*They do, don’t they?]]>
The pre 1997 system was ludicrous - Labour struggled to get things through but the tories could pass anything they liked because of a born (literally) majority. (the poll tax was the last straw)
That was changed by the recent reforms that saw lots of the old hereditary (mostly tory) lords got rid of - and replaced with appointed lords.
And because the appointment system means every party can appointed (sell) peerages - it has led to a finely balanced upper house that actually works - with no majority for any party - and thus the scrutiny should work when the tories win power again (probably in the next election, possible as soon as November).
Now that it works for the first time in hundreds of years, one would think this was hardly the time to go changing it wholsale again.]]>
OK, so the House of Lords & hereditary peerages is an anachronism, but at least they’ve stood against some of the dafter, more draconian, or just plain ill-thought legislation proposed in recent years.
Gradual reform is probably better than chucking out the baby with the bathwater, specially if there are no really well thought through alternatives to hand.]]>
On the other hand, I don’t want all those Bishops to even be in the building…]]>
an interesting such reform might be allowing MPs to vote on best preference as is proposed for the Lords reform vote (otherwise they will just reject everything again).
Could this happen with new policies (vote for a preference on sentancing for rape - vote for a preference on how many troops to send afghanistan)?
I guess it will live or die on its merits. Much as the Lords should have done two decades agao when they voted for the poll tax.]]>