Political Reform in the UK: House of Lords and the Monarchy

Reform of the House of Lords is on the agenda (again) and I thought I'd use this as an entree into a series of postings under the general theme of 'Political Reform in the UK'. Admittedly not a topic that grabs many -  although it should. Maybe I can persuade some to take more interest in it?

Today Nick Clegg opened a 2-day debate on plans to reform the House of Lords. Briefly the proposals are:

*  A smaller chamber - reduced from 826 members to 450.
*  The majority, 80%, of members would be elected - at the moment nearly all peers are appointed either by political parties or by the independent House of Lords Commission.
*  90 members, some 20% of the total, would still be appointed, by an Appointments Commission, on a non-party basis.
*  Time-limited membership - Once elected, peers would serve a non-renewable 15-year term instead of being members for life.
*  There would be a reduction in the number of bishops - from 26 to 12.
*  The chamber would still be called the House of Lords but members would not have the title "Lord". Parliament to choose a new name for members
 
He described the House of Lords as a 'flawed institution'; one that exercises power without legitimacy and one that needs reform. I agree that it is a 'flawed institution', although this is a gross understatement. I agree that it exercises power without legitimacy but I strongly disagree with his view that it needs reform. It does not need to be REFORMED; it needs to be ABOLISHED. To me anything other than a completely elected second chamber is totally incompatible with the representative democracy we like to think we have. The starting point for any debate on the future of the House of Lords should be "we will abolish the House of Lords; let's talk about what we are going to replace it with". Unless this principle is accepted at the outset (and it is not likely to be) we are going to end up with a typical British compromise. There'll be lots of huff and puff, with some enjoyable rhetoric on both sides (did you hear Malcolm Rifkin delivering wonderfully sonorous cobblers with his wonderfully sonorous bass voice in the Commons today? More! More!) but the result will not bring true representative democracy any closer.
 
And talking about true respresentative democracy, where does the Monarchyfit? Quite simply it doesn't! What we need is a total overall of our political system so that we have a modern structure that suits the needs of its citizens. And hereditary entitlement just does not fit into this.

I know, I know - all of the above leads to the question "what would you replace it with?" As I write, I'm much clearer about what I don't want than what I do and I'm uncomfortable with what is a very unsatisfactory intellectual position. Let's hope that more exploration on and around the issues will make me feel happier! Stay tuned!

Vive le Republique!