The Future of the House of Lords

[StuartO]

I've watched two episodes of the BBC documentary on the Lords and I suppose after the second one I'm a less appaled than I was - but it still seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, ie a very expensive way to run a second chamber.

 

I see the value of a second chamber, scrutinising and occassionally challenging what the Commons have come up with, but clealry we don't need 900 peers - only 90 of whom are elected, and those are hereditary peers.

 

I see the value of a suitable number of people who have risen to the top of their business or profession and even a number of recently retired politicians.  Even (if only for historical continuity) a small number of hereditary peers. And if that was it I wouldn't really mind them being well looked after - "the best club in the country".

 

But a total of 900 who are eligible to attend, all of whom will be eligible for life, is really rather silly, especially since there are quite a few who work the system and do little or nothing of public value.

 

So I think I'd like a fixed number of peers who are eligible to attend the House of Lords - something like a third of the 900 we have now.  And an automatic age (say 80) when their eligibility to attend expires; they can keep calling themselves Lord or Baroness after that but that's it.  And fresh members to be elected (in the case of the hereditary peers) and appointed (by some suitable process) only to fill vacancies in the fixed maximum number.

 

And there would be expulsion for misbehaviour, like fiddling the expenses or abusing their position by taking cash for influence.

 

[malc d]

StuartO - 2017-03-07 3:34 PM

 

  And an automatic age (say 80) when their eligibility to attend expires;

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the numbers should be cut drastically, but not being an ageist myself I would base their eligibility to remain a member on their participation rather than simply on age - which is not really a guide to anyones' ability to contribute usefully.

 

:-|

[RogerC]

^{Agreed it is too unwieldy but unfortunately has fallen into a purpose for which it was not intended....that of a retirement home for those in receipt of political patronage in order to assist....or indeed hinder/obstruct the government of the day going about it's business.}

^{I am of the opinion that the 'other place' should be above political direction, act entirely above that 'cesspit' and deliver a totally independent  opinion/verdict/amendment based upon it's value to the country.  Basically it should act to curb the excesses of political parties carrying out activity intended to serve party and not country interests.}

[derek pringle]

Hi,

I think there should be an immediate cull and half the numbers sitting in the Lords and half the number of M.Ps. All seems a tad unwieldy to me.The more peopl involved the more arguments and disagreements there are.

Cheers

Derek

[StuartO]

malc d - 2017-03-07 4:42 PM

StuartO - 2017-03-07 3:34 PM   And an automatic age (say 80) when their eligibility to attend expires;

I agree that the numbers should be cut drastically, but not being an ageist myself I would base their eligibility to remain a member on their participation rather than simply on age - which is not really a guide to anyones' ability to contribute usefully. :-|

 

Apparently some families use the House of Lords as a free Day Care Centre for their elderly Lord, dropping him off in the morning and picking him up at night, knowing he will be well looked after!  He gets the £300 per day attendance money too.

 

There will always be plenty of new candidates for vacant places, so a healthy turnover and an upper age limit to clear out the deadwood seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Dave225]

Has anyoine thought of adopting the US system of 2 'Houses'. I do note that they have a total poltical mass of 535 souls for a population of 200 plus million. I do accept that the US also has a governing body appointed by the President but looking at our system shows it to be totally bloated. A second chamber based on possibly the current EU MEP constituencies would be a reasonable number to allow scrutiny of the Parliament. Fixed term appointments would also get rid of this 'Club' system we currently have where appointments are based on who you know, not ability.

[StuartO]

I watched the third programme on The Lords last night- and learned that Lord Hesletine, who stepped up to have his 15 minutes of fame (and lose his Government Adviser jobs) over his "principled" right to vote against Brexit, has only attended on 3% of the available occassions to contribute.  I think he should be one of first the ones to lose his entitlement to attend.

 

At least their Lordships have voted to have an investigation into how many Lords should be culled.

 

[derek pringle]

StuartO - 2017-03-14 8:16 AMI watched the third programme on The Lords last night- and learned that Lord Hesletine, who stepped up to have his 15 minutes of fame (and lose his Government Adviser jobs) over his "principled" right to vote against Brexit, has only attended on 3% of the available occassions to contribute.  I think he should be one of first the ones to lose his entitlement to attend.

 

At least their Lordships have voted to have an investigation into how many Lords should be culled.

Couldn't agree more, after all if you are not there you are no use.cheersderek

[George Collings]

Like the vast majority I voted to keep the commons as a first past the post house as I believe its a better system to adapt to change than the long drawn out fudges seen so often elsewhere.

 

However I like the idea of a much smaller elected second house, that would more accurately represent voting patterns To keep the Lib Dems happy make it largely PR with the elections at half term out of step with the Commons. A small core of appointees perhaps 25% of total senior ex cabinet ministers,,Retired senior military officers, and reps of larger religious and humanist organisations etc . Retirement at 80 but subject to regular attendance.

No more power than now with Commons having supremacy but the reformed house would reflect the feelings of country more than the first past the post system.

 

 

[StuartO]

George Collings - 2017-03-15 7:41 AMLike the vast majority I voted to keep the commons as a first past the post house as I believe its a better system to adapt to change than the long drawn out fudges seen so often elsewhere. However I like the idea of a much smaller elected second house, that would more accurately represent voting patterns To keep the Lib Dems happy make it largely PR with the elections at half term out of step with the Commons. A small core of appointees perhaps 25% of total senior ex cabinet ministers,,Retired senior military officers, and reps of larger religious and humanist organisations etc . Retirement at 80 but subject to regular attendance. No more power than now with Commons having supremacy but the reformed house would reflect the feelings of country more than the first past the post system.

 

The problem with trying to achieve a representative spread (to reflect the community) is that 50% of the people you appoint end up being below average intellengence/achievement/expertise etc.  You have soldiers who never got above private as well as those who achieved high rank and worldliness.  Likewise if you automatically give places to leaders of all religions, you end up with some real nut cases as well as some earnest and wise leaders.

 

In oher words the last thing we should do is try to keep the liberals happy!

 

[Brian Kirby]

While we're playing, for what its worth, here's my two pennoth! :-)

 

First, I think the Commons needs some procedural changes. MPs are elected to represent (which is to say act in the best interests of, as opposed to as directed by) their constituents. Many do, but IMO far too many merely act as party cannon fodder. I'd like to see the powers of the party whips severely curtailed, as much of their role is to coerce the MPs into following the "party line" (of whichever party) which subverts most issues toward infantile tribalism. So, lets have MPs with free minds, and the courage and freedom to use them in the interests of their constituents and their country, and not their party! Also, a change to their working day might usefully help improve wider representation.

 

I should then like to see all the Lords elected for a fixed term (i.e. not for life), but elected openly, and much reduced in number. 500 or so should be quite enough. Some to be elected from retiring MPs by their fellow MPs. Some to be elected from UK (if there still is one!) regional assemblies (another thing I should like to see gain higher status), to promote regional interests, by the public. Others to be elected by the various professional etc. bodies, to inject up to date practical insight on matters relating to physical infrastructure, construction standards, planning, medicine, surgery, the sciences, commerce, industry, etc. etc. Some, therefore, would be political members, but the majority non-political with specialist knowledge and experience of achievement and application of their fields. In short, practised in getting things done, rather than in theorising and petty points scoring.

 

Oh yes, and while we're at it, apart from purely ceremonial occasions, dump all those silly costumes, barmy procedures, silly titles, and the practise of toddling backwards and forwards between the two chambers (in fancy dress) carrying bundles of papers wrapped in ribbons! What an appalling waste of time and effort. They're there to do a (very important) job, for which they get paid. Nuff said?

 

My final thought is that we should gratefully, respectfully, and generously, retire the Royal Family to join the reminder of our once governing aristocracy, and move to an elected president with specific and limited powers - for example, the sole right to command the deployment of our armed services, but only on request from the executive. Our PMs have become far too presidential over the past few decades, IMO, and need a higher authority to rein-in some of their more ill-judged politically motivated ventures.

 

So, restore the status of MPs, elect a truly informed second chamber, and install a president to rein-in, when appropriate, the excesses of the executive.

 

Fat chance, of course, even were we all to agree! :-) Turkeys and Christmas rather come to mind!