Debate about the format and selection of our second chamber rages on, says Seamus Burns
The historic decision of the House of Commons last month to support the principle of a wholly or largely elected House of Lords can be viewed as representing an acceptance at last by the government that in the 21st century, only a democratically elected second chamber accords with the public’s notion of what constitutes a legitimate body, fit for purpose to scrutinise and revise government legislation and to act as a brake on the populist inclinations of the executive.
The two significant votes in the Commons, were respectively for an 80% elected second chamber (305 for and 267 against), and for a fully elected second chamber, an even larger majority, (337 for and 224 against), ie a majority of 113 in favour, albeit many of these MPs had perversely voted in favour of a fully appointed House of Lords too.
Second opinions
The Commons has established itself as the predominant chamber in our legislature since 1902 when Lord Salisbury was the last prime minister from the Lords; and,
