The whole system is in desperate need of an overhaul. It will be interesting to see how low the turnout goes and how low their % of the electorate gets before they blush at claiming legitimacy. It’s a dangerous game with so many loonies around these days. Blair sees no problem forcing through controversial stuff with only 22% of the electorate’s approval.

Democracy? This really is the Mother of all Parliaments!

At least the Lords - unelected and now largely appointed - has shown some spirit and backbone in the last few months. Although one wonders whether this independence of thought will continue in the light of recent ‘appointments’.

Even so, this would tend to support a membership of the second chamber selected by other means than election and, perhaps, appointment.

Democracy inevitably requires strong oppositions. It’s clear that those making appointments to the Lords now are not interested in proper debate or examination of all sides of an argument. This continues to be the naked exercise of power without responsibility.

1. The Commons has been reduced to a base camp soley for the purpose of selecting the government. So many troughs are up for grabs with cars, more pay, status, a heft up the greasy pole etc that the snouts of the majority party sell out to the dictats of the government and totally fail to do their jobs. It is no coincidence that those with cars and grace/favour houses etc are most sensitive to the charge. Look at the way some of their rich spouses greedily gobble the freebies and jump on the band waggon using their partner’s positions. The scummy ones and their spouses find the political perks irresistible; they need an independent and powerful second pair of eyes on them. The government payroll is too large.

2. It’s absurd to expect a party member to challenge his party leaders over and over again while remaining in the party. The result is virtually no legistlative oversight at all. The party system is too strong.

3. The majority party only obtained 22% of the adult electorate’s vote or 36% of the actual vote. The Commons cannot legitimately argue that it has the people’s support for its manifesto. The electoral system is totally unrepresentative.

4. To claim that the Lords should bare its backside for a’manifesto’ pledge in these circumstances is risible. The Lords has every
right to say that they are part of the legistlature and to block the government as and when they agree to do so. They are a legitimete body - and more so given that the present government has itself fixed their membership in the present form. They have legitimised it by removing the hereditary base to a degree which they are content. The Lords has more legitimacy in the current system than of old.

5. More checks and balances on these people are required, not less. Look at Blunkett and his expenses claims for example or more seriously, at Blair’s ability to go to war on his own whim. What about the shameless security mandarins ready and willing to declare 45 minute warnings - from sources considered of value for 45 minutes - in order to please the boss - and, coincidentally, secure themselves better jobs at the cost of untold lives. The civil service has been wrecked by Thatcher and Blair, and lost its integrity and independence.

6. The Press do a lousy job of scratching deeper than the surface. Editors’attention spans can probably be measured in milliseconds per dick length. The ’star’ presenters are generally lazy, shallow, egotistical, brown-nosing crawlers parasitic upon the ‘big beasts’ they seek to interview and rarely with knowledge of the subject above and beyond articles in the previous day’s FT: look at my tie, listen to me drone on, aren’t I clever? Egos and media concentration is failing to challenge the government or hold it to account as a stop-gap to the failed legistlature.

7.Public leaders who are not political but have credibility because of their status and integrity are being attacked and villified at every turn to weaken oppostion to the government. This is a grotesque abuse of power. Top Mandarins, Ambassadors, Judges, QC’s, Professors, Surgeons, Doctors, Senior police officers - anyone who dares challenge them from a position of strength is savaged. In some case the very independence of their professions is under attack. Even jurors - that’s us - are not to be trusted to decide on the evidence if a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt or not. Too much power in one unchecked area destabilises society.

Boothroyd - think again.

Do we believe that the actions of our MPs are motivated by genuine altruism and that they are performing to the best of their ability? After all, it takes a certain kind of person to run for election. Judging by the actions and performance of these individuals recently it would probably be better to find another means of selection.

Random choice would be pretty OK, or possibly trial by ordeal.

If the commons were to adopt proportional representation this would give them a clearly superior democratic mandate that would better withstand the challenge of a second elected chamber.

The first past the post system could be passed on to the second chamber. Constituency politics would suit the House of Lords (with each constituency electing its Lord) while the lower house could truly represent the will of the electorate as a whole. As the lower house forms the executive: keeping constituency politics in the upper house would mean that every constituency would still have it’s representative in parliament, without the distraction of a cabinet portfolio, for instance.

I would favour the elimination of constituencies for the House of Commons and the adoption of a party list system.

1) That it would be wholly elective and independent of government patronage.
2) That it would give democratic expression to vocational, professional, religious and other concerns not peculiar to electors\x92 home constituencies.
3) That legislation before it would have the benefit of a wide range of expert scrutiny.
4) That the influence of sectional interests on deliberations would be open, as would debates taking place within each interest community to determine its position on a given issue. Such debates might stimulate broader public debate.
5) There would be no need for fixed-term or lifelong membership. Members could be subject to re-election on the same basis as members of parliament at statutory intervals appropriate to the second chamber, with allowance for by-elections when necessary. Since elections of members would not need to be simultaneous there could be overall continuity, with no need for general elections.
6) The fact that representatives would not normally enter via party-political careers would help to guarantee a broader and more independent perspective appropriate to a revising chamber.

There would be a strong case for excluding political parties as admissible interest communities. They are, in effect, the basic interest communities in the primary legislature, the Commons. This should not of course exclude open party-political support or activity within a particular interest community.
While the branches of the legal profession could naturally form eligible interest communities, the judiciary, ex-officio, should not be eligible. What might effectively become a supreme court should not be part of a reformed legislature.
The powers and responsibilities of such a second chamber might be much the same as those of the present one, but legitimised by democracy. Additionally it could act in an advisory capacity to assist the Commons at the latter\x92s request. A more active collaboration with the Commons than possible with the current system, possibly by means of joint committees, might also be desirable.
Ralph Herdan, 4 Hillside View, New Mills, High Peak, Derbyshire SK22 3DF
This proposal was submitted in due time to the original public consultation, and duly acknowledged.