Saturday, March 27, 2010

Your Views on Future Peers

Further to yesterday's post about the House of Lords, here are the results of the survey, which more than 1,000 of you voted in.

1. Do you think the House of Lords should be...

Wholly elected 35%
Partially elected/partially appointed 33%
Wholly Appointed 19%
Wholly Hereditary 13%

2.
How urgently should David Cameron treat the issue of further House of Lords reform?

Should be addressed in the first term of a Tory govt 46%
For a second term 33%
Kick into the long grass 21%

3.
Do you agree with this statement. "David Cameron should avoid giving peerages to any retiring MP involved in the expenses scandal?"

Agree 86%
Disagree 14%

4. The top ten retiring MPs you would like to see in the House of Lords are...

Ann Widdecombe 81%
Michael Howard 80%
Michael Ancram 41%
Sir Patrick Cormack 34%
John Gummer 32%
Sir Michael Spicer 21%
Michael Mates 18%
Douglas Hogg 17%
Angela Browning 14%
Michael Lord 14%

5. The top ten people from the ConHome 100 Peers survey you would like to see in the House of Lords are...

Sir John Major 76%
General Sir Michael Jackson 59%
Sir Tim Berners Lee 52%
Matthew Parris 47%
Michael Portillo 46%
Sir Stuart Rose 43%
Gyles Brandreth 39%
Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks 35%
Ruth Lea 34%
Frederick Forsyth 29%

You also suggested some intriguing names who should be considered for Peerages. Among them were...

Merrick Cockell. Ian Hislop, Peter Riddell, Guido Fawkes, Tim Montgomerie, Willie Walsh, Patrick Minford, Joanna Lumley, David Starkey, Michael Nazir-Ali, Tim Collins,
Camilla Batmanghelidjh, Carol Forth, Donal Blaney, James Dyson, Judi Dench, Carol Vorderman, Daniel Finkelstein, Melanie Phillips, Kit Malthouse ... and me.

13 comments:

cynicalHighlander said...

Put them where they belong at seaside resorts allowing the public to walk over for a change.

Arieh said...

Lord Sacks of Aldgate is already a member of the HoL!

john in cheshire said...

by 'me' did you mean me?

I'd be a good Lord because I'd vote against every law that was proposed. I'd vote for every proposal to repeal laws. And I'd vote to take us out of the EU. I'd not do much else, mind. And I've no interest in being bribed; I find that kind of behaviour too tiresome and common.

The Master said...

How can there be any elected Peers? Abolish the current system as it is based on patronage.
"Peers" should be only be elected by voters.

Lord Blagger said...

Very simple.

Lets abolish the Lords. They cost us 2000 pounds a day per Lord when they turn up.

The place is a hive of Spanish practices. 400 claim expenses each day. Next time you look at the chamber on TV is virtually empty. All in Committees but if you check the records, there aren't many sitting each day. Certainly not enough to cover the 350 you can't see.

On top, you have Lords claiming for non existant properties, and then the Clerk nobling police inquiries, and then keeping the report secret. This is the same Clerk responsible for dishing out the cash in the first place.

We don't need the Lords. Abolishment would save around 600 million over the life of the next Parliament. All those peers who I'm repeatedly told have great skills can then go out and help rebuild the UK, and reduce the government debt by being productive.

In its place we can have democracy. True democracy not the current sham.

Everyone gets to nominate an MP. Doesn't have to be their local representative who is elected by any means that doesn't involve party lists or the parties controlling the candidates.

Then when it comes to the approval of a bill, the decision is decided by the proxy votes of the MPS.

So if you live in a Tory safe seat and you like Vince Cable then you can nominate him. He then casts his proxy votes.

All it takes is one MP to set up a system over the net where you can vote as you see fit. Then we have direct democracy.

You can change your proxy when you want. Lets say your MP is on the take, people find out, people change their proxy. No influence.

Unpopular government? Proxies get removed. It can't change things unless the majority want it.

It's cheap. It means people can vote on the issue, not the next thief.

It costs about a pound a year to register a voter. 30 million a year. From the 110 million a year saving from axing the Lords, we can easily organise the registration.

Nick

Old Holborn said...

RT @TimMontgomerie: Imagine a House of Lords with me, @IainDale, @GuidoFawkes and @Donal_Blaney as members

ARRRGGGHHH. Pink bathrooms, full of Guinness flowing taps and portraits of Lady Thatcher in every cubicle.

>>shudder>>

creativetory said...

Arise, Lord Dale of Tunbridge Wells!

Frugal Dougal said...

I'd like to have voted in the poll, but my computer was engaged in another death-rattle.

Alister said...

The problem I have with an elected uppr chamber is that which house is suprime? At present the commons is supreme as it is elected, but if both are elected then they must be equal.
As to no upper chamber, you get pandering to the populus in the respect of legisation that on reflection could be better, or should not be passed at all. As has been seen with ID cards, Home care, reglious hatred (see the preacher fined in Scotland), digital piracy etc where the government was defeated.

Now the Lords ca not block legisation and by convention does not block manefesto commitments, however it can delay the legislation - giving the commons time to reflect and ammend.

S.B.S said...

Michael Howard???
You must be joking, all he wants / needs is an anchor round his feet and a swim in the channel, he is the reason I have not voted since 1992, although I am a Conservative will not be voting again because of his useless stint as Home Sec,
Pistol shooter you see.

Alcuin said...

Iain,

You cannot change the House of Lords without addressing the entire constitution. The triad of checks and balances in the UK (Commons, Lords, Monarch) is grossly skewed towards the Commons, and typical leftist caucus tactics have concentrated power in Downing Street.

You cannot just propose a one-off solution, backed by one party. A full constitutional conference is required, leading to a written constitution, recognition of the importance of the national leader (possibly by having an elected president), and far stronger checks on the power of the executive.

It is pernicious practices that have mostly been introduced by Labour that need curbing - the three-line whip, casual and automatic use of the guillotine, and bypassing of cabinet by the PM.

The second chamber should be fully elected, but its remit and membership must be different from the commons. I think the executive should be elected separately from constituency MPs.

Roger Thornhill said...

We do need to see how recent "changes" have tinkered and upset the checks and balances.

As a default, the first thought should be if it has, do we

a) reverse them as a bad idea
b) fix the problems in the new way

The problem with b) is you have a fix upon a fix. We have to resist change for change sake and we must understand that changing a bad system does not always improve it. We need improvement, NOT "change".

btw Your options did not include part hereditary.

justin.downes said...

Merrick Cockell to the Lords.
Why ? His extortionate expenses are under review by the District Auditor.
Now if you suggested Stephen Greenhalgh, the dynamic Leader
of Hammersmith and Fulham....
Mr Cockell's latest idea attracts the scorn of residents...see the link

http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/