A Thought of One's Own

So the Parliamentary timetable for this session has been announced (woo!) and they're introducing a bill to reform the House of Lords. It won't get through (probably, most likely, on the balance of probabilities), but it's worth looking at anyway. From the Guardian Newspaper:


'The government on Wednesday set out areas of agreement between it and the joint committee: a mainly elected chamber, elected members voted on a system of single transferable vote, staggered elections with one third coming up for renewal at a time, peers to serve 15-year terms, current peers to leave in stages, a reduced number of peers, and powers to expel peers.' 
...
'Ministers are concerned that any statute or memorandum setting out mutual powers will then make the relationship between Commons and Lords justiciable in English courts, so reducing the much prized autonomy of parliament.'


You may have a feeling that I don't like it. 
You'd be right. 
Single transferable vote? Great. Just like the country ought to be and in that move justify never changing the main voting system because Commons and Lords need to be elected on a different basis or there's just no point. 


The other problem I have is that the House of Lords would be elected. Yes, I have a problem with giving Lords a democratic mandate, despite my firmly held believe that not everybody should have a democratic mandate because the proletariat/voters/common people/homies just don't have a clue what they're doing when they vote for the most part. We already have one House elected by people who haven't got a clue what they're voting for, the value in Lords is that it is comprised, at least in part, of experts. If I were in charge (and I should be, let's face it) Lords reform would involve the House of Lords being entirely unelected, nominated experts in various fields, with no more bishops (totally inappropriate to have bishops in politics...or at all) and nobody in there who didn't get in on merit.