Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 5:09 pm on 7th March 2007.
Alert me about debates like this
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be fully elected.— [Mr. Straw]
The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 224.
Posted on 8 Mar 2007 2:20 pm (Report this annotation)
One of the options that was discussed was for an elected House with the electees being drawn from a nominated list. In what way is this different from having an appointed house? If anything this will make for an even less democratic system than that which we have now. The list of electees will be made up of the same cronies and yes men that are currently being appointed. This is not democracy. The Power Inquiry specifically notes that electees to the House of Lords should be made up of everyday people with the skills needed to perform as an independant House without the ties to the main House. This is clearly NOT what is being suggested. What we will have is an upper House put in place to rubberstamp whatever the current government policy of the day is. Each "Lord" will be well aware that they owe their seat to the Patronage of one of the main parties and as such will vote accordingly. What they want is not a democratically elected Upper House but the semblance of one. What we will actually get is an elected dictatorship with leaders hand picked by the government of the day.
Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates – simply and clearly.
Get insights on TheyWorkForYou and other mySociety sites, in our popular newsletter
Your donations keep this site and others like it running
mySociety Limited is a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy, a registered charity in England and Wales. For full details visit mysociety.org.