Well, this old debate is still rumbling along. Rumours are now circulating that a bill will be put through next parliament, either being passed in the next parliament or the following one (depending on if use of the parliament act is needed). In truth, its about time it was reformed, Labour have promised it in their three election winning manifestos and have only really had a brief, vague attempt at concluding the matter. The difficulty will be agreeing how the Lords should change, the Tories seem reluctant to see any change (although David Cameron may change this if he comes up with a policy), the Labour party is well split down the middle and to be honest, I don’t really know where the Lib Dems stand.
The options seem to be a completely elected House of Lords, a split lords with half being elected or carrying on as we are. Seeing as carrying on as we are is not an option and there are concerns about the fully elected Lords causing political gridlock it looks like the middle option is likely. With Brown and Blairs support there is a good chance it will get through, and they will force it through the Lords with the Parliament act.
Personally, I would like to see a half elected chamber, half chosen chamber. This would allow the democratic aspect of the second chamber to take place but would also give a chance for the whole of society to be represented and create more of a talking shop for various religious and ethnic groups. Potentially a lot of the problems that are around now (mainly with multiculturalism) would be best dealt with by a half elected, half chosen upper house. The elected side would be the publics chosen representatives while the chosen side would represent the major religious, ethnic and possibly trade union groupings, meaning that it would be the ideal place to deal with sensitive issues within society, also possibly acting as a unifying focus. It would also offer the one thing the that the Commons cannot, voices to the particular groups in parliament. The Commons cannot offer this as MPs are chosen not by grouping but by area, so therefore have to represent all people which is a system that does work, however on some issues having representatives by, for example, religion in religious debates would work more effectively.
One idea I do find rather deplorable is the talk that peers that are currently in the Lords but will be removed will be paid a form of compensation or pay off. These are people generally with large country estates and just as large bank balances to match, why should ordinary people pay their taxes to enable these peers who are mostly rich through their family inheritance to become richer? Some of these peers do not even attend the Lords that often. I think personally it is all a bit of a joke (that we will pay for) when you look at where the money should be spent.
The hereditary peers have already been got rid of (aside from those "elected" to stay by the Life Peers). The system currently is a shambols, brought on by the government wanting to reform but having no idea as to how to do it (remember the Supreme Court issue and the botched abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor?).
The best idea would have been to leave well alone and organise a Speaker's conference or something similar to work out the reform that worked for Parliament (I think something on this was carried out in the 1970s but never implemented). Instead, we've had the botched removal of hereditary peers, the creation of life peers to "even things up" (leading to charges of cronyism) and, quite frankly, a lot of fuss and not much action.
The current mess makes many hanker after the old system, which had its failings but is more or less better than the current "reformed" upper house. Lords reform needs to be depoliticised.
Just my point of view.
Keep up the interesting posts.
Atb.
Hektor