The House of Lords

[jambutty]

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.

[SPUGGIE J]

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.

[jambutty]

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?

[SPUGGIE J]

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.

[Ianto.W.]

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?

[jambutty]

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.

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.

[Acrylic-bob]

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?

[Gayle]

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.

[jambutty]

Even though this thread might be a bit of a wasted exercise, because even if the government knew of this forum they wouldn’t take any notice of it, out of coherent debate often comes a correct solution.

[Tealeaf]

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.

[Acrylic-bob]

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

[shakermaker]

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

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

...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' ), through elections though, not at random.

[jambutty]

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.

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

(though I'd prefer the term 'wig factory' ), .

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.

[shakermaker]

Exactly, more wigs need to be made