Re: The House of Lords
 

Yes thats right and each coronet is different depending on the title.

Re: The House of Lords
 

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?

Re: The House of Lords
 

I object to all the freebies they get in the upper house, and have you noticed how many of them seem to be dozing off when it shows them on the tele....:sleep: :sleep8:

Re: The House of Lords
 

Quote:

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?

Good question Cyfr!

Unless I have got it wrong, the Parliament Act was put in place to prevent the ‘Lords’ (sycophants of the monarchy) from overriding the lawful decrees of the elected members. All it has done is introduce a power struggle between the Commons and Lords and rendered the Lords into a delaying chamber. If the Parliament Act was retained is there any real point in having a second elected chamber, when all it can do is DELAY a new act? Probably because the ‘Upper House’ has made the government of the day to think again and make some amendments to a proposed new act. It’s not the best way to govern a country when an act can be delayed by one year before being forced through.

Re: The House of Lords
 

First of all do we need a ‘House of Lords’?


Yes - I'll have to think a bit more about the ret of the questions.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Thats because most of their work is done in Gentlemens Clubs over port and brandy. So the best thing to do is sleep it off while claiming allowances. :eek:

Re: The House of Lords
 

Tealeaf has the best solution so far, that's how they get you for jury service, give them the same expenses that jurors get, and at least they would be a cross section of drunks and villiage idiots, and not just the posh ones we have now.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Could be worse I could be a member. :eek:

Re: The House of Lords
 

So with an elected lords you would rather both chambers have equal power much like the US system or..?

I think the delay system is quite good as the Lords will not want to risk too much reform of them, so they won't oppose everything, they just help make sure the government stick to their manifesto.. kind of scrutiny with some power but not absolute power

Re: The House of Lords
 

Fast asleep on the Woolsack no doubt;)

Re: The House of Lords
 

Re: The House of Lords
 

I think the only other thing I would settle for is two completely elected, equal houses. Much like the US.

However I feel its unnessesary in terms of our country is very small, and we don't need a federal system like the US, but it seems to work well so based on how it works i'd settle for that.

Reform for the sake of reform is somewhat pointless however.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Changes are need for things to evolve. British Govenment sometimes seems to be stuck in the 19C. As for the US system then no we are too small but in a way it has happened with Scotland having its own parliment, Wales has an Assembly, and NI will if they sort out their silly childish bickering. Too much power in a small area leads to trouble sooner or later. For our system to work the public has to trust those in power which at the moment they do.

Re: The House of Lords
 

How Much have you had spug?:rofl38: :rofl38: :rofl38: :rofl38: :rofl38:

Re: The House of Lords
 

Not enough it was a typo. :D