» Monday, February 9, 2004
House of Lords Reform
Asked if the Prime Minister was in favour of the proposal for indirect elections to the House of Lords, the PMOS said that our position on the House of Lords had not changed. As Lord Falconer had set out yesterday, we were keen to see the re-establishment of the Joint Committee so that it could consider issues, including the indirect elections proposal, relating to Lords reform. Until that mechanism was up and running again, it was difficult to discuss the options. Asked if the proposal was a way to break the current impasse, the PMOS said that it was an idea which we would like the Committee to explore.
Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news
Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.
Search
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | Mar » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
Supported by
Recent Briefings
- Cabinet
- Georgia Summit
- By election
- Windfall tax
- Prime Minister in Scotland
- Iraq
- Musharraf
- Georgia
- Law and Order
- Maternity Leave
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 1970
Links
Syndicate (RSS/XML)
Credits
Enquiries
Contact Sam Smith.
Indirect elections won’t work because they more likely than direct elections to undermine the legitimacy of the commons unless it also changes its voting.
Huge numbers of people are unlikely to get the MP they want or they will get them whatever they do. So they will be voting for the second chamber.
What is intended to maintain the primacy of the commons and its mandate will in fact split the mandate and undermine the legitimacy of the commons. Indeed over time, given the interest provided by the uncertainty of coalitions, it is possible that the second chamber would become the main focus of the elections and it could legitimately say:
"The people voted for us; we are the democratically legitimate chamber and the commons should not obstruct the democratic will of the people."
There a number of good proposals for "democratic appointments". The simplest is to ask a citizen’s jury to appoint the new senators, alternatively each region could elect someone for the panel.
These proposals retain the best aspects of the present Lords, and add enough democracy to make them democratically legitimate enough to carry out the work of scrutinising bills without any question of a democratic mandate.
Comment by Mike Haseler — 10 Mar 2004 on 11:31 am | Link