An elected House of Lords will be bad for British democracy




Intelligence Squared show

Summary: Event information: An elected second chamber. Who could argue with that? Surely it’s what all good democrats would like to see in place of the present House of Lords with its party appointees and hereditary rump? Or is it? Never forget the overweening dominance of political parties in British political life. If members of the Lords have to submit to the same electoral cycle as MPs won’t they just suffer the same fate as MPs and become entirely dependent for advancement on the party leadership? Become the Cabinet’s creatures? Elections may confer the patina of legitimacy to political arrangements, but in Britain’s elective dictatorship, as Lord Hailsham called it, they simply end up reinforcing the power of the executive in parliament. And since the purpose of a second chamber is to serve as a check on the arrogance of executive power, since an independence of spirit is required whenever members of that chamber revise legislation and use their suspensive veto, then open elections to the Lords are surely the last thing we need? Appoint them; elect them indirectly; choose them from pre-selected professional categories; any system you like, but not direct elections. Or so those resistant to reform like to argue. Are they just being ante-deluvian diehards? Is this just cover for the retention of existing privileges? Or are they right? Speakers for the motion - Vernon Bogdanor, Shami Chakrabarti and Sir Simon Jenkins Speakers against the motion - Lord Adonis, Billy Bragg and Polly Toynbe