Monday, March 12, 2007

Monday Poll - Question 7

We learnt that the settled view of the House of Commons on Lords reform is, not to put too fine a point on it, unsettled. MPs voted for an 80 per cent elected Upper House, 20 per cent appointed. A few minutes later, they voted for a 100 per cent elected House, nil appointed. It's not the debacle of the last vote, in 2003, when all the options for a hybrid chamber were defeated. But it hardly sets a clear direction either.
For this reason we are asking for your opinion of what should happen to the House of Lords. Do you think that we should continue with a fully appointed second house which allows for people of great experience (such as nobel prize winners), who would not otherwise consider running for public office, to contribute to the political life of the nation.
However you may believe that the only way for the upper chamber to gain legitimacy is through the ballot box and therefore favour a fully elected house. But you could feel that we already have enough elected politicians and not wish to create just another clone of the House of Commons.
Or do you feel that there is a compromise between these two positions and favour a hybrid system with some elected and some appointed members, therefore having democratic legitimacy as well as accomadating non-political experts. However you may fear that this could lead to a two different classes of Peer within the chamber. Have your say here:

How do you think the House of Lords should be composed?
All Appointed
Part Appointed/Part Elected
All Elected
Free polls from

No comments: