What should happen to the House of Lords?
I used to rail against the undemocratic nature of this institution, but now I don't think the alternatives are viable.
What should happen to the House of Lords? 76 votes
Keep it as it is
19%
15 votes
Fully elected
35%
27 votes
Hybrid - half elected, half appointed
10%
8 votes
Abolish it
34%
26 votes
0
Comments
You think a second chambner that is full of people given that privalige by MPs is good
They are experts in a variety of fields and don't get a salary.
no they're not. They're basically people who are ex-mps or people who pay political parties lots of money.
I think there is a lot of merit in this. However, I don't think it would be sustainable as their only job.
There are nearly 800 Peers. Many of whom are experts in their fields. None of whom draw a salary.
Why would anyone want to give up their job just to be a Lord?
Washed up and defeated MPs and old celebrities getting £300/day. Bishops with no legislative experience. People with the right genes. Need I go on?
Really? that is your understanding of the House of Lords.
Can you defend hereditary peers, bishops or Alistair Darling? What about Alan Sugar or Tory Party donors? Joan Bakewell and Jeffrey Archer?
Hereditary no, Bishops no ( i don't do religion, but respect their moral position) , Alan Sugar no, but he has never been a successful businessman, Joan Bakewell yes, and Yef ARcher yes.
And Alistair Darling, for being a ****ign incompetent local edinburgh laywer to the highest level of government, his fiscal case was more sensible than Gordon Browns.
Be under no illusion. I quantify Alan Sugar as noting but a salesman, not a business man.
I wouldn't call Lord Winston a defeated MP or old celebrity. You don't need legislative experience to contribute to the debate. Hereditary peers have been stripped back to about 92/800.
You could get the same effect using the jury service system and say limiting the pool to pensioners
A valid point.
Why on earth do we need a second chamber with nearly 800 members? The whole principle of an unelected bunch of people mostly appointed by politicians or by privilege goes against the whole principle of democracy. Our politicos are quick to point the finger at other countries about how they hold elections yet this relic of history still sits at the centre of our supposedly democratic system. An elected second chamber and an elected head of state is the way to go for the 21st century IMO.
Any politician who moans about unelected faceless people in the EU making decisions regarding UK law should then also make the same complaint about our second chamber.
How exactly would this work?
I would imagine the same way it works in the US and lots of other countries. Not rocket science.
In the US Senators represent a whole state and Representatives, districts.
The UK is about the size of one average sized US state.
See this is the problem - easy to say it should be elected, but in practice this proves a lot more difficult.
Well done on finding an exception. The type of person who should be contributing to legislation on fertility. However, why should he have the right to influence the Scotland act or EVEL, or even defence procurement?
You are looking for a problem which really is not there. Are you saying it is beyond the wit of man to devise a fair system to elect to a second chamber?
Some (a minority) of them do get a salary, infact its actually mentioned on the parliament website
In the absence of salary they are also aloud to claim attendance allowance and travel expenses.. the former being £300 per day last I looked.
Make it a paid appointment, and they['re to carry out their duties they wouldn't have time for working elsewhere. At the moment a lot of Lords are political appointments and only turn up when there party wants them to vote for or against something, or if they want the daily expenses, or are made Lords for favours/donations given or because the government think they'll be popular with the public cause they're famous or won something in sport, without being any actual use to the HOL and just swan about with the honour usually appointed with the catch all services to, or because it is their turn.
I don't want it to be elected as it would end up being packed with career politicians... and what with Commons, National Assembly, county council, Europe etc we have enough bloody elections already.
There should be a cap on HoL membership, and a ban on new PMs instantly filling it with cronies. Also a ban on party donors becoming peers as this makes the patronage look corrupt.
Membership should be by appointment and should be bestowed on eminent people in different fields e.g Law, education, scientific research, health etc.
A chamber which is fully elected owes patronage to those who elect it - if the same as the lower chamber then that will effect it's ability to be a proper reviewing chamber. If different then that will potentially lead to paralysis as the two chambers have an equal democratic right to express an opinion on legislation.
A chamber which is entirely appointed owes patronage to the person who appointed it.
A chamber where people are appointed on merit in an open process, where the government of the day cannot remove a member - is able to look at legislation dispassionately and with the experience to properly assess it's merits or otherwise - can review legislation properly.
I'm with you - for all it's faults, the current system is the best.