Only 9% want an entirely appointed House of Lords
New polling from Savanta ComRes shows it’s not only the means of getting into the House of Commons that the public wants to change:
More details here, which back up previous polling findings about public hostility to the continuing presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
NOW AVAILABLE TO PRE-ORDER: My next book tells you all about how to make sense of political polling – Polling Unpacked: the history, uses and abuses of political opinion polls.
on the basis of the authority they presumed from ‘advisory’ EU referendum then this gives them ‘a clear mandate’, or if you prefer ‘the people have decided’, especially if this ‘vote’ is counted on FPTP.
This sort of polling tells us about preconceived ideas, with many unspoken or recorded assumptions and prejudices. If the polling was the result of a ‘campaign’ where each of the options were spelt out as detailed proposals, the results might have been quite different.
For example, ‘Elected’ or ‘Partly elected’ begs the questions of Elected members: How would they be elected? How would candidates be selected? How would the voting system work? Would there be a geographical ‘constituency’? (and much more, including the relationship between a fully elected upper house and the House of Commons.)
‘Appointed’ or ‘partly appointed’ begs the questions of: Who appoint them? Independent Commission/ Political parties/ Prime Minister/ Donor auction …. How would candidate peers qualify for consideration?
and of course if there is to be a mix or elected and appointed, what would be the proportions? Would there be a geographical ‘constituency’? and more
Overall people would want to know how long peers would serve and the mechanism for retirement, and replacement.
An interesting question at this stage might be:
Should the upper house be largely composed of peers linked to a particular political party, or largely composed of peers who self identify as independent?