Is it fair to have ministers from the House of Lords?

Eg. Mandelson and the many who are taking up posts in this coalition government. They are never elected members so why should they be given government posts?

because the governing party needs to drive legislation through the Lords. Does there need to be Cabinet Members in the Lords? Some. The Lords can be a good way of getting talent in to the cabinet. As many as there were under Brown during his last days? Probably not.

about the need for an elected House of Lords and the last Labour Government was the reason why.

Labour got elected with a huge majority in 1997 and 2001. On the back of that they introduced some good things but they also became increasingly authoritarian and increasingly dangerous as a government.

The only thing slowing down the most extreme elements of 90 day detention and other eroisions of civil liberties was the House of Lords.

In 2006 they tried to take it a stage further. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would have allowed any Minister or someone that they appointed to abolish any Act of Parliament without reference to Parliament. It was an Enabling Act proposed in the name of deregulation. we were of course to believe that it would never be used in an authoritarian member, just in the same way the numerous Anti Terror laws were only going to be used against terrorists. The Lords and the online community blocked the worst aspects of the legislation. It became a watered down deregulation act.

If there had been a second chamber dependant on the patronage of their Party and the electors that legislation would have passed.

... in order to protect us from our democratic decisions, BB?

The Skin

as it ended up being nicknamed was not in any manifesto so it had nothing to do with a democratic choice. Nor did 90 days without trial.

'If there had been a second chamber dependant on the patronage of their Party and the electors that legislation would have passed.'

So never, never trust the electors...

But what is the alternative?

Hereditary peers? A bit of an anachronism!
Appointed peers? Appointed by whom?
No second chamber at all? Then the government really would have even more impunity.

I would assume that an elected second chamber would be elected separately from the House of Commons. They might even be at times of different parties - this happens quite often in the USA.

Elected second chamber with the power to veto legislation but no power to introduce bills. Elections via PR every 4 to 5 years timed to coincide with the mid term of Commons sessions (i.e at a different date to the General Election). Those elected can not be government ministers now or in the future, and are debarred forever from standing for the House of Commons. This should eliminate all the power hungry chancers who clog up the lower house and ensure that the upper house is reasonably independent. Of course, there is zero chance anything like this would be adopted.

Something like electing a third of them at a time, via a PR system. The Lib-Con agreement says:

.