Why does the House of Lords need reform?

I have just watched this, and the lady seems to have put a number of convincing points.

She mentioned "the damage the destruction of this house would cause under the spurious disguise of greater democracy". Isn't the point of having a second chamber to complement the first? And if the house of commons consist of elected members who produce legislation, then surely the second chamber should not be subject to the same admission criteria? Because then it would just slowly transform into a second version of the HOC and negate the whole checks and balances feature. Or am I wrong about this?

Aren't the specialists needed to provide common sense/real world assessments of legislations before they are put through? Or is it that they mostly operate on bias? To protect those high up on the socioeconomic ladder? Because from my understanding they are expected to (and they do) scrutinise the law instead of issuing or dismissing judgments without care.

Is it a paid position?

Will it be done by a committee within parliament?

How is it possible to decide the terms if it consists of the chamber who would normally be involved in amending and overruling legislation?

With regards to the democratic criteria being fulfilled through "meritocracy", is it not already apparent that the House of Lords members are specialists within their respective fields? Basically what it means then is that they would have to pass an HOC test, wouldn't they? Whereas HOC members are often just MPs aren't they? Or have I got it all mixed up?

Doesn't the House of Lords have a history for protecting the rights of minority groups as well? I would have thought something like this would be deemed "democratic", surely? What is democracy to the British? I guess I am unclear on this..

Oh, and aren't the bishops a minority...or there symbolically? lol. Or was that reference to the proposed same sex marriage bill which did not go through?

Reform is pointless, more-so at this moment in time with a coalition.

-It's not 'undemocratic' as people believe. Only 92 hereditary peers remain, a far cry from the amount there were before the reforms under Blair. Most are appointed, and subsequently only those whom have completed their (often Bushiness related) careers - thus bringing a high degree of intelligence and experience.

- The current House of Lords does not have any sovereignty, which would be gained through election and consent of the people. Currently, the House of Commons supersedes the House of Lords on matters if they so wish. I honestly don't know where people get this idea that the House of Lords have significant power. The House of Lords improves legislation and does not change core principles of it - in doing so would have to seek permission of the Commons.

- Secondly, any reform occurring under this coalition would most likely lead to 80% elected, 20% appointed - not democracy in it's purest sense. Being elected brings a whole host of drawbacks - mainly, Lords will be forced to take actions while always considering accountability and popularity, something that prevents honest and frank discussions. Elected peers are not likely to have the diverse range of experience that would be found within the House of Lords today - instead being younger people from a more narrow background. (Most likely would only have worked in Politics)

- Most importantly, sovereignty would be disputed. We would get the deadlock as seen the in USA. If they're both elected, then why should House of Commons supersede the Lords?

Hopefully this has enlightened a few of you as to why reform's not needed, and if it was it's not even practical to implement.

EDIT: If there's one reform I believe is practical and necessary that has become a recent problem with the introduction of appointment is the size of the Lords. It's simply too large - as Conservative Lord MacGregor told me

(Also, I suppose the generic argument of 'Conservative Pragmatism' whereby 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' could be applied here. We also have not had major revolutions, coups or upheavals for centuries - perhaps showing the effectiveness of our system as It's adapted to our needs, despite looking convoluted and out of date on paper)

Ok...first of all, there is a lot of Sovereignty in the House of Lords. The NHS bill is a demonstration of power from the HoL. It forces over 2000+ amendments before the bill was passed. It is a key part of the scrutiny process in Parliament. Although there seems to be a lot of scrutinising in parliament, there is a lot less than it seems.

While the Hereditary peers are a bad idea because all it does is increase right-wing opinions in the House of Lords as many of the peers will be born "with a silver spoon in the mouths" and not necessarily know much about their supposed area of expertise, I agree that the elected peer would largely deteriorate the law-making process. While they would make it democratic, the role of the House of Lords is to safeguard the rights of the citizen, to be a neutral collaboration of the best minds in the country scrutinising bills to make sure they are not detrimental to the country. The elected peer would result in a loss of expertise, and mean that the government would either be blocked as the Lords would be filled with people that disagree with the policies and so would resist on principle. Similarly, it would also be very possible for the Second Chamber to be filled with lords that have views that are sympathetic to the Government, if the elections for the Lords and the Commons are relatively close, which would just create the illusion of scrutiny, but just strengthen the current government as their bills would be scrutinised less and more widely accepted.

The best bet is to have appointed peers. People chosen by the Monarch, or perhaps a department of Civil Servants that actively search out people that are at the forefront of their particular field. This would increase expertise in the Lords, and improve the Lords making process. Personally, as it is the place of the Lords to be neutral, and use fact to decide whether a bill is a good idea, it should not be democratic, as they should be able to make unpopular decisions, and work for the better of the country. Elected peers would turn it into a popularity contest.

First of all, you're mixing up the idea of sovereignty with power. The House of Lords are excersising their power by making amendments, although this is arguably illegitimate, as they have not got any sovereignty derived upward by the people. I suppose it could be argued they have indirect sovereignty as they're appointed by the sovereign House of Commons, however this is a bit hazey.

Also, I will concede that if any reform was going to take place removal of hereditary peers would arguably be the most logical. However, is there any reason for it? It's worked, and is succesful. And please don't give me that's it's unfair because hereditary peers are most likely Conservative, that didn't matter a damn when Tony Blair dominated policy making. Also, hereditary peers are going to be hugely experienced in politics, and thus will be able to help newly appointed peers that lack that experience. Hell, most hereditary peers most likely have more knowledge and experience than any ministers, or even the PM.

Of course they need me.

Mainly because I provide the entertainment and also because I solve solutions in 25 seconds while it takes them over 6 years.

In conclusion,

First of all, you mispelt "excercising". No, Sovereignty is where power lies. So the House of Lords has Sovereignty because they have the power to prevent the Commons from passing laws.the appointment of power from the Commons automatically means a shift in Sovereignty away from the Commons.

I agree it has worekd in the past and continues to do so. In fact, I am against Lord reform. However if reform of the Second Chamber must continue, then I think it would be best to remove hereditary and elected peers with appointed.

Second,

Are you honestly correcting hastily written grammar on an internet forum? Why on earth did you feel the need to bring up an irrelevant spelling issue? Does that make any of our arguments more or less valid, or related at all? Did it impede your ability to understand me?

In fact, your inability to get facts correct impedes your ability to make an argument. The Commons can supersede the Lords, because the Commons has sovereignty lent to them by the people. Ever heard of the Salisbury Convention? It essentialy states in law that the Lords ultimately cannot stop a bill coming from the Commons.

Anyway, no. You're wrong. Power and sovereignty are two different things and can be independent of one another. Sovereignty provides a body authority to exercise power. A pressure group can exercise power, but they're not sovereign - are they?

Now, the Lords don't have sovereignty because it lies with the people and they have not lent it to the Lords through an election.

My personal opinion is that it's valuable to have a house of lords filled with field specialists and what not, however the system for appointing them is poor.


I'd prefer to see a party list PR election in the years between general elections where getting x% of the votes translates to x% of the house of lord seats.