Letter: After the Lords
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.After the Lords
Sir: Ken Livingstone is right that there is no case for retaining the hereditary peerage ("The Prime Minister, patronage and Labour's flawed plans for the Lords", 17 June). There is even less of a case for retaining life peers under the system of Prime Minister's patronage. Nothing could be worse than allowing the government of the day to appoint, undemocratically, members of the second chamber from their own supporters. The country needs some democratic means of appointing members to this chamber.
One suggestion is that bodies such as professional organisations, trade unions, religions and universities should vote for their own representatives, to sit for a term of, say, five or seven years. By this means we would have a chamber not consisting of party politicians but of experts in a wide field of the country's life. Why do we need party politics in the second chamber?
ALAN WILKINSON
Sevenoaks,
Kent
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments