[andrewb]

First of all do we need a ‘House of Lords’?
We do definatly. The house of lords often put forward amendments which the commons have not even thought about.

Should it be re-named?
Maybe, but not to 'Upper House' as that implys that the Lords are more important than the elected commons.

Who should be eligible to serve in the ‘Upper House’?
Maybe not a 40 age limit, but certainly not young. The lords are wise because they have a lot of experience in their various backgrounds, they can often see things the commons have not thought of.

How many members in the ‘Upper House’?
I think theres about 400 seats in the Lords, so i'd say 400. I believe that if you are a lord you should use your vote on matters that you know a lot about, not use it as a status symbol.

How should it be populated?
I think it should remain appointed. With elections you start relying on other people to fund campaigns and things, which influences your voting. Currently theres very little voting along party lines because once somebody is in the lords there is no risk of them losing this place or losing privilages like MP's can in the Commons.

Of course its open to appointment abuse, this needs to be solved, but I dont think having an elected lords is the way to do it.



Jambutty, how would the decision making happen between the 'Upper House' and whatever the commons are named? Would it remain the same where the commons can override the lords after a year using the parliament act?