You refer to the “overwhelming vote of MPs in March 2007 in favour of a wholly or mainly elected second chamber”. While I am reasonably familiar with the figures, can you explain Sir Patrick Cormack’s comment that “the vote for 100 per cent. was caused by a tactical switch by a number of Members, led by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who is nodding vigorously” HC Vol 479 cols 28-29
(14 July 2008)? I found the Lord Chancellor & Sec of State’s answer unenlightening. And would you really describe the 80/20 vote as overwhelming (as opposed to overwhelmingly supported by the Liberal Democrats)?

However, speaking as someone who is (hopefully) not a Turkey, I’d still prefer to veto Christmas.

And although the House of Commons did vote in favour of an 80% – 100% elected second chamber, I do not feel this simple fact is in and of itself anywhere near a suitable argument to push forward for reform – majorities are perfectly fallible, and to settle an argument by simply stating the majority’s ‘will’ is such is too simplistic.

And while I would not deny the public would like to see more legitimacy given to the second chamber, I fail to see how this popular legitimacy can be reconciled with the legitimacy which the House of Lords has in truckloads stemming from its semi-professional and expert-filled numbers. An elected House would lose all this.

The Lord Chancellor claimed in the White Paper that an elected House would be more active and assertive than the Lords, but I do not see how he can claim this when the elected Commons has defied the will of the Government a mere trifle of times in the last decade, and the Lords has been the true Opposition.

Surely an elected House would extend the power of the Whips and therefore reduce the wonderful independence and efficiency of the unelected but still thoroughly legitimate peers?

Seriously, the House of Lords would hardly be a serious institution if there weren’t such divergence of views.