we are not a democracy Michael, as you well know we in this country are a constitutional democracy. It was surely anti democratic for the ruling party, labour , to have to rely on its opposition , tories, to get its way on the renewal of trident. When i studied british constitution if the majority party in parliament could not achieve a majority on an important issue of legislation with the support of its own ruling party then it had to go to the country to let the people decide in a general election. we have a bad habit in this country of thinking that we can lecture other countries and use our wonderful political system as a guide for them but when you look at it properly it does not stand up to examination and yes perhaps its is time we looked to younger democracies and see how its done more fairly so that the people of this country are fairly represented after hundreds of years of sham politics.

WILLIAM BEEBY, d, england

Portillo is quoted today as saying 'cowardly politicians make bad decisions'.

If the alternative is rash bravura, I'll vote for the cowards any day of the week.

Jim Curry, Wheaton Aston, UK

Green Tax's to fund families, why not be honest and call it a family tax. David (call me light blue dave, turning pink with green tinges) Cameron has as many twists and turns as Blair.

Call a green tax and he thinks he will attract the green vote, funding for families and he thinks he will attract the family vote. Well I have news for you Mr David (call me light blue dave, turning pink with green tinges) Cameron, you are losing the blue vote.

40 years I have voted conservative, from the time on the shop floor as a memebr of the boilermakers union, working my way up to being a director of a public company.

No more, you will not get my vote 'Dave', you can go fly a kite for it. Which, by the way would be one of the few things left flying if you have your way.

James, Northampton, Northants

theres all this talk about the uk being a free country. as far a the goverment is concerned if you don't have a sizeable amount of money then you opinion isn't taken into account. which ever party comes into power there will be impossing laws meaning that us britons no longer have much choice in what we can and can't do. the aim of the government is to supress the nation and control them, not help to better them. the worst part is that there is nothing we can do about it. the situation will become worse until britain is no longer seen as a democracy.

miss. marxist, london,

"Governing" is a funny business. Do we want our system to be able to make big changes easily - the system we have - or do we want a system that makes it very difficult to make fundamental changes?

If we do make big changes, do we want them to be well thought out - to be practical? You can pay specially educated civil servants to do this - and it could be done in the open, with the public participating - proposed legislation could be put up on the internet for public comment.

The HOUSE of LORDS - the words used - are completely offensive to me. I do not want any institution with that name. I do not want people to be made "LORDS". The whole idea is very unpleasant, old fashioned, and ridiculous. OK for tourists - but not for me.

George Taylor, Oxford, UK

Cowardly politicians make bad decisions.

May I suggest you read the book "SHOPPED" by Joanna Blythman ISBN 0-00-715803-5
A Harper Collins publication
It talks about the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets and the politicians have their stacks in these.

You call these a cowardly act? Have the book and see the MD (mentally deficient) person

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

"Cowardly politicians make bad decisions"? Well, that's a surprise!

You'll be telling me next that politicians make choices with their own interests in mind, rather than the lives and interests of their own voters.

Jack Lee, Austin, TX

If an elected second chamber is a bad thing. And an appointed one is also a bad thing. Do we need a second chamber at all. Since most of our laws are imposed on us from Europe with not a scrap of democratic input we could perhaps save a shed load of money by getting rid of the whole thing. And while they are at it, get rid of the Commons too. Just employ a couple of civil servannts to rubber stamp all the EU imposed laws. even more money saved then.

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

Given the apathy that already exists towards politics in today's society, as shown by ever dwindling election turnouts, it seems illogical to create more positions within the political machine that require elections.

You need only look to America to see an example of an elected second chamber that does little to serve the ends of the people that elected it. Forget 'cash for honours' just look at the US Senate as an example of political corruption. No where else on earth would they allow big business or unelected pressure groups to influence political decision making in the same way!!

I agree to the removal of hereditary peers, I also would move for more clarity as to the criteria for membership, a more transparent nomination and approval process would also be welcome. The key question must be 'Does the Lords work? Is it fit for purpose?', If the answer is yes, then why change?

Stuart Armstrong, Banbury, UK

Having a fully elected upper house might be desirable just as long as party politics played no part in it. The election should be closed to anyone that is, or has ever been,a member of any political party. A house full of neutral and independant members who will vote on merit and with a conscience is the way to go with this.

Derek Middleton, goole uk,

The first lot to be removed from the House of Lords must be the bishops. They should never have been there in the first place and anyone who believes in the unbelievable is not fit to have a say in the government of the UK (that goes for the PM as well).

michael wilson, bidache, france

Efficient democracy is not upheld solely through elected representatives. The House of Lords provides the nation with a wealth of knowledge, experience and proficiency when it comes to many of the issues passed through the Commons. The opportunity for respected members of society with no strict party alignment to apply their wisdom on matters that the most MPs know very little about is indispensable. It would be a travesty to abandon the Lords for an elected second chamber that would in fact detract from democracy and cause chaos in a system that has seen us through plagues, depressions and two world wars.

The outcry over the cash for honours scandal goes to show that corruption will not be tolerated. The amount of media attention and police activity that has been conducted makes it unlikely that such activity could resume unknown.

So as long transparency is now maintained and all hereditary peers are eventually removed, then in my mind, we have the perfect second chamber.

Matt Umpleby, Darlington, UK

Efficient democracy is not upheld solely through elected representatives. The House of Lords provides the nation with a wealth of knowledge, experience and proficiency when it comes to many of the issues passed through the Commons. The opportunity for respected members of society with no strict party alignment to apply their wisdom on matters that the most MPs know very little about is indispensable. It would be a travesty to abandon the Lords for an elected second chamber that would in fact detract from democracy and cause chaos in a system that has seen us through plagues, depressions and two world wars.

The outcry over the cash for honours scandal goes to show that corruption will not be tolerated. The amount of media attention and police activity that has been conducted makes it unlikely that such activity could resume unknown.

So as long transparency is now maintained and all hereditary peers are eventually removed, then in my mind, we have the perfect second chamber.

Matt Umpleby, Darlington, UK

IMO the House of Lords should be a totally elected upper chamber, although if this ever came to pass , a very big question might arise. Would the proletariat be more in tune for whatever reason, to the upper house than the commons.

George Burrell, Isleworth, England

The Lords used to rule.
The Commons usurped this in the name of the people.
Now it has become evident that the Commons has been reduced to a puppet of party leaders and govt diktat, it's time for a shift back to the Lords.
A system of strict proportional representation for the Lords would create a chamber that could challenge the Commons for supremacy.
Great! The more these politicians got into tiffs with each other, the less their ability to impose hell on us.

harlan Leyside, basildon, essex

"All you Liberals or anyone else does not believe me about Brussels try and do something you want to do. Such as eat decent ice cream, or real cheese: Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas"

Well I certainly wouldn't go to the USA for either!

The EU protects our home products, and I for one am pleased that thanks to the EU we can stand up against the power of US trade on US terms.

Let's have an elected House of Lords and join the real world.

Peter GODDARD, Cheam, England

The House of Lords has two important distinguishing characteristics: its members do not have to stand for election and many of the members have active lives outside the House. Few can deny that people like Lord Winston and Lord Coe make a positive contribution but it is difficult to imagine them wanting to stand for an elected house.

As Portillo says - legitimacy comes from competence. A (at least partly) nominated House would preserve that form legitimacy.

Ron Manley, Cambridge,

Dr David Green said : ""The UK has long needed an elected second chamber like the American Senate in order to curtail some of the ludicrous legislation coming out of the House of Commons.""

The legislation coming out of the House of Commons is 'ludicrous' because the House of Commons is full of self-fancying busy-bodies, who feel that they "have" to do something, now, because 'well, we were elected to do something, weren't we?', desperate to make themselves look busy and worthwhile, because they've constantly got one eye on their tenuous position and the fact that they could be dropped, like nothing, at the next election... Why on earth would we want a second lot?

And with party list systems/prop. representation, isn't that going to make it a bit like EU elections; no one really knows who their MEP is, they just vote on party lines... And because the MEP's know that they're faceless and unknown, they can go to Brussels and pipe out any old rubbish, free from accountability?

Matt, Guildford,

Members selected at random from the electoral roll for a fixed term. Great - share out the spoils of government and get sensible people directly involved in decision making process.

David, Andorra La Vella, Andorra

Please do not get rid of the Lords. Now that the British MP's have surrendered complete Sovereignity to the Peoples Republic of Brussels who will speak for Britain? All you Liberals or anyone else does not believe me about Brussels try and do something you want to do. Such as eat decent ice cream, or real cheese

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas

It seems that, as you imply, the main reason for reforming the Lords is a desire for legitimacy. But what is it that makes the Lords feel a need for more legitimacy than they have at the moment? What do they see in the offing? Why do they need an extra coat of whitewash? I agree with most of your examination of legitimacy in so far as it has several facets. The call for an elected house in this context is over-stated. Any candidates for election would necessarily be selected and it is only convention or customary agreement that ascribes legitimacy to this form of election. Putting it another way, if an election is based on a certain understanding of the origin of the candidates and this is not in fact the reality, then that election can hardly be described as legitimate. I, myself, think that the matter of heterogeneity is much more to the point than election or selection. Having a revising chamber in which party is minimal.
The cash for peerages controversy can hardly be a reason for revising the Lords since that aberration, if proved, can be corrected by other means. If, therefore, we have to look back to 1911 for the reason for the move to revise, perhaps we should look forward to 2111 for the final result.

Henry Percy, London, UK

"We have not really descended to Third World levels of corruption, at least not below cabinet level."

Brilliant, just brilliant!

John Small, Faversham, UK

The trouble with people who seek election is that they are all of the same ilk. They serve on worthy committees, they have to be politically correct, they take no risks, they must never have to resign on grounds of principle and they must curry favour with their electorate. By nature and job requirements, they must never be creative.
This excludes most honourable, intelligent and experienced people from the walks of life that make things work. I mean senior industrialists, merchants, professionals from teaching, banking, medicine, engineering and notable artists, sportsmen and musicians. Democracy has its limits.

Mike Sedgwick, Eastleigh, Hampshire

We already have one elected house and, at the end of the day, they call the shots. What is the point of creating another? Surely the House of Lords, or whatever you might choose to call it, should provide expertise, which may not be available in the House of Commons. It is also preferable that they should not need to pander to voters. They should all be appointed.

Peter Bray, Simon's Town, South Africa

I think Michael Portillo is completely right. There is another issue, which some have mentioned. It is ludicrous to debate so-called legitimacy, or democratic accountability, in the Lords without addressing its powers. The two things should go hand in hand. Who will bother to vote or stand for a chamber with no power? Yet the power of the Lords seemingly played no role in the debate leading to the 20%, 40%, 60% etc. vote. This is all the more worrying when one recalls that the government last year was publicly contemplating reducing the Lords' powers at the same time as making them directly elected. The notion of legitimacy may thus be worse than mere sloganeering: a cynical ploy to make the Lords more acceptable by giving them less, and by that token the government via the Commons more, power.

Andrew, London,

What about a single chamber but with improved 'holding the executive to account' capability, such as lostening party whipping/ties and beefed up Select Committees?

If a second chamber is inevitable, please fixed terms and no titles.

Robert Holton, London, UK

I usually agree with Mr. Portillo, but as Brit living in the U.S. having an unelected legislative body seems ridiculous in the 21st century. The British system needs more checks and balances and the prime minister and his civil service have too much patronage. Mr. Blair's decisions on foreign policy prove that nobody is infallible. The U.S. second house has 100 senators elected for six years. They are independent but usually vote along party lines. The equivalent in the UK would be a second chamber of 20 and may attract politicians looking for a second career.

tom brady, ny, usa

by all means have an elected "house of lords", or second chamber. just two points i would like to make,(a) any rational person would make sure that the same party did not have control of both houses and (b) it must be given powers commensurate with it being an elected body. the aforementioned reasons should be sufficient for the proposal never to be enacted.

s baron, leith, tasmania

I agree that the Lords despite its archaic system of appointment and patronage works well, its not boken so why fix it?. The real problem with this coutries is the total lack of democratic legitimacy of the Commons, elections are now only contested in around 60-70 seats the rest of the countries votes are irrelevant. Outside the swing marginals there is no connection between the parties and voters . The majority of voters are taken for granted and ignored. The last thing we need is for a second chamber 'elected' by the party machines to create another layer of party placemen who ignore the real needs of the country and its people.

Huw Williams, milford haven, U.K.

One can see why there might need to be elected councils in local government, a Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and so on, but why have two elected chambers at Westminster? The American system was designed to allow for the rights of individual states (hence in the Senate the states get two members each, whatever their size). No one is suggesting a similar role for the House of Lords in the UK as a way of appeasing Cornish nationalists or Geordie separatists.
The function of the Lords should be as a revising body to assess proposals from the Commons (a lot of legisation is rushed). It would be a way of saying 'Did you really mean that?' If the Commons says 'Yes, we did', then the legislation would have to go through, because the Commons alone has been elected. An independently appointed body is best for that. You can't get the right sort of government by simply multiplying the number of parliaments, as if you hoped that one of them might turn out sensible.

Dr. Mark Corner, Brussels, Belgium

The unelected Lords worked fabulously well, not least because the partisan element was largely subordinate to the pragmatic. If it works, don't fix it. The principle apples as much today as it did 7 years ago. Stop meddling!

Roddy, Christchurch, New Zealand

Michael..i think 655 elected members in one place is enough to make accountable political decisions for these small islands.
If we need 2nd opinions we could have General Elections every 3 years.The cynical, silent ,self- interest calculating Mp's on the backbenches need to be shaken out.

Mick, Glasgow,

All influential people need not be elected, agreed: but people with an inlfuence over our lives should be. Furthermore they should be accountable. And we may still be a long way from third world style corruption, but this is not the point. We are most certainly nearer to old style monolythic government where parliament is simply a showcase of legitimacy while the growth of agencies and other bodies assumes more the role of an executive. It is somewhat rich to hear British commentators criticise Brussels for the very trends that are occuring in the UK at large. Westminster is becoming as powerless as the EU parliament.

John, bonn, Germany

Totally disagree with Mr Portillo. The UK has long needed an elected second chamber like the American Senate in order to curtail some of the ludicrous legislation coming out of the House of Commons. The moot question now is whether, finally, to introduce proportional representation in a UK national election? I would not favour PR for the Commons but it's a must for the new, reformed Lords. After the shenanighans in the Greek parliament over recent weeks, when the current President of Socialism International, G Papandreou, has led his socialist party (Pasok) out of parliament to avoid two critical votes, it's time Greece had a second chamber as well. Lead the way, UK!

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

The biggest problem with an entirely elected House of Lords is replication of duty. Who will be the sovereign representative in a constituency? Who should one lobby? Perhaps this is an issue which is losing importance as the electorate are evidently becoming increasingly apathetic, in which case another election can surely only be a bad thing. As far as I can see voter fatigue will only contribute further to deligitimsing the British system.

Becky Brearley, Durham, UK

I don't usually agree with the opinion of Mr. Portillo, however, on this issue his analysis is the only sensible interpretation of this ludicrous scheme. To reform a system this important requires a stronger and more intelligent reason than mere legitimising can bring.

Michael-James Clifton, Leicester,, UK