With the final say resting with the elected chamber and the second chamber charged with improvements/ recommendations only, I don’t see the problem frankly. Agreement on the composition of the second chamber could of course prove contentious, but ultimately achievable.

An unelected 2nd chamber has superficial attractiveness but it is an ‘unelected’ house in an democracy nonetheless.It may well be less ‘messy’ thna a democratic vote and elections but I always prefer a ‘messy’ democracy to a neat and tidy ’selectocracy’.

Why not go back to the ‘old’ House of Lords. They had all the ‘powerful and important’ people amongst their ranks and were then added to by old political hacks, TU leaders and a few other ‘worthy’ personages to give it balance and legitimacy.

The only legitimacy in a democarcy in my view is gained through the ballot box as a first step.

Incidentally Gerard how would we balance all the ‘bankers’ ‘barristers’ etc with miners, bus drivers, pensioners and so on. It just will not work and these ‘power brokers’ know how to use power to ‘their own advantage’ and I doubt they would think much about the needs of the less well connected.

Best wishes JIM KING

We’re obviously not going to agree on this. The two ‘elected chambers’ would have defined functions especially the new Upper Chamber. But they MUST be democratically answerable to the ‘people’. For me this is the kernal of democratising our political culture a bit more than is currenly the case.

An ‘unelected’ Upper Chamber would be just another ‘Quango’ - surely we have enough of these uncontrolled creatures already. Adding another one and with ‘legislative responsibilities’ is the democratic pits in my view.

The two chambers would NOT be doing the same thing - revising rather than initiating legislation in the Upper House for example. I have not settled my mind on whether the Upper House should be allowed to ‘initiate’ legislation’ - the Mandleson proposal re Royal Mail - is hardly a good omen!

Best wishes for now and thanks for th minutes re the Land Campaign

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. The fundamental issue for me is that ‘our lawmakers’ or revisers should be in the ultimate control of the electorate. That means for me a wholly elected ’second chamber’. I’m happy to have a different name as ‘Lords’ is a bit out dated. Senate, Upper House, House of Representatives - there are many names about - and this is not a big issue for me. I don’t believe ‘experts’ are neutral any more than an elected ‘member’ might be. The strenght of democracy is that peolpe have to subject themselves to the ‘will of the people’ not just because they happen to be an often self ‘declared expert’. Of course if we have an Upper house of experts what is to prevent a case being made that the same should apply to the ‘Lower House’. I feel it would be dangerous to ‘dilute’ democracy in htis way.

Hi Adrian,

I’m more in tune with your ideas on this. I’d be happy for a different electoral system to be used. Perhaps STV is the most ‘democratic’ but it of course depends on the constituency boundaries and so on.

I’d like to see a ‘regional’ element worked in somehow which I feel would be difficult in a chamber of experts.
I agree too that if the ‘experts’ are really interested in democracy they should be willing to stand for election. Futhermore ‘experts’ could always be ‘called in’ by Committees of the Upper House - for expert opinion or ideas. This would still leave the ‘decision’ with the democratically elected members. In my view this is more sound than a chamber of experts who no one much knows or what their ‘interests’ are. And when did experts agree on much in any event? - ecomonists, medics, scientists, even ‘church people’ are all apt to disagree -sometimes even violently!

Yes of course there will be difficulties but who said politics is about ‘agreeing’ on all things at all times. We should not fear this.