Jon Bright (London, OK): Wouldn't it be a shame if the House of Lords, which has just recently come over all Web 2.0, was swept away before any truly juicy details start to emerge from the blog? Well - probably something we could live with. The Financial Times reports today that cross-party talks on House of Lords reform, which are being led by Jack Straw, are nearing completion (which I came to via Peter Hoskin at the Coffee House). Agreement already exists in a number of areas: the new chamber will have 400 or so members, called "senators," who will be paid a salary (currently Lords can just claim expenses of around £80 a day). The senators will be 80% or 100% elected, on the basis of some sort of STV system, and will serve 12-15 years in three terms. Finally, it seems like existing life peers will be slowly phased out, with new senators elected in their place - whilst hereditary peers may be axed on the spot.
Lords reform since 1997 has been a slow process, full of compromises, and there are still a few issues unresolved. The FT reports that parties will still be able to confer titles on those who donate large sums of money, but will no longer be able to automatically ensconce them in the chamber. However, some of that may also depend on how the members are elected - 400 peers being elected once every four years, with maximum terms, means there will always be some spare places for parties to give away - one feels that large scale donors to political parties will still be fairly well represented. Nevertheless, this seems like a step forward - and, as with so many types of democratic reform, the issue for me is to begin the process of opening out power and carry on from there, rather than to get it 100% right first time. If Straw (and, by extension, Brown) pull this off, it will truly be an achievement.
