My lords, should the Mother of Parliaments further reform its Upper House?

I meant to post this yesterday, but anyhoo...

In the Queen's Speech, HM said that Her Majesty's government shall further reform the House of Lords. I was wondering how my noble (and some ignoble) brethren here thought the House should be reformed, if at all.

The trouble started back in 1997, I think, when Tony had a majority in the House of Commons, but Tories had a majority in the House of Lords, because all the hereditary lords had a right to a seat there, and most of them were Tory. So, Big Man Tony brought in the House of Lords Act 1998, which stopped this autobatic right, and made it so that 90 of the hereditary lords were elected, with the only 2 having an automatic seat being the Lord Great Chamberlain, and the Earl Marshall. Now, they want either to remove all the hereditary lords, making the House all appointed, or making it partly elected besides that.

The Tories want to give MPs a free vote on its composition, and the Liberal Democrats want to abolish the Upper House and make a wholly elected Senate (which is in breach of the Act of Union, but hey, that is generally ignored now-a-days). UKIP, however (who got the 4th largest number of votes, but not a single seat in the election), want to return to the way it was previously, by repealling the afore-mentioned Act.

Website of Parliament

I might also add that the House of Lords is not there to represent the people, but to provide scrutiny on Bills.

IMHO the two sensible options are a fully elected body weighted to reflect regional interests in some way (a la US senate) or a fully elected body on a proportional representation basis.

Appointment by the PM is absolutely appalling and even worse than having the hereditaries IMHO.

They are not appointed by the PM, only Labour peers are. They are recommended to HM by the Appointments Commission

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

They are not appointed by the PM, only Labour peers are. They are recommended to HM by the Appointments Commission

---

Same difference in effect. I don't think Adonis was appointed because of his natural nobility.

Ahh, but Adonis (what a great name, eh? With a name like that, he should be a peer) is a Labour peer, and the part appointed peers are appointed more-or-less in accordance with their share of the vote.

The AC recommends peers for the crossbenches, and technically party peers, which are recommended to the commissions by party leaders.

I say leave it as it is (but then I'm only watching from a distance).

A (normal) fully selected senate fades the line between senate and parliament, most people here can't tell the difference.

A system like the US doesn't seem to bad, just make sure they can get appointed for a long time, regular elections just mean they have to appease the masses instead of doing their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

IMHO the two sensible options are a fully elected body weighted to reflect regional interests in some way (a la US senate) or a fully elected body on a proportional representation basis.

Appointment by the PM is absolutely appalling and even worse than having the hereditaries IMHO.

---

I completely agree. I think a US senate model is the way to go personally

Quote:

---

A system like the US doesn't seem to bad, just make sure they can get appointed for a long time, regular elections just mean they have to appease the masses instead of doing their job.

---

Ah yes, that's a good idea, and it ought to be picked to avoid clashing with a general election and making a "super election" too often. Seven years terms sounds right to me.

Being selected by PM is ridiculous, whoever is in charge just puts their own people in.

Personally I think it should be a lottery. Like with juries, only you have to do it for 10 years. So you get a completely random selection of people from all over the place, and no one can complain they aren't represented.

The House of Lords is supposed to made up of the wisest men in the land (which Blair takes to mean all his cronies and donors) to examine the Bills put forward by the House of Commons. If the ordinary man in the street (and we all know how thick he is) were allowed to elect the peers, then we would just have two Houses of Commons. Since the Lords do not have as much power as the Commons, they would have to get more power, and I'm not sure any government wants that. If we were to go to the American system where every state has a senator, then Labour would lose its majority since most counties are Conservative.

Sounds idiotic but return to hereditary peers and ''sack'' people who suck at that...it seemed to work even when we didn't sack them...

Hey, that sounds like a good idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

IMHO the two sensible options are a fully elected body weighted to reflect regional interests in some way (a la US senate) or a fully elected body on a proportional representation basis.

Appointment by the PM is absolutely appalling and even worse than having the hereditaries IMHO.

---

I totally agree with that. We need to get the hereditaries out - what is left of them - and the others and make sure the Lords is elected.

The idea of hereditary peers sickens me almost as much as the monarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I totally agree with that. We need to get the hereditaries out - what is left of them - and the others and make sure the Lords is elected.

---

Why? Their job is just to make life awkward for the government. And the hereditaries did that pretty well. Why would elected people do it any better? You'd just get failed MPs, and they'd just follow the party line, rendering it completely pointless.

Hereditary peers are one way that works to make it difficult for the government to get things done and that is after all the point of having an upper body. Selection by PM or the fiction of HRH choosing them is done in Canada AND IT DOES NOT WORK! The Canadian Senators are a joke and Brian Mulroney appointed a doorman to the Senate. It is a joke and has almost no meaning at all in how things are done.

If not hereditary peers then they should be elected by region or for at least a seven year period to ensure a single election sweep will not hand all power to a single party on any issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Why? Their job is just to make life awkward for the government. And the hereditaries did that pretty well. Why would elected people do it any better? You'd just get failed MPs, and they'd just follow the party line, rendering it completely pointless.

---

It is funny, maybe I just find the idea of there being Lords which are above me simply because of an ancient tradition sickening. An accident of birth should not give these people the right to be in parliament it should be on merit.

Plus may I add the hereditary peers never went anyway so they didn't put forward anything they merely milked the system. They are no loss.

So if we state there is going to be no hereditary peers, the next step is to come to a conclusion of what it should then be. Surely you then agree that the current system of Tony's cronies etc is no good? We need it to be representative of the people.

I like the American principle of separation of powers. Lots of checks and balances to stop too much power going to any one body. An elected upper house - more regional, with a different voting system and different term - seems the only defensible approach. Heredity is an absurdity. Nomination has scarcely any more legitimacy. Any credible reform to give legitimacy to the Lords has been blocked by MPs not wanting a challenge to their authority. But the British system that the House of Commons is "sovereign" seems wide open to abuse and even invites dictatorship. Plus watching the House of Commons cavort during Prime Minister's Question Time is hardly confidence inspiring. If they put reform of the upper chamber to the British electorate, I am sure the people would choose the option of an elected body.