PS Crossbenchers could be appointed by the percentage that did not turnout to vote or appointed by the independent body.

http://shanecroucher.co.uk/2009/06/20/politics-in-the-national-curriculum-is-a-must/

The reason why it has been a winner is that politicians have successfully applied a carrot on a stick mechanism to capture interest and then rewarded the voter by a perceived growth in their personal incomes and improvements to public sector facilities. Governments have become comfortable with economic growth fuelling their ambitions and the electorate has come to expect benefits arising from it.

Scientifically, the lower levels of the Maslow hierarchy of needs have been the focus of attention by politicians and voters alike with legislation increasingly focusing on the safety aspects of those needs. So successful has the political process been in realising people’s needs that many are entering or have entered the esteem needs level.

This is a cautious level for a democracy. Politicians have little or nothing to offer voters by way of bribery. Instead, what voter’s value in their politicians are respect, admiration, high regard and good opinion, all values associated with esteem. This is why the expenses affair has been particularly cruel and hurtful to the electorate.

If an individuals esteem needs are not met by Parliament then one could argue that they would be less likely to vote in elections or to talk to politicians generally. They effectively switch off and become idiote.

Now the prospectus on offer from the Commons is to bring people back down to their safety and social needs levels. For many it will drop further to their physiological needs level. The choice for the voter, is do they vote for the party with the least cuts or do they not bother at all?

If the people elected an extremist government on a first past the post system it would have full and unfettered access to the Treasury. There is no House of Lords to oppose Commons budgets or cast an inquiring eye over its money management. Public bodies set up to guide Commons spending would have legislation reversed rendering them inoperative.

Whilst current events conspire to increase voter apathy the present constitutional arrangement offers enticing prospects for extreme politics and ambition. The Commons needs to get a grip and be honest with itself and the electorate. It must do more to satisfy the esteem needs of the electorate.

Ref: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Hierarchy_of_Needs.asp

Ben Crompton: Many thanks for your message. We will discuss it at our meeting this afternoon. I am sure that the question of election to our House will be a major subject at the General Election next year.

On the whole the debate seemed a disappointment. Much that was said seemed to have no bearing on what had been discussed in the committee but simply a repeat of individuals well rehearsed constitutional change arguments. In such a short debate the repeating of well trodden roads in preference to discussion of some of the submissions by individuals and witnesses on areas like rights/web-streaming, the free our bills proposals, better public rights to comment on pre-legislative stages seemed a lost opportunity.

* Lords Hansard: Parliament and the public
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20090616/mainchamberdebates/part014.html

Many thanks for your responses to my blog. I have received a number of very interesting thoughts, some of which I hope to bring into the debate this evening.

The debate can be listened to or watched live

The reason for selecting 100 people, rather than just a handful, is so that they are statistically representative. And the reason for saying a whole year, rather than a short period like a week, is so that the engagement would be qualitatively different from the kind of engagement which current mechanisms provide. It needs to be long enough for them to get to know parliamentarians on a human level, so they can tell whether that weeks media scandal is likely to be rubbish or not, and to have time to have an extended dialogue.

Ever since the creation of the House of Lords (HoL) it has been almost impossible for members of the public to involve themselves with the peers inside. If a member of the public has a problem or an issue regarding the law, they would go directly to their MP: he lives in their area and they voted for him (or his opponents) and this makes him easier to reach. People are unlikely to contact members of the HoL unless they disagree with their MP’s party and a specific peer is involved in something they are interested in.

This is where the staple problem lies: the person has to be interested in the law and has to go looking for information and contact details on who they should talk to. Links need to be made between the public and the HoL. This has been difficult due to the lack of elections but there is one election that takes place in the HoL to decide who is there: the election that occurs under the rules of the HoL Act 1999. This is where we can create a link between the house and the public.

I propose the public vote for the heridetary peers (and at the same time therefore possibly increase the number of heridetary peers in the house). This means that the specifically-skilled or previous-parlimentarian life peers can continue to be appointed, whilst the public can involve themselves with the house’s hereditary peers.

This would firstly create a large media hype, drawing pople to the idea, informing and involving them. Secondly, parties and peers would have to advertise themselves: causing the public to know of their areas of expertise and laws to contact them about and how to contact them. It would restore public faith in the HoL and involve them in and inform them of it.

I thank you again for your efforts to help the HoL

Ben Crompton