Should the House of Lords be changed ?

[modeller]

I was listening to a heredity peer on the radio and he was asked if it was fair that he should so privileged . His answer was a classic " Of course it is fair my family are entitled to be there. We were given the right 2/3 hundred years ago and we are there by 'divine right . "

So now you know, it was God who chose our noble lords !

Even if they are corrupt or as thick as two planks , it doesn't matter they are God's people.

What sort of upper house should we have ?

[DaisyNonna]

Incorruptible.

[starone]

If you are implying there should be no hereditary peers modeller, then I'm right with you. The House of Lords should consist of men and women who have been elected by the general public in the same way as the Commons. That's only my opinion of course, no doubt we shall hear many more.

[VHG]

Many of these "lords" were given the "right" hundreds of years ago because they backed the king or queen in a battle, or supported the king or queen in some way or other.

The king/queen rewarded them with a plot of land containing a nice building, and a "title".

Why that gives them the "right" to make decisions on our laws today is somewhat unclear.

But many countries do have an upper chamber of some sort, so maybe in our case it should be the "elders" from various sections of the community maybe once they have retired - ex MPs, judges, lawyers, business people, teachers, doctors etc.

[Zacs-Master]

VHG, I think, in the main, you've just described the public school system.

[modeller]

I believe no one should be there by right of birth but if we had another elected house then that would have little point because it would just be a second house of commons . We need the elders as you suggested VHG but how would they be selected and how long should they serve ?

[craft1948]

I'm quite happy to keep heredity peers. It's quite surprising how, over the years, the Lords have made decisions more in tune with public thinking than the elected Commons.

[HowardKennitby]

I would change the House of Lords so that no-one who had been an MP could get into it.

[sandyRoe]

Aren't there a few in the Lords who are there because they are descendants of Charles the second's illegitimate children?
Divine right?

[jno]

some monarchs believe they rule by divine rite - that's what all the anointing at coronations is meant to achieve. But I've never heard it relating to peers before. I suspect he has got a little above his station.

modeller, the US second house is elected, and it doesn't simply go the same way as the lower house by any means, or the same way as the presidency.

[Old_Geezer]

We should have a fully elected House since anything else shows how this representative democracy is a mere fop to the people. They may have advisors if folk think the prevent incumbents have good experience that ought not be lost if they fail to get elected.

Only part of the house should be up for election at any one time to avoid swings in opinion in the House, but to still keep pace with general trends in thinking. Overall terms should be much longer that is at present in the Commons, but the ability for constituents to call for a vote of no confidence should be available to remove those felt not to be doing a good job. Membership of political parties should be banned, this is about representing the public not pushing a political agenda.

[Old_Geezer]

Of course there is a point in an elected second chamber. Other countries use that system without the two houses just rubber stamping legislation. But the system needs to ensure there is little influence from one house to the other which is one reason why parties should be banned. And I'm liking the idea that serving in one house bars you from serving in the other.

[jake-the-peg]

Clearly this one doesn't deserve to be there because he's too damn stupid or arrogant to realise what people will take from his comments.

This is a personal opinion and not one that I think any major political party would agree with but:

The House of Lords should be apolitical and members should be appointed or elected for life.

Their purpose is as a revising house to get the commons to rethink legislation, to put the brakes on bad laws.

They can't do that if they have political aliegences or need to worry about being popular to be re-elected.

Once appointed a life peer it should be possible to have one sacked for:

Non-attendance
Criminal conviction
Gross misconduct

Party whips in the Lords should be outlawed

Bishops should be excluded unless specifically appointed in the normal way.

I'd prefer peers to be nominated by a comission much as Judges are now and selected from that nominations list by a commons committee

[youngmafbog]

Not again, I agree totally with you Jake - how can this be, I think I will have to go to the doctor!

[LazyGun]

The House of Lords is well overdue for reform. It is supposedly a second chamber with a responsibility to review and debate legislation and propose amendments where necessary.

There are some genuine experts on everything from the constitution through to science, law, medicine etc who have something of value to contribute, and you do not want to lose that expertise, that wisdom.

What we can definitely do without though, is those hereditary peers, who have a right through birth alone - it is only serendipity if some of them have something useful to offer a chamber of legislative scrutiny. We could also do without a rump of bishops with an automatic right to be a member of the house - and we can certainly do without a large proportion of the life peers that are often only appointed to the house in order to change party supporters.
We now have a bloated house of over 800 or so, and we could do with far less.
Scrap the hereditary representation, scrap the bishops automatic rights. scrap the PMs right to stuff the house with life peers and signicantly reduce the number of peers.

Amend their salaries/expenses so we can have a more cost effective house ,one more in keeping with modern Britain, and one less dependent upon political views and more dependent upon expertise in business, the arts, science and law.

[Old_Geezer]

"....if folk think the present incumbents ..."
Why is it that what I know I type so often is not what I see posted ? Where is the edit button >:-(

[modeller]

old geezer #Membership of political parties should be banned, this is about representing the public not pushing a political agenda #

The trouble is we, the public, need to know what a candidate stands for and a party label is the most convenient . No one is truly independent and few of them get elected. Even in parish politics many candidates give themselves some sort of party label.

The question of how long they serve is important . At the moment it's a job for life and as a peer said yesterday it's the best club in town.
It's been suggested that they should be elected for 15 years, that seems far too long to me, especially as it's so difficult to get rid of them.

[Old_Geezer]

If your representative was truly your representative rather than an elite who just so happened to get in then we, the public, have no need to know what they stand for since they will be obliged to get the opinion of their constituents prior to any debate, and justify their final position after the debate to them as well.

It is not their view that is important, it is the view of those they represent and which they should be pushing for unless it becomes clear that the starting position in a debate became untenable. In which case they will explain why they changed position on the matter or risk a vote of no confidence.

Parties are the antithesis of democracy, they tie in the members to toe a party line, the public become are merely controlled, not in charge. It is one major reason why PR is such a bad thing.

[modeller]

jno #modeller, the US second house is elected, and it doesn't simply go the same way as the lower house by any means, or the same way as the presidency.#

You can't really compare as they have a totally different system.
There are three tiers of government and the election periods are all different , the Representatives are elected for 2 years , the Senators for six. and only half on each occasion. Each states elects two Senators irrespective of size and the President can veto any bill . A bill can be initiated by either house. Because there are so many elections control of either house is constantly changing .

[modeller]

Old geezer # It is not their view that is important, it is the view of those they represent and which they should be pushing for unless it becomes clear that the starting position in a debate became untenable. In which case they will explain why they changed position on the matter or risk a vote of no confidence. #

Since when have our MPs really represented our views they claim to do so but once in power we are lucky if they carry out 10% of their promises and as for a vote of confidence that is carried out by their fellow MPs who don't want to force an election. And if there is one what does that achieve. Another election maybe, which puts back most of them and even if that changes the party in power . So what ? More broken promises and we are stuck with them for several more years and in the case of the Lords they are there for life . Even if Cameron's bill goes through he is proposing a period of 15 years which, if they are retired, means for life.