[RK]

Should we reform the House of Lords?

Should we change anything about the way it's members are appointed?

More hereditary peers?
Elections for it's members?
Keep some/all as appointe life peers?

Given that the House of Lords has never caused us any problems here, should we be messing with it? ()

Also, might some of us one day want a seat in the House of Lords? Do you really want to go through the election process to get there? (see my other new thread!)

[bikerx23]

I personally believe the lords should be based of individuals representative of experts in their field - for example, positions from the church (ok, I don't personally agree with this, but it works well), then other positions being allocated to those holding high public office, such as chancellors of universities, senior public positions and the like, which would reduce the political motivation in appointments.

[ukebert]

There isn't a "Yes, get rid of it" option.

[bikerx23]

(Original post by ukebert)
There isn't a "Yes, get rid of it" option.

because that isn't a realistic option.

[ThePants999]

I vote to leave as-is, primarily on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. I think appointed peers do a good job of keeping the Government in check without pandering to populism.

[ukebert]

(Original post by bikerx23)
because that isn't a realistic option.

Fair enough

The Lords should be made up of informed people with no political agenda, a highly developed moral sense, a detailed knowledge of Law, who are in touch with the population but who are impervious to the affects of power. Now, tell me how you get that.

[RK]

(Original post by ukebert)
There isn't a "Yes, get rid of it" option.

Why would that be a sensible option? What would it achieve? Why would anyone want to do that in a coutnry which has always had 2 chambers?

Not only would be it a big move, it would also have so many consequences and make so many changes to the way the country is run that it think such a massive chn=ange unnecessary and undesriable.

[DumberChild]

(Original post by bikerx23)
I personally believe the lords should be based of individuals representative of experts in their field - for example, positions from the church (ok, I don't personally agree with this, but it works well), then other positions being allocated to those holding high public office, such as chancellors of universities, senior public positions and the like, which would reduce the political motivation in appointments.

Ok there's something in this. But I also think that some seats should go to retired MPs, in roughly the some proportions as their parties are represented in the Commons. However only perhaps 30-40% should be given to retired MPs. This, combined with bikerx23's suggestion, would give a House of Lords with alot of varied interests, backgrounds and beliefs. This would breed an atmosphere where genuine debate could go on, with a variety of opinions inputted.

[Acaila]

Abolish it and create an English parliament instead so they stop moaning about the Scots having their own.

[ukebert]

(Original post by Acaila)
Abolish it and create an English parliament instead so they stop moaning about the Scots having their own.

[RK]

(Original post by Acaila)
Abolish it and create an English parliament instead so they stop moaning about the Scots having their own.

But abolishing the Lords will make Scotalnd loose something as well.

Plus I don't want an English Parliament. It would be too large and not much different from the Westminster Parliament. What we should have are 8 regional assemblies so that each could do things which benefit each region. What is good for the South East is noormally not so good for the North East etc.

So getting rid of the House of Lords would not affenot help this at all really, 8 new places for them to sit would be needed, not one. And none would be in London, as the London region would have the London Assembly as it's equivalent body.

[ukebert]

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
Plus I don't want an English Parliament. It would be too large and not much different from the Westminster Parliament. What we should have are 8 regional assemblies so that each could do things which benefit each region. What is good for the South East is noormally not so good for the North East etc.

That sounds good, on the condition that decidions made on the regional level may be vetoed on the national level if they are firmly against national or international policy (within reason)

[RK]

(Original post by ukebert)
That sounds good, on the condition that decidions made on the regional level may be vetoed on the national level if they are firmly against national or international policy (within reason)

I'm sure national law could override anything locally.

But this idea of 'mine' is essentially what the Government were trying to introduce a while ago.

Yet the North East voted against it.....I think the Government came too soon with the referendum. They hadn't let the full idea of devolved Government filter through to the masses in England to realise they were now not represented in the same way any more.

Support for some sort of body similar to the Welsh assembly and Scottish Parliament has majority support in England according to recent polls. Many may think an English Parliament is best, but regional assemblies would be much more suitable and help the individual regions much more than one large body would : the assemblies already exist too I believe as minor appointed bodies which meet and discuss things. They ought really be made more formal, more powerful, and accountable and be elected bodies which decide upon significant things.

I have been thinking of writing a bill on introducing these (given my role as Shadow Sec of State for communities and local Government)...

[Nightowl]

It's interesting now a few weeks ago they did a poll in the North East which suggested we now want regional assemblies.

[ukebert]

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
But this idea of 'mine' is essentially what the Government were trying to introduce a while ago.

Yet the North East voted against it.....I think the Government came too soon with the referendum. They hadn't let the full idea of devolved Government filter through to the masses in England to realise they were now not represented in the same way any more.

I didn't know that, that's interesting.