You rang m'lord?

I fear that the debate on the House of Lords is going to go the same way as the referendum on AV, being reduced to in-fighting between the Tories and the Lib Dems rather than an actual consideration of the position of the Lords.  It particularly concerns me as both this and the issue of electoral reform are some of the most galvanising issues for young people of my generation.  Whilst I was out of step with most of my peers in opposing AV (and generally supporting first past the post rather than a PR or hybrid system) the issue was one on which there was some serious consideration by many of my friends and acquaintances.  I don't personally subscribe to the view that my generation is apolitical or largely apathetic (indeed even the proposition of cuts demonstrated how active people of my age bracket can be - interestingly enough both for and against) - but it pleased me to see so many engaging with the issue where they might  not with others. 

Thus I was sad to read online that Clegg's unveiling of his reform package was already dogged and dominates by conflict within the coalition. It seems that the issue may well fall onto to sane ground as AV with Tories scoffing at the proposals as some Lib Dem nonsense destined to fail  as the Lib Dems themselves use it as one in which to distinguish themselves from their coalition partners and try to offset their deteriorating public image.

The truth is, the position of the House of Lords within our legislature and constitution is an important one.  It is without doubt one of the major potentially anti-democratic elements within our system. A vestige, and testament to the classic Whig narrative of slow evolutionary change over revolutionary change.  Personally I don't find an unelected upper house particularly offensive to my democratic ideals - The Parliament Act and Salisbury Convention seem to offset the worst of it's position and leave it as a largely advisory body - if a conservative block on radical policy.  Obviously the presence of hereditary peers and the bishops is a particular problem and potentially undermines the democratic nature of our system.   Nevertheless I feel the other issues are up fit grabs and - much like electoral reform - have not been widely debated. 

What we need to decide is what we want from out second house. Or indeed if we want one at all. There seems to be a consensus, in the Commons at least if not countrywide, that we don't desire the Upper House to have a mandate of it's own to challenge the Commons, and indeed much like the house of representatives in the USA that the Commons should ultimately have predominance over the budget and taxation legislation. But what do we want from our second  house? A discussion chamber? A house able to propose its own legislation wholly independent of the government in the Commons? How will it be elected - by what system and with what relationship to constituencies, if it has constituencies at all?  It is these questions that should be widely debated and, I would argue, put to public referendum so that we can get what we really want out of 'the other place'. 

I realise that it is necessary for governments to have concrete policies for the Commons to debate (such broad debate proposed above is obviously not suitable) and that the parties have considered what they want to some extent.  However, even the Liberal Democrats who have most ire as a collective for the current state of the Lords only had a vague manifesto commitment of a fully elected House. Furthermore as elections are seldom won or lost on the issue (the economy dominated the last and I personally remember only cursory reference made to the Lords) it needs more consideration.  Rushed policies - based on a compromise which few end up enthusiastically supporting - will see the issue founder on the same rocks as the  debate on electoral reform. The issue will end up not being the Lords but the position of the coalition, its partners within it and the future and character of the Liberal Democrats.  Lords reform is an important issue for the future of our democracy and deserves thorough consideration rather than being used in political point scoring or to save the position of one man and his party.