House of Lords reform

[Waldorf]

We could save more money by having no chambers - like Zimbabwe!

I am happy with a democratic system.

I think two elected chambers will hold back good government, look at the USA.

Having two chambers will be like having a permanent coalition, the Liberals will always be watering down laws and nothing will get done, we will drift as a nation and end up in even more crap than we are already in.

[Mich the Tester]

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Hungary.....they all seem to get by with just one chamber.

Yes, but while Sweden, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand certainly seem to have stable and decent democracies and the rule of law, Hungary is a different matter; read about Victor Orban.

[Doggy Styles]

The HoL works perfectly well as it is, with unelected peers. There is no need to change it.

[wurzel]

This is one of those things that has been dragging on for so long since 1997 that I tend to switch off whenever I hear it mentioned & consequently don't have a clue what's happening.

So, a bit of Googling reveals that:

Blair got rid of most of the hereditary peers in 1999 leaving a rump of 92 with the rest being appointed peers. The aim was to get rid of these remaining 92 peers in the second phase of reform.

Since then there have been a number of consultations on various proposals such as making the house 50% elected and 50% appointed none of which have come to fruition but there have been several reforms on the actual powers of the house.

The May 2011 Bill proposes an 300 member house of which 80% are elected and 20% appointed.

My own view is that the fewer appointed peers, the better. Surely these will be placemen of the govt in power? I guess the numbers even out over the years when different political parties gain power but given that there appears to be hardly anything between the parties these days these appointed peers are all likely to be of the same ilk and toadies of the govt in power.

[Doggy Styles]

My own view is that the fewer appointed peers, the better. Surely these will be placemen of the govt in power?

All parties nominate new peers, not just the government in power.

My view is the fewer elected peers the better, preferably zero as it stands today.

An elected politician compromises his policies (a) to the public in order to get elected, and (b) in office, to toe the party line.

An unelected peer can do and say as he likes about bills. If he thinks something is wrong, he can say so. He is more likely to act on the true merit of a bill than what it will do for his re-election or career enhancement.

Public elections give us the 600-odd career politicians we already have the House of Commons today. How happy is everybody with them? And do we want more of them?

Finally, nobody has really explained what is wrong with the House of Lords as it is today.

[wurzel]

All parties nominate new peers, not just the government in power.

But who decides who is appointed? From wikipedia:

Normally, the Prime Minister chooses only peers for his or her own party, but permits the leaders of opposition parties to recommend peers from those parties. The Prime Minister may determine the number of peers each party may propose; he or she may also choose to amend these recommendations, but by convention does not do so

We all know how Blair was given to breaking convention.

An elected politician compromises his policies (a) to the public in order to get elected, and (b) in office, to toe the party line.

An unelected peer can do and say as he likes about bills. If he thinks something is wrong, he can say so. He is more likely to act on the true merit of a bill than what it will do for his re-election or career enhancement.

Public elections give us the 600-odd career politicians we already have the House of Commons today. How happy is everybody with them? And do we want more of them?

True. I hadn't looked at it that way.

Edit: But wht do they have to be affiliated to a political party - they could be made up of people from all walks of life who have demonstrated that they are cut out to perform such a function.

We could call them Peoples' Peers.

Oh hang on, where have I heard that before?

[OwlHoot]

This has got me thinking...

Why not just abolish the House of Lords and replace it with.....nothing!

I wouldn't try thinking too hard. You might strain a muscle.

[SimonMac]

The biggest problem with the HoL is simply the numbers, and the fact that the govt. of the day can just increase this exponentially usually to suit their own gain when it comes to voting. If you compare the HoL with its US equivalent there are 803 peers representing a population of 65m compared to 100 senators for a population of 313m

[vetran]

why not have fixed terms max 2 turns and no party affiliation?

or even random selection like the Asimov story?