Jonathan Freedland talks of "Tory traditionalists keen to keep democracy at bay" (In a vote for Christmas, it's the turkeys who prevail, 11 July). Is that such a bad thing? We currently have one elected house rife with cronyism, dishonesty and second-rate corruption; do we want another? I'm not, at present, arguing that democracy is fundamentally flawed but I wouldn't trust 90% of Britain's population to tell me the time, let alone have an informed understanding of international economics or diplomacy in Africa, or be able to choose one government over another based on performance, proposed policies or morality.
An elected second house would lead to a form of professional political class like the one we have in the Commons; a class susceptible to cronyism, corruption and stupidity in return for a cabinet post or a vote. Elected houses have to pander to the public, the public are generally stupid; in return for a vote politicians set aside all petty considerations (like the law, morality, basic human decency and common sense) and pass stupid, kneejerk, dangerous laws (the only people to disagree with Her Majesty's government passing dangerous laws in the name of anti-terrorism were a bunch of out-of-touch 90-year-old judges, who have been replaced by a tame political supreme court).
For all its faults, the Lords is a brake on laws and policies driven by vote-hungry members of parliament drawing policy directly from the Daily Mail; it'd be a shame if we only learn to value it when it's gone.
Gareth Davies
Dartford, Kent
• "Politicians find it hard not to play politics," Jonathan Freedland complains. Why shouldn't they play politics? Labour's opposition to the bill may well have been designed to cause trouble for the coalition; if so, I applaud the tactic. It is not the House of Lords that is attacking the poor and the vulnerable, and destroying the NHS and the education system. Anything that Labour does to bring a premature end to the coalition and increase the chances of an early election is more than justifiable. In any case, the Lords reform as proposed is poorly thought-out and unlikely to enhance democracy. There will be plenty of time for effective and considered reform of the second chamber when Labour is back in government.
Dr Chris Morris
Kidderminster, Worcestershire
• Jonathan Freedland argues that many MPs voted against Lords reform because they fancy a warm seat in the Lords when they retire. He is both cynical and wrong. As most of these antis were new-entry young Tories, it seems unlikely that they voted to secure a retirement home at the end of their political careers, in 30 or 40 years. But if they had, they would surely have supported plans to elect the Lords. With their experience and contacts, they would be near-certainties to be chosen for their party's list for election to the Lords: 450 juicy 15-year terms beckoned. By contrast, their chances of being nominated for the relatively small number of places open to MPs from their party would be slim.
David Lipsey
Labour, House of Lords
• So, to punish the Lib Dems for going into coalition with the Tories, Labour joined up with even more rightwing Tories to sabotage the timetable for Lords reform. I despise the coalition government, too, but Labour has eschewed a historic opportunity for democratic reform in favour of petty point-scoring.
Darren Johnson
Green party member, London assembly
• The failure of the Tories to deliver reform of the Lords has spared the Lib Dems the humiliation of watching the Tory party changing parliamentary boundaries and increasing its chances of a knockout win in the next election. Perversely, this Tory party, which for a generation had no Cornish MPs, has saved the Anglo-Cornish border from an infringement for which the Lib Dems would never be forgiven. Even more important than the oggie (pasty) tax U-turn.
Tim James
Penzance, Cornwall
• Stephen Dorrell argues that Lords reform will enable a proper check on the executive (Disturbing the balance, 9 July). If the Commons can't adequately control the executive, why not examine how it works and make necessary changes? This would go with the grain of our history instead of cutting across it.
Instead, there is a proposal that will actually grow the power of the executive, by reducing the number of MPs but not the number of government office holders. Already, fixed-term parliaments have increased the executive's power by removing from the electorate for five years any right to agree or disagree with an unelected government's programme.
Constitutional reform in Britain calls out for a thorough review of all parts of the state instead of the piecemeal changes on offer. Apart from Lords reform, we have Scottish independence, or at least increased devolution, plus the tangled web of our constitutional arrangements with the EU, on our agenda. Now is the time to initiate a far-reaching review of the constitution rather than tinkering with one part of it.
John Matthews
Bath
• Rightwing Tory MPs complain that a reformed, democratically elected House of Lords would compete with the House of Commons (70 Tory rebels sign letter opposing Lords reform, 9 July). Surely, as believers in competition in other walks of life, they should embrace it in their own place of work? The rest of us are benefiting hugely from competition in healthcare, transport, utilities, banking and so forth.
David England
Liverpool
• We have heard over the last few days much pretentious posing from Tory MPs and many of their colleagues in the upper chamber, concerning the latest, and long overdue, proposals for the reform of the House of Lords (Editorial, 10 July). I hope it is not cynical to perceive a measure of self-interest from those seeking to damage or delay these reforms.
The House of Lords has had a built-in Tory majority for as long as I can remember. Whilst professing itself to be a "reforming" or "revising" chamber, it has used this majority to unashamedly pass, virtually "on the nod", endless bits of regressive and suspect pieces of Tory legislation, from the poll tax to the recent NHS bill. During the same period it has opposed, delayed and sought to reject almost all of the steps taken by former Labour governments to introduce social reforms, from the inception of the NHS to any changes to the House of Lords itself.
The self-serving nature of those opposed to change becomes even more insidious if one considers that some of our lordships may be in danger of losing their present position of privilege, whilst those in the lower chamber who still harbour aspirations towards preferment by some future prime minister, could have their hopes of elevation dashed by the changes currently being proposed. If the proposed legislation is defeated, we should perhaps ask the Cicero question: "Qui bono?"
Gordon Watson
Royston, Hertfordshire
• Charles Kennedy (Comment, 10 July) is right that progressives, socialists and Liberals have been in favour of reform of the House of Lords for a very long time. But if we are on the page of democratic reform, the Chartist demand in 1838 for annual parliaments should not be forgotten either. That demand was lost as radical Liberalism declined in the early years of the 20th century, and Labour and labourism rose. As Ralph Milliband, the father of the current Labour leader, noted, Labour became obsessed with defending existing parliamentary forms but that is not the heritage of the Labour movement.
Dr Keith Flett
London Socialist Historians Group
• Party lists; 15-year terms; no re-election. Democratic? Not. Better leave the current ludicrous arrangements in place until someone comes up with a sensible proposal.
Catherine Wykes
Chellaston, Derby
