Think Tank: Abolish 'safe seats'

[northwichcat]

Not what the Tories wanted to hear.

Safe parliamentary seats would be abolished in order to boost voter turnout and modernise Britain’s creaking 19th century political system under a blueprint to be published on Wednesday.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank, which has studied the problem of “political inequality” since the May general election, said voter engagement would rise if more people lived in marginal seats and believed their votes would count.

Its report pointed out that 364 of the 650 seats in the Commons are “safe” as they would require a swing of more than five per cent to change hands. Of the 390 non-marginal seats in England and Wales, only 19 changed hands at this year’s election. “This means that the vast majority of the British electorate live in areas that are unlikely to become a focus for serious party competition in the foreseeable future,” it said.

The IPPR proposed that the Boundary Commission, which will redraw the constituency map next year, be given a new duty to increase the number of marginal seats and reduce the number of safe ones. At present, the commission’s brief is to equalise the number of voters in each constituency, while taking account of local ties and council boundaries.

According to the IPPR: “Gerrymandering safe seats out of existence where possible will help increase the competitiveness of elections and reduce the oversized electoral power that voters in marginal currently have, and as a result it is likely to improve participation rates.”

In the past, the IPPR has called for compulsory voting and the introduction of proportional representation (PR). But with little prospect of change after a switch to the alternative vote was rejected in the 2011 referendum, the think tank is proposing PR for local authority elections in England and Wales, bringing them into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. This could give Labour a foothold in the South of England and the Conservatives in the North, boosting their prospects of winning more parliamentary seats there. It also wants an independent Democracy Commission set up to increase participation in the political process.

The IPPR found: “Our political system is primarily an invention of the 19th century, consolidated in the 1920s when universal suffrage finally came into force….The 2015 election further underlined the inadequacy of the UK’s electoral system in this regard as with previous elections, the political outcome was highly disproportionate to the voting input and exacerbated regional political disparities.”

The Conservatives needed only 34,244 votes for each seat they won in May; compared to 40,290 for Labour; 25,972 for the Scottish National Party; 301,986 for the Liberal Democrats; 1.16m for the Greens and 3.88m for Ukip.

Nick Pearce, director of the IPPR, told The Independent: “With reform of first-past-the-post off the agenda, it’s important the Boundary Commission does not create a new swathe of highly safe seats in their next review as the number of MPs is reduced. Electoral competitiveness needs to be a criteria for drawing up boundaries alongside other factors. Wide-ranging reforms should be put in place to increase voter registration rates and stem the rising tide of political inequality.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...olitical-system-says-think-tank-10471615.html

 

[gazthomas]

That maybe the case but does it not reflect the local views and demographic? I think a more appropriate solution might be proportional representation along with mandatory voting and the right in that case for a recognised no vote.

 

[ExRes]

Not what the Tories wanted to hear.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...olitical-system-says-think-tank-10471615.html

"Not what the Tories wanted to hear", do you think it's good news for Labour and the SNP then?

I look forward to seeing their plans, let's say the whole of Surrey, for example, voted Conservative and the whole of Lancashire voted Labour, how do they intend to change the boundaries to remove 'safe seats'?, another stupid and costly load of rubbish from a stupid and costly 'organisation'

 

[Rapidash]

Interesting idea. The Tories have held onto Totnes for nearly a century. Not exactly an incentive to vote when you know it'll never count for much, is it?

 

[radamfi]

Obviously the debate about getting rid of the unfair voting system has been going on forever, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas so as long as the two historically big parties don't do anything about it, nothing will happen. I can understand the Tories liking the existing system. If I were them, I wouldn't want change. They don't care how they win, as long as they win.

But Labour have not really been any better. They've talked and talked but didn't do anything as long as they benefited. But I suspect there is slightly more chance of getting them to do something about it, especially if the Tories gain significantly from the boundary changes. They are likely to, as increasing the constituency average size generally increases the amount of rural area surrounding towns, and thus make them easier to win for the Tories. That's the whole point of the redrawing. The Tories can sell it by saying it will save money but in reality they want to place more rural area onto predominately urban constituencies.

The only way to sort this is for the other parties to agree to only field one candidate in each seat between them in the 2020 election.

 

[northwichcat]

"Not what the Tories wanted to hear", do you think it's good news for Labour and the SNP then?

The drafted Tory constituency changes would have created more Tory safe seats. For instance, the seat they would give to George Osborne to stand for would be called Northwich. At first sounds a bit strange as Northwich is a mainly Labour supporting town and is currently represented by the marginal Weaver Vale constituency. However, the Northwich constituency would contain a number of mainly Conservative supporting towns and villages (from the current Tatton constituency) meaning Osborne would have an easy job to get re-elected and Labour would face a very difficult job trying to get a MP in central Cheshire, despite the largest central Cheshire town being mainly Labour.

I'm not saying Labour wouldn't do the same - maybe they'd put Wythenshawe with Wilmslow - but they aren't in government currently so can only vote for or against the boundary changes which the Tories propose.

 

[me123]

That maybe the case but does it not reflect the local views and demographic? I think a more appropriate solution might be proportional representation along with mandatory voting and the right in that case for a recognised no vote.

FPTP only minimally represents the views of its constituents. An MP in Belfast won this year with just 24.5% of the vote. [1] How can that be considered democratic? 75.5% of constituents, under this system, did not vote for that candidate. Alternative voting systems - such as my preferred system of STV, take into account the views of all constituents

Of course, constituents can and will vote for their preferred candidate, and that will in itself often lead to safe seats. But FPTP has a particular problem that it naturally trends towards a two party system, and in doing so inherently creates very safe seats.

"Not what the Tories wanted to hear", do you think it's good news for Labour and the SNP then?

I look forward to seeing their plans, let's say the whole of Surrey, for example, voted Conservative and the whole of Lancashire voted Labour, how do they intend to change the boundaries to remove 'safe seats'?, another stupid and costly load of rubbish from a stupid and costly 'organisation'

Safe seats are created by a process called Gerrymandering, where the politicians manipulate the boundaries in order to manipulate the vote and the result of the election. In essence, this can turn a slim majority into a landslide victory. This "stupid...rubbish" is an attempt to stop the inherently undemocratic process of gerrymandering.

The outcome of the election should closely represent the proportion of views across the country. FPTP has proven that it quite simply cannot do this. We need proper electoral reform. If only we had an opportunity to vote for this (oh, wait a minute...)

Interesting idea. The Tories have held onto Totnes for nearly a century. Not exactly an incentive to vote when you know it'll never count for much, is it?

This is a predicament facing millions. I have lived in a safe seat for most of my life, and I never thought my vote would have counted for anything. Labour would have won over and over again, returning the useless Tom Clarke to vegetate on the seats of Westminster. Our elections consisted of getting one or two leaflets from Labour (the same ones every year...), and occasionally a half hearted attempt from the Conservatives who in reality didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, and often fielded candidates from 50+ miles away. Democracy didn't exist. There was little point in voting, since we knew our vote wouldn't count.

Of course, in the last election, something unprecedented happened in Scotland. The country recorded record swings in the vote, as people who supported independence realised that they were not alone and had the confidence to vote SNP, swinging the country to being a collection of largely safe SNP seats. It took years and a monumental referendum for that to happen, though. And I don't think the outcome is any more democratic, either. The SNP took about 50% of the Scottish vote and gained all bar three of the seats. As an SNP supporter, I was obviously ecstatic, but I can't say it's very democratic.

Obviously the debate about getting rid of the unfair voting system has been going on forever, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas so as long as the two historically big parties don't do anything about it, nothing will happen. I can understand the Tories liking the existing system. If I were them, I wouldn't want change. They don't care how they win, as long as they win.

But Labour have not really been any better. They've talked and talked but didn't do anything as long as they benefited. But I suspect there is slightly more chance of getting them to do something about it, especially if the Tories gain significantly from the boundary changes. They are likely to, as increasing the constituency average size generally increases the amount of rural area surrounding towns, and thus make them easier to win for the Tories. That's the whole point of the redrawing. The Tories can sell it by saying it will save money but in reality they want to place more rural area onto predominately urban constituencies.

The only way to sort this is for the other parties to agree to only field one candidate in each seat between them in the 2020 election.

As I've said, reform is needed, but sadly the nature of politics is that reform will be pushed aside by the current MPs who will argue that the current system works fine, mostly because it keeps them in work.

The SNP do argue for electoral reform. Now that they have benefited from FPTP for the first time, I'll be interested to see if their interest in reform remains constant.

References:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

 

[Tetchytyke]

An interesting idea, but the problem is FPTP not the local boundaries.

 

[TheKnightWho]

"Not what the Tories wanted to hear", do you think it's good news for Labour and the SNP then?

I look forward to seeing their plans, let's say the whole of Surrey, for example, voted Conservative and the whole of Lancashire voted Labour, how do they intend to change the boundaries to remove 'safe seats'?, another stupid and costly load of rubbish from a stupid and costly 'organisation'

The Tories had the lowest votes/seat, which means safe seats give them the greatest advantage.

 

[ExRes]

The Tories had the lowest votes/seat, which means safe seats give them the greatest advantage.

Fine, so let's do away with all the North Western and North Eastern safe seats that Labour have from the election, does that not give the Tories an even greater advantage?, we could also ask the Liberal Democrats what they think of the safe seats they held until this election, perhaps we should also go back to 2010 and try to remember what happened to all the safe seats that Labour held until they lost that election

There is no such thing as a safe seat if those that have the right to vote exercise that right in order to bring about change, all the time those people throw away the chance for change the politicians will continue to run things for their own benefit

Those that call for electoral reform should also bear in mind which party had the third highest vote

 

[Qwerty133]

Personally I'd like to see a much smaller parliament, elected on a proportional representation system.
Somewhere between 200-300 MPs, with no constituencies as no localised system seems to bring about fair numbers of MPs for each party. I'd also like the Scottish and Welsh parliaments closing immediately with power reverting to Westminster, and all legislation from Holyrood and wherever the welsh one is repealing.
I also believe spending in Scotland should be lower per head than in the rest of the country for the next 20 years to make up for the last 20.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Fine, so let's do away with all the North Western and North Eastern safe seats that Labour have from the election, does that not give the Tories an even greater advantage?, we could also ask the Liberal Democrats what they think of the safe seats they held until this election, perhaps we should also go back to 2010 and try to remember what happened to all the safe seats that Labour held until they lost that election

There is no such thing as a safe seat if those that have the right to vote exercise that right in order to bring about change, all the time those people throw away the chance for change the politicians will continue to run things for their own benefit

Those that call for electoral reform should also bear in mind which party had the third highest vote

Yes...

The Tories would still lose out the most though because they have the greatest proportion of safe seats relative to their total number. Which was my point. How would the Tories have "an even greater advantage" then?

Also, I'm really confused by your claim that safe seats don't matter because things change - they really, really do, and make a huge difference to election numbers. Or are you trying to scare people by claiming UKIP would do better? This seems to contradict your earlier claim.

Also, you might have noticed that people campaign for fair elections on principle, and not when it simply benefits them. That's why I want fair boundaries and a fair system even if it means parties I don't like do better.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is no such thing as a safe seat if those that have the right to vote exercise that right in order to bring about change

If the majority of people in an area are supporters of one party, then their opponents won't beat them. I voted despite living in a safe seat (Hemel Hempstead) but adding up all the opposing votes together still wouldn't have beaten the Conservative candidate.

On a local level FPTP makes sense; the MP, as representative of an area, should represent the prevailing views of the people who live there.

The problem is that everyone else doesn't get in a say in the composition of government. As the blogger Diamond Geezer pointed out, the election was decided on the votes of 900 people. Had they voted the other way then the Tories wouldn't have a majority and might not be in power.

I like the German system where half the MPs are elected in local constituencies and then the seats are topped up to represent the popular vote. There are flaws on that system- unpopular but powerful politicians in a big party can't be voted out- but at least their government represents the popular vote.

Those that call for electoral reform should also bear in mind which party had the third highest vote

I don't agree with UKIP or their policies, but it is completely wrong that a party that over 3 million people voted for has one solitary MP.

 

[northwichcat]

I've seen posted elsewhere a valid point about PR. At the last election people such as Ed Balls and Esther McVey were voted out, under PR the party would have their favourites high up in the pecking order and virtually impossible to get rid of.

 

[SS4]

I've seen posted elsewhere a valid point about PR. At the last election people such as Ed Balls and Esther McVey were voted out, under PR the party would have their favourites high up in the pecking order and virtually impossible to get rid of.

Sounds an awful lot like parachuting where party favourites are put in the safest seats despite having no local connection which itself is a reason why it's a joke that the MPs represent constituents

 

[NSEFAN]

I've seen posted elsewhere a valid point about PR. At the last election people such as Ed Balls and Esther McVey were voted out, under PR the party would have their favourites high up in the pecking order and virtually impossible to get rid of.

But if that is the will of the people based on raw numbers of votes, then surely that is the most democratic outcome?

Whether or not the electorate have made the best decision for the country is another matter.

 

[me123]

Personally I'd like to see a much smaller parliament, elected on a proportional representation system.

Agreed.

Somewhere between 200-300 MPs, with no constituencies as no localised system seems to bring about fair numbers of MPs for each party.

200-300 may be a bit on the small side, but in the right direction certainly. I think there is an issue with local representation, and a purely PR based system simply does not offer any local representation. You could very possibly have swathes of the country (potentially even counties) without a local MP to raise their issues, which would be a very dangerous precedent.

That's why I advocate STV. It has the benefits of PR whilst continuing to provide locally elected representatives. It offers a result that is, broadly speaking, proportional. It also allows you to contact local MPs. In fact, it's superior to FPTP in that you have multiple local MPs (over a larger area, of course), so you can contact more MPs and have a potentially greater voice in parliament. You can also contact a preferred MP/MPs from your preferred party if you'd be more comfortable with this situation.

The Scottish Parliament electoral system works quite well in that we have local MSPs (elected by FPTP) and regional list MSPs. We have local representation from our own constituency MSP, as we do with our MP, but this is "topped-up" by additional MSPs elected in a more proportionate way. The result is broadly proportionate. It works well in Scotland's unicameral Government, which benefits from a higher number of representatives in the chamber. I would not advocate this for larger institutions, such as Westminster, where as you've observed we already have a huge number of MPs, and local voices very easily get lost in the crowd.

I'd also like the Scottish and Welsh parliaments closing immediately with power reverting to Westminster, and all legislation from Holyrood and wherever the welsh one is repealing.

Latest opinion polls suggest an overwhelming support for devolution in both Scotland and Wales. I can't find the most recent polls, but support for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly from what I've seen has been high across the political spectrum in our countries. IIRC the number of people supporting abolition of the devolved institutions, even in those opposed to independence or further devolution was low. Single percentage points.

The better answer to your problem is the creation of an English Parliament, rather than abolition of two successful legislative bodies. I would actively support a move for an English Parliament.

By the way, if you're going to argue for abolition of an organisation, at least spend a few minutes, or even seconds, researching. If you had done that, I'm sure you would have quickly learned that the National Assembly for Wales sits in Cardiff Bay.

I also believe spending in Scotland should be lower per head than in the rest of the country for the next 20 years to make up for the last 20.

And I think the Scottish Parliament should have full control over its own budget with no interference from London based politicians. We could call it "independence". We could be in charge of our own budget and I wouldn't have to listen to this drivel over and over again.

Before you go telling us what to do though, why don't you look at the gross inequalities in public spending per capita in England? There's a huge overspend in London, whilst lots of the regions have very little by comparison. Or, perhaps, why don't you suggest that expenditure in England actually increases so that, rather than drag Scotland down, you actually boost yourselves and improve public services? Isn't that a much more positive way in which to run a country?

Of course, the fact that Scotland is a largely rural country has nothing to do with the additional spending. Of course, the fact that Scotland has greater areas of social deprivation have nothing to do with the additional spending.

And why not target Northern Ireland, which has higher spending per capita than Scotland does? Or does that not fit with your political ideals?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Agreed.



200-300 may be a bit on the small side, but in the right direction certainly. I think there is an issue with local representation, and a purely PR based system simply does not offer any local representation. You could very possibly have swathes of the country (potentially even counties) without a local MP to raise their issues, which would be a very dangerous precedent.

That's why I advocate FPTP. It has the benefits of PR whilst continuing to provide locally elected representatives. It offers a result that is, broadly speaking, proportional. It also allows you to contact local MPs. In fact, it's superior to FPTP in that you have multiple local MPs (over a larger area, of course), so you can contact more MPs and have a potentially greater voice in parliament. You can also contact a preferred MP/MPs from your preferred party if you'd be more comfortable with this situation.

The Scottish Parliament electoral system works quite well in that we have local MSPs (elected by FPTP) and regional list MSPs. We have local representation from our own constituency MSP, as we do with our MP, but this is "topped-up" by additional MSPs elected in a more proportionate way. The result is broadly proportionate. It works well in Scotland's unicameral Government, which benefits from a higher number of representatives in the chamber. I would not advocate this for larger institutions, such as Westminster, where as you've observed we already have a huge number of MPs, and local voices very easily get lost in the crowd.



Latest opinion polls suggest an overwhelming support for devolution in both Scotland and Wales. I can't find the most recent polls, but support for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly from what I've seen has been high across the political spectrum in our countries. IIRC the number of people supporting abolition of the devolved institutions, even in those opposed to independence or further devolution was low. Single percentage points.

The better answer to your problem is the creation of an English Parliament, rather than abolition of two successful legislative bodies. I would actively support a move for an English Parliament.

By the way, if you're going to argue for abolition of an organisation, at least spend a few minutes, or even seconds, researching. If you had done that, I'm sure you would have quickly learned that the National Assembly for Wales sits in Cardiff Bay.



And I think the Scottish Parliament should have full control over its own budget with no interference from London based politicians. We could call it "independence". We could be in charge of our own budget and I wouldn't have to listen to this drivel over and over again.

Before you go telling us what to do though, why don't you look at the gross inequalities in public spending per capita in England? There's a huge overspend in London, whilst lots of the regions have very little by comparison. Or, perhaps, why don't you suggest that expenditure in England actually increases so that, rather than drag Scotland down, you actually boost yourselves and improve public services? Isn't that a much more positive way in which to run a country?

Of course, the fact that Scotland is a largely rural country has nothing to do with the additional spending. Of course, the fact that Scotland has greater areas of social deprivation have nothing to do with the additional spending.

And why not target Northern Ireland, which has higher spending per capita than Scotland does? Or does that not fit with your political ideals?

Why don't you advocate STV? The benefits of local representation whilst also being a more proportional system. I don't mean in the Scottish system where you have "top ups", but where you have constituencies with multiple MP slots, and where voters preference their candidates - 5 MPs per constituency is considered optimal, but 3-9 are acceptable ranges. These are then calculated, and candidates who achieve the requisite proportion of votes become instantly voted in (in simple terms this is usually 20% if there are 5 MPs, 25% with 4 etc. - there are alternative ways of calculating this though), with the remainder of votes scattered between second preferences, and then candidates are eliminated AV style until someone else achieves it (and any extras are scattered again) and so on until all candidates have either been elected or eliminated.

It sounds a lot more complicated than it is, and tends to result in a broadly proportional result whilst keeping local MPs. You also have the advantage of citizens each having multiple local MPs, and so they have more of a chance of having one they support or at least get on with. It totally destroys safe seats, because the chances of a party fielding 5 candidates who all get in (this would require 90% of the votes at a minimum in a 5 MP constituency, 70% to elect 4 out of 5 etc.) is practically impossible. And finally, it can be tailored for small or large geographic areas, where constituencies would be too small to be meaningful with the normal number of MPs (as they often are now since the number is 1, and they split towns and communities arbitrarily) and so would get larger numbers of MPs, or so large they'd be unwieldy, where a 5 MP constituency in northern Scotland would effectively cover most of the Highlands, where the number can be reduced down to 3 or so.

 

[me123]

Why don't you advocate STV? ...

I do advocate STV, and I will correct my posting above Too many acronyms too early in the morning!

 

[Senex]

Why don't you advocate STV? The benefits of local representation whilst also being a more proportional system. I don't mean in the Scottish system where you have "top ups", but where you have constituencies with multiple MP slots, and where voters preference their candidates - 5 MPs per constituency is considered optimal, but 3-9 are acceptable ranges.

I think that's the ideal because as you say it does indeed mean that in most cases a voter will find at least one member is elected that they feel they can usefully contact if they need to. I'm sure than any MP of any party worth their salt would do the glorified ombudsman bit perfectly well for any constituent, but when it's a case of contacting one's MP to urge support for (or hostility to) a particular political cause, then under the present system in far too many cases there's just no point in wasting one's time -- particularly where that MP is simply a part "plantee".

 

[ExRes]

Also, I'm really confused by your claim that safe seats don't matter because things change - they really, really do, and make a huge difference to election numbers. Or are you trying to scare people by claiming UKIP would do better? This seems to contradict your earlier claim.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, it is a simple matter of fact

UKIP received 12.7% of the votes cast and should therefore have 80 MPs representing the British electorate, the fact that some people on this forum cry themselves to sleep at night worrying about nasty old Nigel and his vicious UKIP gang while wanting PR is nothing other than a joke to me, if you and others want to change the way our Parliament is made up then you will get the negatives you don't want as well as the positives you do, if that scares you then you'll just have to put up with it

 

[greatkingrat]

Abolish safe seats? I guess it would stop the arguments when the reservations aren't put out

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not trying to scare anyone, it is a simple matter of fact

UKIP received 12.7% of the votes cast and should therefore have 80 MPs representing the British electorate, the fact that some people on this forum cry themselves to sleep at night worrying about nasty old Nigel and his vicious UKIP gang while wanting PR is nothing other than a joke to me, if you and others want to change the way our Parliament is made up then you will get the negatives you don't want as well as the positives you do, if that scares you then you'll just have to put up with it

The fact of the matter is that either you claim safe seats don't matter or that UKIP would do better under PR: you've claimed both, which shows you clearly aren't presenting a coherent position, but are trying to get "one-ups" against me. Aside from the fact that if you are literally incapable of understanding how someone can hold a principled position on an issue even if they don't like the particular results it may sometimes entail then I despair. I really do. If UKIP gets in then that's the way the country votes, and that's that - you are clearly brandishing this as some sort of threat surrounding PR as though we're going to run away because we don't like the result

 

[Busaholic]

I'd keep the FPTP system for MPs, abolish the House of Lords in its present form (they'd be allowed to keep their ridiculous titles if they so wished) and replace the latter with a second chamber representing the proportion of votes given to each party in the General Election, with any party gaining more than 1% of the vote nationally represented. This forum should have similar powers to the Lords, but with a maximum number of 300 representatives. Elected or non-elected would be up for discussion. Any rep not taking part in at least 50% of votes (short of serious illness) would have to go and be replaced.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'd keep the FPTP system for MPs, abolish the House of Lords in its present form (they'd be allowed to keep their ridiculous titles if they so wished) and replace the latter with a second chamber representing the proportion of votes given to each party in the General Election, with any party gaining more than 1% of the vote nationally represented. This forum should have similar powers to the Lords, but with a maximum number of 300 representatives. Elected or non-elected would be up for discussion. Any rep not taking part in at least 50% of votes (short of serious illness) would have to go and be replaced.

Not sure I'm keen on forcing members to vote - you end up with a lot of people voting on issues they don't know much about, which isn't really what you want when it comes to the second chamber.

 

[meridian2]

I completely agree with ExRes on the issue of UKIP and seats however Nigel did out himself with his silly statements and 80 MPs isn't all that much for them to remove their cap of being a 'protest party'.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'd keep the FPTP system for MPs, abolish the House of Lords in its present form (they'd be allowed to keep their ridiculous titles if they so wished) and replace the latter with a second chamber representing the proportion of votes given to each party in the General Election, with any party gaining more than 1% of the vote nationally represented. This forum should have similar powers to the Lords, but with a maximum number of 300 representatives. Elected or non-elected would be up for discussion. Any rep not taking part in at least 50% of votes (short of serious illness) would have to go and be replaced.

I wouldn't want an elected house of Lords. An unelected chamber avoids the short-termism attitude which comes about from having elections every 5 years. I'd rather the oversight of the commons is done by people who are genuinely interested in the subject at hand, not people who are just there because it's their party on the line. Ideally Lords wouldn't have any party affiliation to improve neutrality but I don't think this can be easily done in practice.

 

[Senex]

I wouldn't want an elected house of Lords. An unelected chamber avoids the short-termism attitude which comes about from having elections every 5 years. I'd rather the oversight of the commons is done by people who are genuinely interested in the subject at hand, not people who are just there because it's their party on the line. Ideally Lords wouldn't have any party affiliation to improve neutrality but I don't think this can be easily done in practice.

If not an elected chamber, then who would do the choosing? Might this not be a classic case of democracy being the least bad option?

 

[NSEFAN]

If not an elected chamber, then who would do the choosing? Might this not be a classic case of democracy being the least bad option?

Provided we can both avoid party politics and short-termism, then it may be the least bad option. To do this we would have to have peers with terms of much longer than 5 years, and perhaps not having everyone coming up for re-election at once.

Personally I think that the situation with the lords is mostly fine: it's the commons which leave a lot to be desired. Awarding peerages on merit rather than donations would be good too, but I get the impression that this is what mostly happens anyway.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If not an elected chamber, then who would do the choosing? Might this not be a classic case of democracy being the least bad option?

Unfortunately the HoL is used too much as a party reward system, which would still be the case if we had "indirect" elections whereby the parties get to choose who fills the seats once they're allocated based on a percentage of the votes at the general election. However, direct elections would simply lead to more career politicians, which would make the second chamber effectively pointless.

I'm a big believer in the fact that the Commons' decisions should be vetted, analysed and brought to public attention though, so I'm not really sure of the solution.