House of Lords plans fail to tackle overmighty government

Jenny Jones rightly argues that removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords is “just a tweak” (I sit in the House of Lords – and here’s why getting rid of 92 hereditary peers won’t fix it, 10 September). Sadly, she concludes by regurgitating the Gordon Brown proposals for an elected second chamber.

Those proposals did not include restoring the pre-1911 right for the Lords to block the Commons. Their real purpose can be divined from the Lords’ second reading debate on the last government’s Rwanda bill. Labour did not force a vote, even though repeal was Labour policy. Why? Was it because Labour and the Tories want to keep the absolute power they enjoy in turns: the appearance of a democratic second chamber without any substance?

Britain’s woes partly stem from giving governments too much power. It’s an obsolete model dating from the restoration of the monarchy in the 17th century. The complexity of the 21st century needs governance to be exercised closer to the people. The UK should be a federal state, with a federal government responsible for defence, foreign affairs and common standards. All other government should be by the four nations, on equal terms apart from the Belfast agreement. This should be tied together by a written constitution, capable of amendment.

The UK needs neither the Lords nor the privy council quietly making legislation (“orders in council”). It does need a strong elected people’s council, with inquisitorial functions transferred from the Commons, segregated from legislative functions. The people need the right to put policies on to a democratic agenda. Instead of forcing electors to choose a bundle of policies, choice could be unbundled. Then the UK would have a chance of leading the democratic world again, instead of sinking with a discredited system akin to the divine rights of kings.
David Kauders
Author, Reinventing Democracy: Improving British Political Governance

• Labour’s plan for limited reform of the House of Lords is just that – limited – and stops short of addressing the real changes needed. Jenny Jones is remarkably even-handed in offering praise for the role of some hereditary peers and the impact of bishops’ contributions to debates, while also highlighting the anachronism of the Church of England’s “right” to appoint 26 members.

There will soon be the resignation honours list of the former prime minister, who will elevate former cabinet ministers to the Lords, as part of the unacceptable process of being defeated at the ballot box followed by entering parliament by a different door.

The financial constraints causing “hard decisions” on other fronts should not be used to slow down the fundamental changes needed to the second chamber.
Les Bright
Exeter

• As I read out to my wife that the final four Conservative leadership contenders must pay £50,000 to party headquarters to stand, and the final two a further £150,000 (Robert Jenrick emerges as surprise frontrunner in Tory leadership race, 5 September), she assumed I was reading John Crace’s sketch. Why not just hold an auction, giving the position to the highest bidder?

The same principle could be applied to the House of Lords (which, with the removal of the last hereditary lords, could be renamed the House of Patronage), with proceeds used to reduce the public finance black hole, benefiting us all.
David Milton
Norwich

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.