House of Lords

[aggi]

Obviously this has been in the news recently with Johnson's promises to downsize it whilst simultaneously giving his mates loads of peerages. This has prompted the usual round of whether it should be abolished, elected, etc.

Personally I like the idea of an unelected, long-term (not hereditary) second house of experts to have their say (although not with the power of absolute veto) on legislation. However, I'm not sure how those experts should be selected. The current policy of peerages for cash/backing is dubious at best, corrupt at worst but any political selection process would probably be open to some form of abuse. Some form of neutral panel selection would be best but obviously the difficulty is selecting that neutral panel.

Any other suggestions?

[Ashingtonclaret46]

aggi ---you are correct about a neutral panel because no panel will remain neutral when there is money around, there is always at least one member who can be persuaded and it will always be the case.

I do not have any answer to any of the corruption which exists ---money talks and always will.

[Funkydrummer]

They all feed from the same trough.

[evensteadiereddie]

The place should be demolished - with or without most of those chancers in it at the time.

[TheFamilyCat]

DN8PSRmXUAUf43q.jpg_large.jpg (19.56 KiB) Viewed 866 times

[Gordaleman]

The place should be demolished - with or without most of those chancers in it at the time.

That's very easy to say, but unless you have something to replace it with, I suggest you don't condone doing it just yet.

In the 80s, I spent quite a bit of time visiting both the Lords and the Commons, and contrary to public opinion (Even then.) I found that most of the people I met were very hard working, doing their best for their constituents and the country.

Unfortunately, the majority of the public show little interest in politics, and the knockabout that is PMQs, gives a very poor impression of what Parliament is really about.

[Vino blanco]

I would close it down tomorrow and replace it with a much, much smaller elected body.

[Spiral]

'Unelected lords' is a catchy rabble-rousing slogan and everything, and replacing it with an elected body is superficially appealing, but if the point of the lords is to be advisory and to review law (which it is), having it reflect the will of the people (Jesus Christ, not this again) undermines its stated purpose because the people can't possible elect representatives to govern in the commons while also electing a body to act as a check on the excesses of the expression of their own political will. They'd merely elect a body which advances popular will, thus defeating the point of the lords being the babysitters of govt. Gutting it entirely down to zero, allowing each party to select whomever they want from the current incumbents, at a greatly reduced and capped number proportional to the house's current composition would be the most pragmatic starting point, I think. Offer retirement first, then let each party pick its most talented peers to remain and cull a great many of the rest. For the cross benchers, draw lots from the commons to set up an independent panel to choose who sits on an independent panel to choose who stays and who goes from the cross benchers!

[Paul Waine]

Obviously this has been in the news recently with Johnson's promises to downsize it whilst simultaneously giving his mates loads of peerages. This has prompted the usual round of whether it should be abolished, elected, etc.

Personally I like the idea of an unelected, long-term (not hereditary) second house of experts to have their say (although not with the power of absolute veto) on legislation. However, I'm not sure how those experts should be selected. The current policy of peerages for cash/backing is dubious at best, corrupt at worst but any political selection process would probably be open to some form of abuse. Some form of neutral panel selection would be best but obviously the difficulty is selecting that neutral panel.

Any other suggestions?

Agree a lot of what you say, aggi. Abolish HoL and replace with Assembly of Knowledgeable Persons (KPs). The role of KPs should be (a) to scrutinise legislation and ensure that laws are drafted to achieve the intentions of HoC, ensuring that there is clarity of the intentions and that there are no unintended consequences and (b) to ensure expertise and knowledge is brought to the political debate. AoKPs would be 300 KPs. 100 KPs would be appointed by the political parties, in proportion to the popular vote at the general election. These 100 KPs can be active politicians. They would be appointed for no more than 2 terms/10 years. The other 200 KPs would be apolitical appointments, chosen for their expertise and knowledge in "areas important to the country." They would not be affiliated to or otherwise connected with any politicians, they would not be failed or retired politicians themselves. They would not be spouses/partners or family members of active politicians. They would not be donors to political parties (or connected with donors). Just people with knowledge and expertise. These 200 KPs would serve for a maximum of 15 years, with one third retiring following "full term" general election.

The AoKPs would "assemble" for meetings in appropriate venues around the country. The Palace of Westminster would be closed and re-opened as a museum and tourist centre.

All honours would be abolished. We don't need "Lords and Ladies" in the 21st century. Similarly, "Sirs" and "Dames" and MBEs and OBEs can be done away with. Winning an Olympic gold medal, a cricket world cup or other sporting achievement should be sufficient in its own right. No one needs an additional "honour" to place them above the rest of the population.

[Spiral]

Agree a lot of what you say, aggi. Abolish HoL and replace with Assembly of Knowledgeable Persons (KPs). The role of KPs should be (a) to scrutinise legislation and ensure that laws are drafted to achieve the intentions of HoC, ensuring that there is clarity of the intentions and that there are no unintended consequences and (b) to ensure expertise and knowledge is brought to the political debate. AoKPs would be 300 KPs. 100 KPs would be appointed by the political parties, in proportion to the popular vote at the general election. These 100 KPs can be active politicians. They would be appointed for no more than 2 terms/10 years. The other 200 KPs would be apolitical appointments, chosen for their expertise and knowledge in "areas important to the country." They would not be affiliated to or otherwise connected with any politicians, they would not be failed or retired politicians themselves. They would not be spouses/partners or family members of active politicians. They would not be donors to political parties (or connected with donors). Just people with knowledge and expertise. These 200 KPs would serve for a maximum of 15 years, with one third retiring following "full term" general election.

The AoKPs would "assemble" for meetings in appropriate venues around the country. The Palace of Westminster would be closed and re-opened as a museum and tourist centre.

All honours would be abolished. We don't need "Lords and Ladies" in the 21st century. Similarly, "Sirs" and "Dames" and MBEs and OBEs can be done away with. Winning an Olympic gold medal, a cricket world cup or other sporting achievement should be sufficient in its own right. No one needs an additional "honour" to place them above the rest of the population.

It could be argued that a media baron is knowledgeable. This person would still 'buy' their peerage by way of political support in the media they own. You can't eradicate cronyism, only mitigate it, and I think the principle of the lords is fine, if in need of a flushing out from time to time in the way a laxative serves to unblock your arse, allowing you to go back to $hitting as God intended. In that sense term limits sound like a good idea.* I don't think having politicians and political appointees being in the minority is sound. It's helpful to have a house with a majority which understands the intricacies of law above all else. Would blocking donors from appointment mean union members are prohibited?

*edit-the obvious problem however being that the appointees would be selected in accordance with which way the wind blows politically.

[Paul Waine]

It could be argued that a media baron is knowledgeable. This person would still 'buy' their peerage by way of political support in the media they own. You can't eradicate cronyism, only mitigate it, and I think the principle of the lords is fine, if in need of a flushing out from time to time in the way a laxative serves to unblock your arse, allowing you to go back to $hitting as God intended. In that sense term limits sound like a good idea.* I don't think having politicians and political appointees being in the minority is sound. It's helpful to have a house with a majority which understands the intricacies of law above all else. Would blocking donors from appointment mean union members are prohibited?

*edit-the obvious problem however being that the appointees would be selected in accordance with which way the wind blows politically.

Hi Spiral, an owner of a media outlet may well be "knowledgeable" - but, under my proposal, she/he would not be "a baron" - no one would be "elevated" by honours. However, AoKPs will require persons who have knowledge and expertise in the matters that are important to the country. I'm not sure where "the media" fits in this.

[Spiral]

I used the informal definition of the word 'baron' - substitute it with magnate, tycoon, mogul etc. The dissemination of information is vital for a country to function. Govt communicates via media. If someone proposes a law which will affect media companies, who scrutinises this law? A millionaire potato farmer? Well, possibly, but the media baron is more knowledgeable on the matter, is he not? The country declares war. How do the people find out? It's an easy argument to make, see.

[Clarets4me]

Once you have a elected 2nd Chamber, then it would start demanding more power, and rival the Commons ... this is one reason why it's not yet been radically reformed despite every Labour Government since the war promising to do so ...

There should be a limit of 300 " working " Peers, being those allowed to speak and vote in the House, drawn initially from those already there but then gradually replaced over time by others. Age limit of 80, no Bishops etc ...... The others can keep their titles, and we should continue to recognise excellence and service by elevating people to the Peerage, but non-working Peers should pay to have use of the Houses of Parliament's facilities ...
Hereditary peerages should be phased out, following the death of the current holder.

[timshorts]

Wow. I expected this thread to be full of the usual crass rubbish, but not at all.

It needs a bit of tinkering with, but generally, it does a pretty good job, particularly when scrutinising the outpourings of the more extreme or blinkered governments, which we unfortunately have to suffer from time to time.
I agree with the removal of the bishops. If a Bishop happened to be electec/selected to sit, then fair enough. Likewise hereditary peers.
The very last thing the other lot would want is an elected House based on some form of pr. That would make the Lords more democratic than the commons.