A future government draft bill would contain plans for an 80:20 split but there would be a provision for a fully elected chamber if that is "what people want", he told MPs, appealing for a cross-party consensus on the issue
Typically there are complaints from both Labour and the Tories:
Labour attacked the plan, contained in a draft bill, and argued the Liberal Democrat leader should have stuck to his party's commitment to a wholly-elected upper House of Parliament
This is apparently the same Labour whose electoral reforms consisted of appointing Lords and the Cash for Honours scandal, though according to the BBC they now (that they're not in power) support a 100% elected Upper Chamber. Besides, as Clegg said:
"Personally I have always supported 100% elected, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good.
I would love to see a 100% elected Lords, without any bishops, but these things take time and 80% is a hell of a lot better than 0%.
Meanwhile from the Tory backbenches:
"Is this yet another tatty roadshow brought to us by the same people who thought the British people wanted the alternative vote?" Tory MP Bernard Jenkin said. "If he really believes that the British people want this reform, why does he not submit these proposals to a referendum and let the British people decide."
Should we start holding referendums for every decision parliament makes?
Under the proposed changes there would be 300 members who would serve 15 year terms, would be elected by the
Single Transferable Voting system (based on proportional representation), and a third of members would be up for election at any one time. Also the number of bishops would be cut from 26 to 12.
There has been criticism that 15 year terms are too long for serious democratic accountability. This is a valid concern, I agree it is not ideal, though I would guess that this is in an attempt to keep the Lords a conservative chamber which can put the brakes on any party attempting too much legislation too fast (though the current House of Lords seems to be doing a poor job of that at the moment). This is also something that can hopefully be re-examined.
The staging of elections makes sense if you want to keep the two houses from becoming too similar, though this could also be achieved with fixed terms in both houses and shorter terms (in the Lords).
So after an upsetting defeat over AV things are looking positive again in the world of electoral reform. The proposals may not be perfect, they may be a long way from that, but they promise a future a little bit better than the present. Surely we can give Clegg a little break for that?
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
