I find it a staggering contradiction that, on the one hand, you say that the Lords is failing because it picks and chooses its fights against the (democractically elected) Commons carefully. And yet on the other hand you advocate electing the Lords (albeit, presumably, under a different electoral system).

How is one elected institution going to neglect our civil liberties, while another one will magically be prepared and capable of defending them? I very much doubt that, somehow, a higher calibre of people will stand for election to some feable (non-)revising chamber! Instead of people from a wide range of careers and backgrounds we’ll have career politicians. In fact, not even that, we’ll have failed career politicians.

I also note that, since joining the Lords, not once have you rebelled against the Lib Dem whip, and also that you have an extremely high attendance. Do you consider yourself an expert on everything you vote on, or are you just confident that the Lib Dem whip is always right? I’m sure it’s difficult to adjust going from the Commons to the Lords, but perhaps you may want to consider your reasons for voting the way you do before you criticise other peers’ reasons for doing so.

No, everyone gets to vote if they want on a particular issue. MPs can come up the legistlation. Then let the voter decide, do they want it.

Assuming this and possibly the other comment appear I wish to show that the upper chamber of the USA is not a majoritarian democracy. California’s 36,756,666 citizens, Texas’s 24,326,974 citizens, Louisiana’s 4,410,796 citizens, Montana’s 967, 440 citizens and Alaska’s 686, 293 each elect two senators (statistics 2008 estimate by US Census Bureau). These used to be elected by state legislators. The Senate is more powerful than the House as a whole despite the power of the purse in the House.
Your Lordships concerns are doubtless real and well-founded. However, a democratic Lords would in a real sense mark the end of British political culture. Is there no other form of redress?

Assuming for the purposes of the argument that your point stands up to scrutiny – unless we have a co-equal chambers how does this change with election? Indeed with both houses elected they might have egged each other on in a contest to be tougher on terrorism and consequently even less willing than the Lords to oppose any daft bit of ill thought through and illiberal anti terrorist legislation post 11/9.

However, one part of your post worries me. You’re proud that 314 peers voted on this.

However, Baroness Desouza has stated on this blog that 3-400 peers turn up each day. What are they doing if they aren’t voting on legistlation? They are collecting expenses? What are they collecting them for?

I put an FOI request in for the 12 October. Just 8 peers were in just one committee. So it clearly can’t be committee work.

Something is wrong if you think 300+ voting is a sign that the Lords are doing well and are concerned enough to vote on something.

You’re a very expensive cost, and its a serious question, are we getting any value for the money?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8356093.stm

It is about time we had a US-style ‘First Amendment’ protection for freedom of speech.