thed by its predecessor.

Hello, Pat, and welcome to D&N.

I remain confused and therefore doubtful concerning PR voting systems. I think you miss my point concerning the non-elected people who would not be appointed by government but by nature of the jobs they held previously, ie, head of the TUC, or the CBI, etc. And I would give them a vote because they should represent a swathe of experience. However, what the exact ratio should be between elected and non-elected I leave to others to fine tune. My feeling is roughly 2 thirds elected to 1 third non-elected.

And, no, I can't see anyone introducing it either!

The comments to this entry are closed.