Your last post clarifies some of your points much better than your first. I’m not saying I want mob rule, just a happy medium from the disregard that unelected Lords have in the past shown for the feelings of normal men and women. But on Blair’s record and on the Upper House, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for doing so though, it made the thread far more interesting.

> “Peerages have been given to people in the same way by PMs and Party Leaders of all colours for eons.”

Yes, you’re right. Some Prime Ministers appointed peers with a view to buttressing their own power. But under Blair it was taken to the point of criminality. The Downing Street policy wonk Geoff Mulgan complained of “the scarcely concealed sale of peerages to wealthy party donors.” Traditional prime ministers, under both Tory and Labour governments, always sought to reward distinguished parliamentarians with a seat in the Lords.

> “You seem to be following the ‘The upper classes are born to rule and shouldn’t have to bow to lowly public opinion.’

I was raised by working-class parents on a working-class estate. So please, enough of the Dave Spartism. My admiration for the old House of Lords does not imply any special admiration for wig-wearing Viscounts. I believe in a non-elected upper chamber because the executive of the lower chamber plays a big role in the selection of parliamentary candidates for safe seats. One of the great strengths of the old House of Lords was its independence. I agree with you that public opinion is a great way of translating preferences into policy – and on issues like immigration, the Labour Party has shown no regard for the opinions of ordinary people. However, the role of the upper chamber is not to initiate Bills, but to block and amend legislation.

> “[sarcastically] After all, they are better than the fickle huddled masses who don’t really know what’s best for them.”

If you’re a genuine believer in the wisdom of crowds may I suggest an article on the repatriation of powers from the European Union? Much has been made of the danger of two chambers in a mano-a-mano death match, but when you consider the control that the unelected Brussels commission has this is not a factor.

> “Better a half-informed elected institution than a half-informed outdated unelected one. It’s called democracy.”

Well, no, actually. The proper term for elected elites is “polyarchy”. This is a system in which a small group restricts participation to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing elites, which gives too much weight to ill-thought preferences relative to strong or well-formed preferences. Real democracy, which requires control of the agenda, can only be achieved through direct democracy: a radical decentralisation of power from the European Commission to Westminster, from Westminster to the National Assembly, from the National Assembly to local government, and from local government to the individual citizen.

I agree with Daran that this is a strong and interesting article, but I’m disappointed with Mr Hunt for resorting to ad hominem arguments.

On PR, I wasn’t saying I agreed with changing the voting system – merely that Governments ruling with a minority of votes is the result of the FPTP system, for better or worse.

On seperation of powers, I don’t see how my plan affects this. It would not make the executive and legislature any more entwined than they already are, and if it strengthens the latter then all the better.

If you read what the rational for the US senate to provide balance between a populous states like New York and California and smaller ones like Kansas and Alaska. for example If you take London with 7 Million (and then its metropolitan area with over 13) . There would be more MPs in your single chamber from the south east than from Wales. How would address that? I think it is more than a case of electoral reform. PR I would assume, and what would happen if a party like UKIP or worse still the BNP held the balance. Your suggestion makes no plan for the separation of powers. (Which has its philosophical origins in John Locke not Edmund Burke).

I believe that the Webbs made a case for replacing House of Lords with a Chamber of Experts in their “Socialist Commonwealth”. Its a type of corporatism that was beloved of some of the Italian fascists of the 1930s.. I would prefer a chamber of nations.

“A single chamber house of commons would see more members from London and the south and less from the North and West (including Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland).”
How and why?

“The second problem is a government being elected with a minority of the vote (1979, 83 etc) How would you address that (as you have not). Sounds like Hailsham’s elected dictatorship to me??”
To me, that’s an issue for our electoral system, not a justification for a House of Lords. Don’t know what you mean by an elected dictatorship. I’m talking about beefing up the legislature and making it more democratic, not beefing up the executive. That’s more democracy and more democratic scrutinty – the opposite of a dictatorship, surely?

Michael Jones.
Where do I start? I’m glad that someone has decided to come in with some of this – you know the stuff – ‘These bloody oiks in the Commons don’t know what’s best. Some of them don’t even have butlers etc etc.’

“Duplication? I think the word you’re looking for is “deliberation.” I’m not convinced at all that a half-informed Parliament is the right institution to take great national choices.”
Better a half-informed elected institution than a half-informed outdated unelected one. It’s called democracy. You know, it became increasingly popular around Victorian times.

“Until Tony Blair’s fiddling of the appointment process, a peerage was a reward for years of distinguished public service.”
Utter rubbish. Peerages have been given to people in the same way by PMs and Party Leaders of all colours for eons. It’s like the ‘Tony Blair created spin’ tosh that posh Tories put out. In both cases, what really gets you is that a Labour PM had the gall to operate effectively and beat you consistantly and not meekly retreat back to opposition.

“Without the right of inheritance, there’s no private property. And without private property, there’s no liberty.”
Nonsense, ably dispached over the ropes by Higgitt.

“As for appointed peers, the great strength of the old House of Lords was its independence. Hereditary peers owed their place neither to the government of the day nor to the electorate. They were therefore able to vote against panicky, illiberal legislation, despite the short-term public demand for it.”
This gets better. You seem to be following the ‘The upper classes are born to rule and shouldn’t have to bow to lowly public opinion. After all, they are better than the fickle huddled masses who don’t really know what’s best for them.’ argument. Are you serious?!?

“Blair installed an army of quangocrats, tycoons and political stooges. They may be more diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity, but they are considerably less independent.”
Even if you accept your stooges argument, the bpeople who you negatively refer to are part of an elected Government and therefore subject to the electorate, and I’d take that any day – it’s part of democracy, and democracy is worth defending. Again, you’re claiming that Blair was the first to do these things, which as I’ve said above is partisan nonsense in itself.

“Without the right of inheritance, there’s no private property”

Apart from the fact that Anthony is quite obviously talking about the Hereditary principle only insofar as it applies to the HoL, this statement clearly factually wrong. I gained title to virtually all of my property without inheriting it.