Re: House of Lords reform : Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:50 pm  

Getting the 26 bishops out would be a good start.

Re: House of Lords reform : Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:53 pm  

dr_feelgood wrote:

As the Lords main task is to review laws passed in the Commons I think elected members, as in the case of hereditary peers, may not necessarily provide the best people for the job.

I would like to see an independent appointments committe select suitable people for the Lords refelecting all political and religious views (these two categorys would be minor) and experts in a variety of fields (probably could be done with well under the proposed 300 members). All positions , bar the Lords Spiritual, would be reviewed by the relevant political parties or the panel on a 5 yearly basis

Thus we would have the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Westminster representing the Christians, the chief rabbi the Jews and a.n.o. for the Muslims. there would be half a dozen ex politicians from Labour and the same for the Tories and Lib Dems. The Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalist would have one seat each as would the Irish loyalists. These people would be nominated by their parties. Add in a few ex union leaders and business men for further balance and that would be politicos sorted.

A few ex judges and ex snr civil servants, police and prison officers could advise on law and constitutional issues.

From here on it would be experts all the way in the fields of economics, media, sport, arts, science, medicine etc.

Hopefully this would lead to a high standard of debate sensible decisions in the best interests of the country rather than those based on party political agendas.

Why? And why wouldn't you appoint 2 non believers?

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:48 am  

How about entry by public examination?

That's was WS Gilbert's suggestion back in 1882.

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:52 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Why? And why wouldn't you appoint 2 non believers?

I suddenly had this terrifying nightmare of a piece of legislation being 'debated' in such a House, but in a kirkstaller -v- the-rest stylee.

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:21 am  

Scooter Nik wrote:

I'd just say that the upper house needs a complete makeover.

I just don't think now is the time to be doing it.

Agree with this - there's no money (or so we keep being told) so how and why should we do this at this point in time?

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:38 am  

Scooter Nik wrote:

I'd just say that the upper house needs a complete makeover.

I just don't think now is the time to be doing it.

Didn't see this earlier, but yes – this.

And to think that this is what Clegg demanded, while helping the Tories push through the privatisation of the NHS.

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:32 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But I'm not sure how an elected chamber improves things. Blair it was, I think, that said having an elected second chamber would very significantly undermine the Commons, and I agree with him entirely.

Then, you have the fact that there might be many people of huge intellect and ability that could do a magnificent job in the second chamber, but who have no interest whatsoever in running for office. For one example, the law lords, some with at least 2 brains apiece. The legislature would be a much poorer place without people like that. And it does seem to be the case that the House of Commons is attracting lower calibre MPs than in the past, as evidenced by some of the toe-curling incompetents we now so often see promoted beyond their competency.

Then you have the bishops. Whilst to me, having them in the Lords is as nutty as hereditary peerages, the inescapable fact is we are stuck with them, absent a revolutionary constitutional change.

And, anachronistic and seemingly undemocratic as it may appear, and despite the endless attempts at and discussions and inquiries and commissions about reform, I reckon the HoL continues to do a passably good job, and is often a welcome thorn in the side of the government of the day.

I am not against reform. It is hard to know exactly what though. I'm sure a fully elected house is certainly not it.

I think that's a good post.

We just need to make sure that our elected politicians do not abuse their position by elevating cronies to the Lords. If the Lords is genuinely made up of very wise, elders then that is the best possible scenario. Much. much better than elected self-serving muppets with a 15 year tenure!

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:36 am  

It's a problem for sure. Most potential replacements of the current system have their own problems - e.g. an elected upper house vs lower house potentially causes a lot of issues. I quite like the Australian system - upper house effectively elected by a full PR system, but elections staggered so that upper and lower houses are elected separately. Although the balance here may be provided by far more important State governments - without that maybe it wouldn't work so well?

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:18 pm  

Him wrote:

But, whether we like it or not, they represent a viewpoint in the country. You and I might think its bloody ridiculous viewpoint, but it's still there.

There are all sorts of stupid viewpoints held by all manner of people in this country. Should they all be represented in the Lords? There is no place for religion - any religion - in matters of the state. We should not be basing 21st Century laws on the unsubstantiated claims made in a 1st/2nd Century text.

Re: House of Lords reform : Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:31 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

There are all sorts of stupid viewpoints held by all manner of people in this country. Should they all be represented in the Lords? There is no place for religion - any religion - in matters of the state. We should not be basing 21st Century laws on the unsubstantiated claims made in a 1st/2nd Century text.

Why not if those texts prescribe a sensible way of living that has served the country well for centuries?