It is interesting that politicians of all parties are very happy to inflict all kinds of demoralising changes and upheaval on the public sector in the name of efficiency and improvement. Yet those same politicians want to preserve their own arcane parliamentary working practises. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (By the way I have never worked in the public sector.)

I wholeheartedly agree with all of Caroline Lucas' proposals. I recall watching BBC Parliament shortly after the expenses scandal broke, and I was nauseated by the self congratulatory language of parliamentarians (Rt. Hon. Gentleman this, Hon. Friend that).

I am also utterly flabbergasted that there exists little pink ribbon's (surely green/red would be more appropriate) upon which to secrete ones sword. Do these fools honestly think themselves warrior democrats?!

@? "People seem to be so concerned with the idea of an elected second chamber that they fail to question its existence at all.

I doubt it will happen soon, if ever, but I fully support the complete abolition of the second chamber. The commons though would have to be reformed in order to cope with this."

There is actually a very good justification for the existence of an upper chamber. In an ideal legislature the lower chamber would nominally be tasked with creating and debating legislature and the upper chamber would nominally be task with providing intelligent, informed and reasoned oversight of that legislature.

There is no doubting that our upper chamber needs to be reformed, but a move towards its wholesale abolition and/or democratisation would be a mistake. We need an upper chamber filled with the meritable, those experts in science, medicine, bioethics, international diplomacy and law, criminal law, finance and economics, etc... An upper chamber properly equipped to scrutinise legislature on the basis of a lifetimes worth of accrued specialist knowledge and real-world experience (something lacking in the careerist politician). A democratically elected upper chamber, with the best intentions, cannot provide that. By nature and necessity politicians are rhetoricians; creatures of charm with, at best, a dilettante level of expertise. Likewise, the wholesale abolition of the upper chamber will preclude any such scrutiny being brought to bare.

What we need is an upper chamber appointed, not by politicians, but by an independent body charged with identifying genuine talent, genuine merit. Such a body should be precluded from making political selections (no more Labour/LibDem/Conservative Lords!) and should properly scrutinised by the legislature and judiciary to prevent this. Any appointments to such a chamber should be based on fixed 5-year contracts, with provisions for de-selection/dismissal via public petition, and for impeachment procedures and automatic dismissal following a criminal (or civil) conviction.

What we need is a BETTER upper chamber, One based on reason and meritocracy. Neither a democratised upper chamber (an effective clone of the lower chamber) nor it's abolition will achieve this. I'm under no illusion that what I propose above is a tall order, many will say that what is meritable is a largely subjective concern, but I believe that it is achievable and certainly worth the effort.

Kind Regards,

Lee Hyde.

I agree with most of what Stephen Gash says in that you can't call yourself a democratic country when the English are denied the same democratic rights as the rest of the UK, a Parliament.

If these so-called political parties were serious about reform they would put a referendum before the English people immediatly, after all Scotland has had two until they gave the right answer!

The costs of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies would be adequately covered by reducing the number of MPs in the UK Parliament to a more resonable number of, say 200. If it's good enough for the yanks it's more than enough for the UK.

Dear Lox, so the idiotic 1980s are a reason to continue to beat the English over the head? Rubbish! before the lopsided Barnett formula was introduced (Which the man who devised it said if he were a man living in Manchester he'd move to Scotland. That he was ashamed it carried his name.) There was the Goshen formula introduced in response to the Irish unrest, the formula was incorrect and paid Scotland too much from 1888 to 1970!

You may be sick of the Union but so am I and are a great many English people and don't start on about the oil!

The funding cuts laid out in the Spending Review October 2010 are Scotland -22.4%, Wales -27.3%, Northern Ireland -19% and England -34.9%.

Theres equality and democracy for you Lox. The first major party that says it will support a referendum in England would get my vote and millions of other English votes!

Never thought one would agree with a crypto-communist !
Power to Carol's elbow !

Honestly Caroline, I would have thought you, as a lone backbencher, would have known why people don't want to change the traditional voting procedure.

It's because the 15 minutes spent queueing up to vote and then milling around to vote is the best way to give yourself face time with often otherwise unaccountable ministers. It's a great way to press matters directly affecting constituents into their lap, avoiding the usual Whitehall bureaucracy.

NOT because some doddery backwoodsman likes to spend hours of his time standing up in the aye lobby.

Ehtch Tee,

I didn't realise you were so ancient, now don't go being a grumpy old man will you? and look out for the dodgy knees!

Lox

You ask who's beating the English about the head. I never said that to your previous post, I said "so the idiotic 1980s are a reason to beat the English over the head?" in effect asking you if that was any justification for the fact that there is The English Democratic Deficit, a question posed by Gerry Hassen in The Scotsman Newspaper on the 29th January.

English people as a result of Scotland being granted a Parliament and Wales an Assembly set up the Campaign for an English Parliament, a non party political pressure group to campaign for an English Parliament, I am a member. Since the late 1990s we've held Rallies, Conferences and Marches. We held a March around Westminister in 2007,(I'm sure the date rings a bell with you) and handed in a petition to Downing Street demanding a referendum for an English Parliament of 30,000 names, which was of course ignored. The BBC and C4 filmed the march and interviewed quite a few people. They both promised to televise the event but never did. We've held meetings at Westminister and asked our sitting MPs to attend they've promised to and only an handful have.

There is also a political party called the English Deomcrats. I would like to stress that neither has anything whatsoever to do with the looneys of the English Defense League!

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland DO receive more central govenment speeding than they should, the man who The Barnett formula is named after stated that he is ashamed that it carries his name and it was only meant to last a few years in the 1970s.

Lox, let me know when you are going on the campaign trail for Scottish Independence and I'll gladly come and support you, only get on with it we are fed up with people from Scotland threatening it and never doing it!

@Stuart Eels
"If these so-called political parties were serious about reform they would put a referendum before the English people immediatly, after all Scotland has had two until they gave the right answer!"

If you acutlly looked at these referenda, you'd discove that we did vote Yes it 1979, it was the Labour Government that said no (citing a 40% quota not met, despite being a relatively high turnout compared to general elections). This led the SNP to vote against Labour in the confidence vote, causing its fall.

Also, you make this into a simple case of Scotland gets more money then England this is unfair, however if you look at the tax contributions versus regional spending, there are only 3 net contribtors to the Treasury: London, South East England and then Scotland. Every other region is a net reciepiant.

I support regional devolution to England, but it is quite often made out that "if we get rid of Scotland everything would be solved", but the reality is that the main problem with the UK as it is today (Scotland and England both) is that our industry and development is so heavily based in the South East that it doesn't help those who live outside it, and punnishes all but the extremely wealthy who live inside it. Taking money away from Scotland won't change that...

People seem to be so concerned with the idea of an elected second chamber that they fail to question its existence at all.

I doubt it will happen soon, if ever, but I fully support the complete abolition of the second chamber. The commons though would have to be reformed in order to cope with this.

This government and its followers are not stupid. They are allergic to anything electronic.
Voting using this method would be the thin end of the wedge.
For obvious reasons, each MP would have to provide biometric details. Even DNA! Maybe even an electronic anklet! And in the wrong hands....
Mae West on being introduced to a rather pompous individual asked, "And what do you do?" Came the reply -"Well, I'm sort of a politician." Mae giving him the once over, responded. "I don't like work either!"
Time-keeping for everyone else - not for the parliamentarians. We've got our eye on you MPs as Cole Porter wrote knowingly.

Moonlighter

Electronic voting would nor suit MP'S as they do something called doubling up or pairing, that is if an MP is unable to vote in person he can nominate another Mp to vote on his behalf. Probably another fiddle by MP's

It seems Lucas just wants to speed up the process of battering the English.

Devolution has enacted an apartheid system against England, the latest being the selling off of English forests, while Scottish forests remain in Scottish ownership.

The British Parliament has not merely neglected the English it has actively worked against us.

The unelected House of Lords that does not scrutinise the devolved chambers, should be replaced by an elected English Parliament to focus on England.

Of course, that would be anathema to a collectivist like Lucas. Bashing the English is a religion to such people and the thought of treating English people as equals in this blasted United Kingdom would probably make her and the rest of the Anglophobes in the Palace of Westminster break out in boils.

I'd be interested to hear Caroline's thoughts on whether it's good for our democracy when MPs vote without participating in or even listening to the relevant debate - something which seems fairly common already, and would presumably happen even more if the votes were clustered as she proposes.