<% ballot="47162" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

What could be more independant and act as a check/balance on the Commons then a non elected body like the Lords? They have no axe to grind, no 'career' to foster.
Martin Pearmain, Australia

The hereditary peers are the last relic of rule by divine right of kings. We started the removal of this in 1649. It is about time to finish the job.
Brian Anderson, UK

We claim to be a democracy. If this is the case both houses should be elected. We could try holding the elections for the upper house two years after a general election. This might keep the Government on it's toes.
Alan Biddlecombe, England

Lord! From a foreigner's point of view it seems remarkable a modern society like Blairite Britain still tolerates such an outdated, feudal system as the House of Lords...but what would a 'simple' colonial know!
Jay Geuting, Australia

So much of what is "British" is being lost. One of the things that makes Britain so special is the history and the pageantry. "European currency" an "elected" House of Lords. My American husband and I wish to retire to Britain, we only hope it is still there in five years.
Lynda Wright Love, USA/Wales

Whatever its current image, the peerage originally gained its position by warmongering and exploitation, possibly excepting those who got it simply by pimping and procuring for royalty. Common folk have been little more than an economic resource to these people. That their descendants should inherit that influence by accident of birth is an obscenity.
John Luby, Scotland

If the House of Lords was to take on the responsibility of a working house by implementing Royal Commissions with the House of Commons then the British Government would be more united in the eyes of Britain and the world.
Neville Sloane, Canada

Too much democracy is definitely a bad idea when it comes to a second chamber, and hereditary peers are a vital ingredient to the balance of the Upper House. I agree with those in America who are five years ahead of us culturally and politically when they say "we are sick of liberalism", and point out that some people want the UK to change into some dreadful socialist republic with about as much standing and cultural background in the world as Greenland. The House of Lords is unique, and when peope start to shake off their liberal dogma they will see that they have succeeded in destroying the concept of the United Kingdom.
James T Ramsay, 15 yrs old, Great Britain

I believe there should be an upper house but instead of, as at present the members being chosen by a biological lottery, the members should be chosen at random using the present jury choosing system. Life peers would remain but the other people chosen would sit for three years. They would replace hereditary peers. Like them they do not have to attend but if they do then they are paid and receive similar allowances. The House's powers would be the same as at present and we would have a rapid way to test the public's reactions to actions of the Commons.
John W Evans, UK

The notion of hereditary peerage stands in direct contradiction to the fundamentals of our society. It is an anachronism repugnanat to the notion of democracy and a glaring affront to all those who wish to participate in politics as elected officials. It is wholly unjustifiable by logic or modern ideology, the sooner it is dispensed with the better. We need progressive democracy not regressive aristocracy.
Wayne Cuthbertson, Scotland

Kicking out hereditary peers alone will convert the House of Lords into the most exclusive quango in the land under the complete personal control of the PM. A replacement system should be designed and approved first and then used to replace the Lords if that is what is desired. One ought to remember though that the Lords carries out its main function of being a revising chamber very well and the old motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind.
Mark Harper, England

It apears that the current Labour government has forgotten the lessons of Burke. The foundations to society are property, class, and community. To destroy the House of Lords would deal another body blow to these traditions.
Matthew R. A. Heiman, USA

This is one of the pillars on which was built a horrifically oppressive class structure that still exists today. If a person is worthy of respect by who they were born to, another is also worthy of disrespect for the same reason. The time has come for a meritocracy, from her Majesty, down to the humblest of British citizens -- not subjects. A republic.
Elizabeth Browning, USA

Maybe the present system is out-dated, but there should be an element within our constitution that reflects a residual 'received wisdom' which is untainted by populist policies necessary for HoC re-election.
Andrew Williams, Los Angeles, USA (Exchange Student)

I can't see any justification for either birth or a position in any non- accountable body (such as "the established church") giving the right to govern. If they really are the great and the good, then I'm sure that we would vote for them.
Brian N Butterworth, UK

Their families have earned the right, and as they are often the ones who own most of the land and money in the country it is only right that they have a greater say in the way it is run. I think the House of Lords should also have company directors from the largest UK companies as well, as their views can change the British economy greatly.
Stephen Thornhill, UK

Britian seems bent on destroying the historical connection it has with its own past. The glory of Britain has been the dual nature of its government. While Americans have elected government - this by no means is superior to the form of government in which America was born. Yes, updating and moderization are good, but we do not need another USA on the other side of the Atlantic. Evaluate your traditions and future visions carefully.
Rev Timothy Wagner, USA

The House of Lords has proven a moderator to Governments both Labour and Conservative. Hereditory Peerages may seem controversial in this day and age, but they are a useful almost apolitical force important in our increasingly capricious age.
James Cooper, UK

The UK has been quite vociferous on promoting democratic practice and good governance in other countries, especially in Africa. I think it is only fair that we do away with the "do as we say approach" and begin to recognise that institutions that smack of patronage and perpetrate the influence of one group over another are bad, not only for the third world, but all countries in the "international community."
Nathan Chishimba, Zambia

It's time the old dinosaurs were laid out to rest. Why should a priveleged few have the right to decide matters that affect us all?
Paul Martell-Mead, UK

No way should they be hereditary. The modern world should be based on equality and meritocracy - not the ancient feudal system. It's not as if these people care about the issues they're supposed to discuss. They don't have a genuine interest in national affairs.
Saul March, Leeds, England

It's completely unfair that someone can be born to control government when there are other people who have to fight elections and work through the system.
Michelle Downing, UK

The fundamental test of a democracy is how easy it is for the people to sack a representative who does not represent or govern them to their satisfaction. We cannot sack the Lords whether they are appointed or hereditary. They should therefore be abolished. One thought: If the Lords is abolished, the chamber could be used for the new 'Council of the Isles' to sit in. That could be our second chamber.
Teddy O'Neill, Britain

There should be no more hereditary peers. But I don't think you can take the rights away from the current Lords. Hereditary peers should be allowed to die out and then the House of Lords could be repopulated with individuals who are more representative of the British people.
Abigail Mann, Leeds, UK

I'm happy to see hereditary peers in parliament, but the law should be changed so that the title can pass to female offspring, not just the sons - that really is feudal.
Margaret Keown, Canada

I can't believe people are suggesting we should have a second chamber of elected peers. We'll end up like the americans! The whole point is to have people of sound mind who are outside the normal political system.
Bob Manning, USA (UK ex-pat)

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©