The House of Lords
 

First of all do we need a ‘House of Lords’?
I believe that we do - to curb the excesses of Parliament.

Should it be re-named?
Yes! Suggest ‘Upper House’ or something similar.

Who should be eligible to serve in the ‘Upper House’?
Good question! I would suggest a British citizen without a criminal record who has been a British citizen for at least 20 years and is 40 years of age or older but under 75.

How many members in the ‘Upper House’?
No more than 200.

How should it be populated?
Elect all.
Appoint all.
Elect 50%, appoint 50% or any combination between electing and appointing.
A panel to decide who gets appointed.

Elect the members of the ‘Upper House’ is the only democratic solution. But by whom? Obviously it has to be the electorate.

Appointing to the second chamber (Upper House) is open to abuse, whether it happens or not and the current investigation seems to suggest that some abuse has been prevalent.

A partial appointment still has the same potential of abuse.

Who appoints the panel?

Finally - party politics has no place in the ‘Upper House’. A free vote for all members as their conscience dictates.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Jambutty I appologise if it looks a bit like a ripoff how I answered but I felt this was the easiest way as it is set as questions.

First of all do we need a ‘House of Lords’?
I believe that we do - to curb the excesses of Parliament.

Agree the "other chamber" is a bit toothless at the moment

Should it be re-named?
Yes! Suggest ‘Upper House’ or something similar.

Agree but the Commons would have to be renamed.

Who should be eligible to serve in the ‘Upper House’?
Good question! I would suggest a British citizen without a criminal record who has been a British citizen for at least 20 years and is 40 years of age or older but under 75.

Agree but they have to be in good health

How many members in the ‘Upper House’?
No more than 200.

It should be an odd number to avoid stalemate

How should it be populated?
Elect all.
Appoint all.
Elect 50%, appoint 50% or any combination between electing and appointing.
A panel to decide who gets appointed.

Elect the members of the ‘Upper House’ is the only democratic solution. But by whom? Obviously it has to be the electorate.

Yes as it is our intrests that they would be there to protect.


Appointing to the second chamber (Upper House) is open to abuse, whether it happens or not and the current investigation seems to suggest that some abuse has been prevalent.

Proven to often in the past.


A partial appointment still has the same potential of abuse.

Yes.


Who appoints the panel?

No panel the voter decides whether it is under the first past the post or proportional representation.


Finally - party politics has no place in the ‘Upper House’. A free vote for all members as their conscience dictates.

Agree its the people they were elected by should coe first not what some politition with there own agenda wants. This should stop the infighting that inevitabley leads to the watering down of important legislation and the constant toing and frowing that takes months.

Re: The House of Lords
 

No need to apologise SPUGGIE J. It is an excellent way to put your response.

Now, how can we convince the rest of the UK electorate?

Re: The House of Lords
 

It would depend on the ammount of apathy that is around. Some would be scared of what they might regard as such a radical change and would stick with the devil they know. It would come down to convincing them that the change would benifit them day in day out and could stop some of the scandel that is infecting British politics like an Ebola outbreak.

It would be the MP's that would kick up the most fuss along the lines of its their right to do what they do.

Re: The House of Lords
 

This is a double edged sword for me, unelected bodies have no place in a democracy, having said that iv'e often been glad it's there when the party in power in the lower house tries to 'bulldoze' legislation I do not agree with through Parliament. How do you get a non political body as a second chamber? How do you elect it, when people usually have basic political leanings, do we have a system similar to the USA, or do nothing for fear of gaining a system that will not work as well as the one we have?

Re: The House of Lords
 

I take your point about the current House of Lords curbing the excesses of Parliament Ianto.W. but the government can override the Lords if they want to and has done.

The majority of this country does not have political leanings as such and certainly only a small minority actually belong to a political party.

Quote:

How do you get a non political body as a second chamber?

Each candidate from a pre-designated area would put themselves up for election to the Upper House and the country would cast their votes in a national general election. 2 years after a government is voted into office would probably be a good time. Note that I did not state power, as is the general trend these days. Power implies dictatorship. But TB and Co all use the term ‘power’. It shows their thinking!

Many people always come back with the old standby “we have had this system for hundreds of years and it’s served us well, so why change.” What about “to make things better and more accountable to the public!” We used to light our rooms with a flame of some sort for thousands of years but we don’t do that today.

Jack Straw is pushing the House of Lords reforms but I fear that the end result will not do much for you and me.

Re: The House of Lords
 

With the Labour Party (old and new) the abolition of the House of Lords always was, and still is, part of their ongoing class war. No matter how Bleuuugh and his chums try to dress it up and spin it. This has nothing to do with furthering the aims of representative democracy, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that Their Lordship's House is now mostly peopled with appointees. The House of Lords has served as an effective break on the excesses of the executive since the 13th century and has added a moral and humanist dimension to some of the more dictatorial legislation that governments of differing political persusions have tried to foist upon us.

It worked precisley because the hereditory peerage were not elected or appointed or beholden to any one party, they sat in the House of Lords because it was their duty to sit in the House of Lords and that duty they passed on to the next in line. I am not arguing that the hereditory peers were always apolitical and impartial, they were not because no one can be, but they were the closest thing that we could get to altruistic impartiality. Now, the appointees will bend whichever way the party who appointed them dictates - is that democracy?

Re: The House of Lords
 

Agree with you A-B about that - the parties would start lobbying for their prefered candidates to be elected and all you'd end up with would be a mirror image of the Commons.

There should be some other criteria i.e. the 100 people on the UK rich list (not honestly suggesting that) but something that can't affect impartiality. Like a peer group (not peer in lordly type way) system. Or have it elected but not in a regional way - for example allow 20 people from industry that other people in industry have to nominate and elect, 20 people from the arts, which other people from the arts have to nominate and elect, etc. Can't really see that working but you can see what I'm getting at.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Re: The House of Lords
 

The simple solution would be to draw from a hat one person's name, derived from the electoral register, from each of the parliamentary constituencies in the UK. Let 'em serve for two years or so then never again; that way you would get a truly representatine cross-section of the populace of Britain.

We'd have 'em all, from feminists and village idiots through pub drunks to teachers and lawyers, all in roughly the same proportion. It would certainly be far more democratic than the stinking, rotten political monopoly we have now.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Are you arguing for something along the lines of HBC there, Tealeaf?

Re: The House of Lords
 

I agree with most of your points, jambutty.
However this:

...seems grossly unrepresentative. Like tealeaf said, anyone who is eligible to vote should be able to enter the 'Upper House' (though I'd prefer the term 'wig factory' :D), through elections though, not at random.

Re: The House of Lords
 

A very interesting suggestion Tealeaf.

So in effect there would be a JURY who would listen to the pros and cons of a government proposal then come back with a judgement.

Shakermaker – being eligible means that anyone who falls within the terms I suggested would be eligible to serve in the Upper House. That doesn’t mean to say that they would actually serve. A volunteer would have to be VOTED in.

The criterion that I suggested was an attempt to ensure that whoever gets voted in has many years of life’s experience in the UK behind them. That’s what would be needed in the Upper House. People who have been there, done that and got the tee shirt.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Errrm, correct me if I am wrong, but members of the House of Lords, with the possible exception of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords, don't wear wigs. The headgear of a peer of the realm is a coronet and those are only usually worn at Coronations.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Exactly, more wigs need to be made :D

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

Re: The House of Lords
 

Do you think spuggie may want to edit that post tomorrow cashman. That has to be a first 'trust' those in power.

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 dont.



Happy now. :D

Re: The House of Lords
 

Sorry SPUGGIE J, but it reminded me of that piece of paper Chaimberlain came back with, from that meeting he had with Adolf.:rolleyes:

Re: The House of Lords
 

Oh the Munich aggreement that Mr Appeasment signed up to and the phrase "piece in our time" Not good considering he considered Hitler as a politition like any other.

Re: The House of Lords
 

As far as I was aware our system is working now.. so either your statement is wrong or people do still have some trust! :p

Re: The House of Lords
 

Maybe some do but they are in a minority that is shrinking. With all that has gone on in Parliment over the last few years can you say that you trust those in power whether in the Commons or the Lords because I can safely say I dont. Too much self intrest and "back door dealing" going on to make them respectable. If the Lords end up full of for the lack of a better word and they are in the majority then what happens if the Conservitives are in power and the Lords dont like whats happening with the bills? Are we going to see more dilution of their powers or more use of the Parliment Act?

Re: The House of Lords
 

I don't think I understand. What do you mean if the lords are in a majority?

Re: The House of Lords
 

Sorry if Labour peers are in the majority.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Errm Labour Peers are in the majority in the House of Lords.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Cheers for that AB, I wasnt sure. So on that basis it would be fun and games if the tories win next time. All there will be is political tennis due to political ideology and a slow prosses of getting things done.

Re: The House of Lords
 

Labour peers don't have an overall majority in that they have 212 peers, Conservatives 206, but there are 201 cross bench peers, so its not as if Labour peers could just control the house.

Along with 78 lib dem peers, 2UKIP, 1 Green party, 11 non-affiliated and 26Lords Spritual.

Re: The House of Lords
 

That Cyfr is a lot of mouths to feed, how do this unelected body get paid? annually or by appearance. If it is the latter they will get very little money, if they put the same time in the 'upper' house, as their counterparts put in the 'lower' house.

Re: The House of Lords
 

They don't get paid apart from those in special roles, full list here: http://www.parliament.uk/faq/pay_faq_page.cfm#pay6L

Where as if they were elected they'll get paid I presume.