You seem to quite like the way the Lords works. As someone in favour of electoral reform I thought you might have noticed how ridiculously undemocratic the whole things is.

IMHO, ditching the Salisbury Convention is more than a good idea - it's vital when the government doesn't represent the majority of the country.

There's a time and a place for democracy... :)

The case for making the Commons more democratic is a no-brainer. The Lords is a different issue IMO, and if it were to be made democratic, I sure as hell wouldn't trust the Commons to do a good job of it.

Electoral reform, like most things for me, isn't a matter of principle. For some people it is, like being proud of always having voted for the same party, and fair play to them, “you will never get to the end of the journey if you stop to shy a stone at every dog that barks”...

Obviously the Lords is a big issue all of itself, and equally obviously, I'm not going to go into it, other than say it has massive potential to be just about the greatest force for good governance anywhere in the world.

It's not perfect, not by a long shot, and the fact that there are whips at all is a bit sickening, but a second chamber that is detached from keeping the hoi polloi happy and has time (and hopefully the brains, although these are seemingly being replaced by robots) to go through things properly and not just rush out policies to keep the editors of the sun and the mail happy is so indescribably better than just another pretend policy haven like the commons.

Anyways... I really have to stop getting sidetracked... and at weekends for that matter

And just for the record, scrapping the Salisbury Convention is also obviously a no-brainer Good Thing.

Why not have citizen's assemblies (helped by experts) to scrutinise policy rather than some old duffers retired from political parties.

The Lords is made up of the most out of touch privileged types totally unrepresentative of public opinion. The fox hunting issue demonstrated that!

Righty or wrongly, the Lords is an immensely powerful body (for how long remains uncertain) that doesn't have to bend to the 'will' of the people. This is a Good Thing. It can be made better.

The idea of a citizens' assembly (and for the record, we're still subjects, not citizens) is lovely, but impractical, as it will no doubt be subordinated to the govt, and therefore effectively useless. Fair enough, it would give the all important illusion of 'power to the people', but it would ultimately be a bit toothless. The Lords has this power, and the time to scrutinise things already, and the power to tell the govt to piss off.

It should be made more powerful, not less. The only real problem is how to stock it. The insoluble problem of there being no legally definable meritocratic hierarchy has stumped everyone who has ever tried to construct utopia, and it will continue to do so. With this in mind, how to stock it, is therefore, not as important as the fact that it is stocked and retains the power to chop the crap out of govt policy, where it has been created at the whim of imbeciles or to appease the floating voters, and sod the consequences.

And the fox-hunting was a shameless ploy to piss off rich people; it's made damn all difference, no one really knows what's legal and what's not and the whole thing took up far too much time, but at least it once again provided the wonderful illusion of a job well done, thus taking it out of the public eye... totemic policies people-gotta love 'em.

Anyways, this is all silly, talking boldly about involved things always people into trouble, and once again, time and place yadda yadda...

Why is it that privileged people totally unelected making decisions on our behalf is a good thing?

I thought you were for democracy. Why do you even bother supporting electoral reform? Might as well have a dictatotrship with the attitude you have towards the lords!

Haha. As I said, time and a place...

I admitted that the make-up of the Lords was dodgy, but I would rather it remained as a powerful organ able to both properly discuss policy and effectively reject it if necessary than be made effectively subservient to the will of the government. There are enough pointless decisions taken by power-hungry, short-termist politicians already. We could do without stocking the Lords with them as well. The role of the crossbenchers is absolutely fundamental to protecting our democracy as far as I'm concerned.

The Hutton report showed that the usual 'checks and balances' role of the cabinet and parliament no longer function properly. The people sure as hell don't function as a check either, unless it is to make sure we get a bunch of policies more concerned with not offending anyone, or that are the result of a pointlessly alarmed electorate, "clamouring to be led to safety".

If those "priviliged people" are priviliged because they deserve to be, then them making the decisions is instrinsically a Good Thing, because they know what they're doing. Rather they make them than Rupert Murdoch. You must remember that certain people can mobilise much more than just their personal vote. And given who these people are, and the grounds on which they are mobilising these votes, I would argue that it is not something we want to be giving the power of dictation to.

IMO, the make-up of the Lords (although obviously massively important) is not as vital as making sure that it stays as a (semi-)detached body of REAL power. It's all very well having a Citizens'/Subjects' Assembly, but if the govt just tells it to piss off, it's ultimately a big waste of time. Having a body that can tell the govt to piss off is fundamental, esp. given the situations thrown up by FPTP.

I get your point about having a counterpoint to the government but that doesn't mean we can't have a democratic counterpoint. A citizen's assembly should have at least the same powers as the Lords does now. Obviously reform of the Commons is a higher priority!

Once again, surely subjects' or citizens' (although obviously if I were the citizen, I would be fully in favour of a citizen's assembly) :)

We are technically subjects of the queen, but are we not European citizens since Amsterdam treaty?

but being as how we were talking about the governing structure of britain, that would be irrelevant, no :)

Im not sure European law doesn't supercede British Law on this. In any case whether we are citizens or subjects is irrelevant to the point I was making, wasn't it?

Its fine to say the Lords is acting as a counterbalance to current excessive government power, this may be fine in the short term but surely a more representative second chamber is needed eventually.

If we go back to the Thatcher/Major years, a lot of poor legislation went unscrutinised because of the centuries old inbuilt Tory majority in the house. Where was the much needed scrutiny of bills then?

Reforming the Lords is of secondary consideration to Westminster reform but is still important.

Of course it's irrelevant, I was just being pedantic, I was more concerned about the grammar than the title. It has inspired someone round here to wonder whether one can be a citizen of the EU, i.e. whether the EU is enough of an identity to claim citizens. Anyway... I care not.

And I never argued that the Lords doesn't need reform, I was merely making the point that the reforms being made seem to be taking power away from it, which is silly. Also, I don't see the need for an assembly which would probably just have the power to grumble (it would have to be established by the govt, and therefore it would be secondary to the govt, either in law or via the people put in it) when we already have a powerful body to not only grumble but act on the grumbles.

If the Lords lets the ID card Bill through, I may lose a lot of my already waning faith in it.