The Beeb has responded to the complaints I and others submitted earlier in the week.

BBC Three: on-screen identifier:

We are sorry to viewers who found the new BBC Three identifier distracting – it was changed to make it the same as the channel’s logo, which made it slightly bigger.

However, viewers’ feedback is important to us and as a result, the identifier was made softer and less intrusive; from August 10, it will also be smaller.

BBC Three website

The story on DOGS was intended to be light-hearted and to encourage discussion on the important issue of on-screen graphics.

On reflection, we feel that we did not quite achieve the right tone and apologise for the offence this has caused some of our users. For this reason we have decided to remove the story from the website.

Rafael at the Observer blog has come up with a lovely turn of phrase to describe Big Brother contestant and erstwhile Labour council candidate Eugene Sully:

He is geekier than the IT support team at a Trainspotters v Star Trek fans maths olympiad.

Naturally, this blog is backing Eugene to win. You can help by texting* the word Eugene to 64404.

Why back Eugene? Not just because he’s geeky, but because he’s the only housemate who isn’t in some way malevolent or malicious – despite Derek Laud’s encouraging him to bitch about the rest of the house. Seeing the other contestants faces’ as Eugene launches into a monologue about radio components or rolling televisions is worth the price of voting alone. Those housemates – which is most of them, frankly – who place looks and clothes above being nice to people deserve to be taught a lesson. And Big Brother fans should appreciate setting the precedent that someone who enters the house halfway through the series can still go on to win.

Go on, text* Eugene to 64404.

(*Costs 35p more than a standard text. Please ask the permission of whoever pays the bill before texting. Your home is at risk, blah, blah, blah…)

One of my favourite blogs is The Law West of Ealing Broadway – I’m always pleased when new entries pop up in Bloglines. It’s a wonderfully informative blog written by a West London magistrate, mostly reporting on cases over which he has presided (with details changed to protect those involved). If, like me, you’ve never set foot in a courtroom, it’s a real eye-opener- plus it’s enjoyably written. Don’t take my word for it, though – head on over.

Ninety-four years ago, the Parliament Act 1911 received Royal Assent. The Act was intended to begin the process of replacing the hereditary House of Lords with a democratic second chamber. Nearly a century later, the only elected members of the House of Lords are those hereditary peers elected by and from a small group of other gentry.

The Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto said:

As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.

While most, but not all, of the hereditary peers have gone, the House of Lords in no more democratic (although ironically it is more representative, the current party balance in the Lords more accurately representing the votes cast in the 2005 General Election than the seats in the House of Commons). The British Government is keen to export the principle of democratic governance, but democracy begins at home.

Why do we need a second chamber at all? Revising legislation to make it better written and less open to loopholes would surely be better done by civil servants qualified in law, employed to check the wording of new bills and reporting to the legislature. In America, the bicameral federal congress consists of the House of Representatives, based on population, and the Senate, where power is divided equally between states. The second chamber should, then, perform a role that requires a democratic basis – be that making substantive changes to laws or holding the executive to account – and either have a role distinct from the Commons or represent the population in a different way.

If the House of Lords is to continue with its current powers and responsibilities, it is the composition which must change. The argument that “It’s not the system you’d invent but it’s the best we’ve got” doesn’t hold water. If we are to preach democracy to others, we must do everything we can to ensure that ours is the best we can have.

As well as being an advocate of Lords reform, Robin Cook was a valued proponent of proportional representation. Yet the single best way the Government could defeat calls for PR for the Commons would be to introduce it for elections to the Lords. Two houses constituted in different ways: one by first-past-the-post, one by the single transferable vote, would complement each other.

But would this make the Lords more legitimate? To advocates of PR (usually ignored by the Labour Government anyway), yes. But would this threaten the primacy of the Commons? No. The relative powers of the two houses should be set down in law – ideally in a formal constitution. If this document, endorsed by the population – who, after all, have never been asked what form of government they would prefer – enshrines the supremacy of the House of Commons, it will be protected from overzealous Lords. Even without a constitution, a law defining the powers of the House of Lords would protect the power of the Commons.

This is not the dark ages and our laws should not be dictated by our tribe elders. An unelected second chamber is as unjustifiable as a benevolent dictatorship: both may produce welcome outcomes but both inhibit the freedom of the people to decide their own destiny. Reform was overdue in 1911; now it’s urgent. It’s time to elect the lords.

(This entry fulfils the Blog for Victory PledgeBank pledge. For more on Lords reform marking his anniversary, see the New Politics Network blog.)