So today might have been one of the most important in the UK's history...

MPs voted for an entirely elected upper house, replacing the randomly appointed one currently (which replaced the hereditary one a few years ago). Of course, it isn't actually law, merely opinion or something, so could be ignored. Plus the Lords will fight against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6420965.stm

I can't cope with the spoilers. Argh.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

MPs back all-elected Lords plan
MPs have voted to reform the House of Lords by demanding all members are elected, rather than appointed.
There was a majority of 113 in favour of this proposal.

MPs, allowed more than one choice, also voted by a majority of 38 for 80% of members of a reformed second chamber being elected and the rest appointed.

The decisions will not pass into law but are expected to inform government plans. Commons leader Jack Straw called the votes "a historic step forward".

Mr Straw had put forward nine options, with the rest rejected by MPs.

'Mean business'

He pledged to bring a cross-party group together to discuss the next stage of reform.

Prime Minister Tony Blair voted in favour of a 50/50 split between elected and appointed members - also Mr Straw's preferred choice - but not for any other proposal.


LORDS REFORM VOTING
All appointed house - rejected by 179 votes
20% elected - rejected, no vote
40% elected - rejected, no vote
Half elected/half appointed - rejected by 263 votes
60% elected - rejected by 214 votes
80% elected - backed by 38 votes
All elected - backed by 113 votes

Mr Straw told the BBC that MPs' decisions represented a "pretty seismic shift", saying : "The message was a very decisive and clear one in favour of reform of the existing House of Lords."

He added: "This is the first time there's been a clear view on this for 98 years, so it's progress.

"I mean business, so does the government and so, I think, do the other parties."

The votes follow two days of debate in the Commons.


HAVE YOUR SAY
An accident of birth should never entitle someone to pass the laws of this land
Neil Small, East Kilbride


Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said: "The House of Commons has clearly expressed a preference for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords.
"But this is only a first step and indeed it raises further questions. Given the tactical voting tonight we now need to establish what the House of Commons' settled view is."

'Momentous step'

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "This is a truly historic occasion.

"After nearly 100 years the House of Commons has at last taken the momentous step to reform the upper house and make it fit for a modern democracy.

"This is a famous victory for progressive opinion both in Parliament and in the country."


REFORM PROPOSALS
A 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peers
Reduce size of House from 746 to 540 members
End hereditary and life peerages over time
Elected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro elections
Maximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peers
Appointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figures
Lords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'
Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats


The last time the Commons voted on Lords reform, in 2003, all options were rejected.

At the moment all peers are appointed, apart from the 92 hereditary peers who survived the first phase of Lords reform during Tony Blair's first term in office.

In another vote, MPs decided by a majority of 280 to remove the remaining hereditaries.

The Scottish National Party's chief whip, Pete Wishart, said: "Party patronage is now at an end and that can only be good for our democracy."

The House of Lords debates the reform proposals next week.

Labour peer Lord Lipsey has published figures suggesting £1,092m as the cost for the proposed shake-up.

He said he used official figures and plausible assumptions to reach the estimate, but a government source dismissed that figure as based on "back-of-an-envelope calculations".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...cs/6420965.stm

Published: 2007/03/07 20:03:09 GMT

© BBC MMVII

There ya' go, mate. -Kukri

Well that's it then, our last feeble check on Tyranny is removed.

Why did no one consider a cross-party appointments commision, 1/3 Government, 1/3 Opposition, 1/3 everything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Well that's it then, our last feeble check on Tyranny is removed.

Why did no one consider a cross-party appointments commision, 1/3 Government, 1/3 Opposition, 1/3 everything else?

---

...or the old system dare I say it? Extremely cheap, and generally did a decent job especially when it wasn't filled with lifetime politician peers.

Help help we're fingerprinting people!!!..... Yet this is a far greater threat to the very basis of law in the country.

~:smoking:

Another fifty years, the monarchy will go too.

The vote doesn't carry any weight and will be ignored by Jack 'boot' Straw. My opinion is that in a mature democracy it is an outrage that people can still sit in parliament because their great great grandad held the Kings hand at some point. The second chamber must be entirely elected. Enough of the prime minister of the day cramming the Lords with his/her lackeys. Not to mention trousering a few quid in the process.

@Rory:

It's all part and parcel of the same thing. Muck about with the constitution and the checks and balances, weaken them and then implement draconian measures to suit your purpose. :thumbsdown:

First class. Now all I need to do is brown nose my way to a suitably high position on the party list and I can put my feet up and never do a stroke of work again. I quite fancy being Lord Assassin too.

Quote:

---

My opinion is that in a mature democracy it is an outrage that people can still sit in parliament because their great great grandad held the Kings hand at some point.

---

Absolutely right. Now all we need to do is get rid of the royals. Vive Le Republique!

Only 12% of the Lords are inherited titles. The rest are academics who stood out amongst their peers and were appointed to the position.

They are not the typical populist "LOOK AT ME!!!" politicians that are the mainstay of other 'mature' democracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Only 12% of the Lords are inherited titles. The rest are academics who stood out amongst their peers and were appointed to the position.

They are not the typical populist "LOOK AT ME!!!" politicians that are the mainstay of other 'mature' democracies.

---

So they were voted in by an electorate consisting of a committee. Sounds democratic...

Well your elected officials want to fingerprint children...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Well your elected officials want to fingerprint children...

---

Yes, that's because they are incompetant idiots who don't actually live in the real world. They only kept power due to the bizarre first-past-the-post system anyway. It's decisive, which is generally good, only not for a third term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Well your elected officials want to fingerprint children...

---

Until they are rapidly un-elected next polling day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

So they were voted in by an electorate consisting of a committee. Sounds democratic...

---

The purpose of the Lords is fundamentally different to that of the Commons, they are a check, not an originator or decision maker. As such they should NOT be elected. Our elected officials are usually corrupt, pure crowd pleasers or lacking in real life experience, or all three.

By contrast the appointed peers tend to be uncorrupt, have academic or life experience and don't need to worry about being elected, so they can be unpopular.

That's also why traditionally the Lords aren't payed any more than expenses, they're not meant to be carear politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The purpose of the Lords is fundamentally different to that of the Commons, they are a check, not an originator or decision maker. As such they should NOT be elected. Our elected officials are usually corrupt, pure crowd pleasers or lacking in real life experience, or all three.

By contrast the appointed peers tend to be uncorrupt, have academic or life experience and don't need to worry about being elected, so they can be unpopular.

That's also why traditionally the Lords aren't payed any more than expenses, they're not meant to be carear politicians.

---

:yes:

not happy at all with the Lords thing... seems to me its Commons messing about too much

if they are to be elected, Lords loose a lot of the power not having to please voters gave them, they are able to make unpopular decisions that actually benefit the nation, because they were not having to please the public and media.

Meh. A benevolent dictatorship is the only way forward. Deus Ex style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The purpose of the Lords is fundamentally different to that of the Commons, they are a check, not an originator or decision maker. As such they should NOT be elected. Our elected officials are usually corrupt, pure crowd pleasers or lacking in real life experience, or all three.

By contrast the appointed peers tend to be uncorrupt, have academic or life experience and don't need to worry about being elected, so they can be unpopular.

That's also why traditionally the Lords aren't payed any more than expenses, they're not meant to be carear politicians.

---

Indeed.

One of the great benefits of the House of Lords is that they are not elected. Its members, who do not change every 5 years, are therefore able to work as ancres and as an effective balance to any radical measures put in place by PMs with huge majorities (a la Tony Bliar at the beginning of his reign). Furthermore, I have read that the hereditary Peers are the most asiduous ones and the only ones who bother to regularly come in to debate in the chamber. Replacing them with yet more political cronies is hardly a clever action.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the system by which Peers are appointed must change. Rather than the main parties nominating peers, I think a Parliamentary commission should be used for that effect, with members of the main parties voting by secret ballot (that way the Whips won't get antsy-pantsy) for those they think suitable for the Lords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Meh. A benevolent dictatorship is the only way forward. Deus Ex style.

---

No, because the Lords can be overturned. They also don't, generally, propose legislation. However, if they were to be elected there would be nothing to stop them proposing legislation and sending it to the lower house, they might also veto Commons votes just to advance their own carears.

Here's something else to chew on. Hereditory Peers generally consider sitting in the Lords a privilage, and a duty, as well as a right.

Quote:

---

By contrast the appointed peers tend to be uncorrupt

---

Yeah, like Jeffery Archer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

They only kept power due to the bizarre first-past-the-post system anyway.

---

There is a better way you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Yeah, like Jeffery Archer.

---

Jeff was a purely political appointment. I think that sort of proves my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, because the Lords can be overturned. They also don't, generally, propose legislation. However, if they were to be elected there would be nothing to stop them proposing legislation and sending it to the lower house, they might also veto Commons votes just to advance their own careers.

Here's something else to chew on. Hereditary Peers generally consider sitting in the Lords a privilege, and a duty, as well as a right.

---

And they generally acted as such, not lip service to the people as the Commons is want to do.

~:smoking:

Let's put some flesh on this.

If you live in a representative democracy.....then politicians are the price to pay.

Heriditary peers are the only way to go in the upper house.
If not, then Westminster, itself a great big anachronism should be scrapped and something like Germany's political system set up.
I mean, Britains political system is just a joke, it's pathetic really. The idea that getting rid of the old peerage will take Briatins democracy one step further is a complete fallcy spouted by Tony and his mates, any one who falls for it are just kidding themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Let's put some flesh on this.

If you live in a representative democracy.....then politicians are the price to pay.

---

Well we all live in a Constitutional Monarchy, our current Monarch being quite spineless compared to her father or grandfather.

The Lords is more of an advisory than anything else, we have democracy in the lower house, which is why they can overule the upper.