1. I was most amazed and pleased to see that the House of Commons voted for a fully elected House of Lords. Out of nine proposals with differing percentage mixes of appointed and elected, the Commons' MPs passed only two: 80% elected and 20% appointed or 100% elected. They defeated all other seven options. This was a free, nonbinding vote. All MPs were free to vote their own inclination outside the party whips, but the vote was not binding. That's going to be interesting since the government, i.e., Tony Blair, wants a 50/50 mix of elected/appointed. At any rate after 100 years, reform of the House of Lords will be moving ahead. It will be fascinating to watch this develop given the fact that this is a Constitutional Monarchy. Will 100% of the aristocracy have to go to the public for election to sit in the House of Lords? What will ultimately happen? Time will tell. Maybe they will get around to writing a constitution now.
BBC News Thursday, 8 March 2007, 08:59 GMT
Straw 'means business' on Lords
 MPs were presented with nine options for Lords reform |
Commons leader Jack Straw says the government "means business" on House of Lords reform after MPs indicated they want its members elected in future.
The 113 majority for all members of a reformed Lords being elected rather than appointed, surprised many.
The vote was "indicative", not binding on ministers, whose favoured option had been 50% elected and 50% appointed.
But Mr Straw said: "There is a momentum behind change - we cannot put the genie back in the bottle."
 | 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 BBC Radio 4's Today he would now consult colleagues and opposition parties on "how we can take forward" the 100% elected or 80% elected options, which had also had a majority - of 38 - in favour.
He called the MPs' decisions a "pretty seismic shift" in favour of reform: "This is the first time there's been a clear view on this for 98 years, so it's progress.
. . .
Its powers would remain largely the same as at present - as a revising chamber which can "improve" or delay plans passed by the government on the day in the Commons, but which cannot actually block legislation.
| 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 |
One of the fears of those who oppose having a substantially elected second chamber - especially if as proposed it uses a form of proportional representation - is that its members will feel that being elected gives it the authority to challenge the will of the Commons.
Conservative peer Baroness Fookes said: "The House (of Lords) will not be content with limited powers. They will push and push for more if they are wholly elected. If we have these ping pong matches head to head why should they give way?"
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, and Church of England Archbishops and Bishops and the law lords.
In another vote, MPs decided by a majority of 280 to remove the remaining hereditaries.