[SFsucks]

A general discussion area for the Lords Reform and poll.

Note in the poll the Unsure option mean your between Yes and No, the Don't Know option means you didn't know that reform of the house of lords was happening (or couldn't care less option).

[tomcol23]

No need for it.

[S1L3NTPR3Y]

I think they should have a fixed number of peers (about 400-500 is good), but they should be unelected keeping the current system for appointments, and serve the same purpose as now. The House of Commons should maintain its superiority over the Lords. With fixed terms for them (10 years, though which are renewable). I think 70% party political and 30% crossbenchers. Also on pay, they shouldn't be full time but should not receive any pay or expenses if they hardly go (Eg. £8000 if you do 5 hours of Lords work for 60 days a year and an additional £200 each extra day; but nothing you fall under 60 days).

[Morgsie]

Doesn't go far enough, I prefer a 100% Elected Chamber with the Bishops removed

[Aspiringlawstudent]

I'm yet to be convinced that there is any point in creating a larger elected body in parliament. I simply don't know what the intrinsic benefit of it would be.

Also, I'm confused as to what the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 would mean for an elected lords and haven't heard anything specific that addresses the issues that would inevitably arise in relation to them.

[meenu89]

Don't support any change to it.

[gladders]

I support reform but the Government's proposals are just barmy.

They have not thought for one second about the purpose of the Upper House. If they did, even for a minute, they'd realize election is not the answer.

Anyone who assumes election is the only option needs a serious wake-up call.

[alis-volatpropriis]

Out with the Lords and in with real Democracy.
I don't need some privileged non elected so called Lord, passing judgement on my behalf.

[qno2]

Where is the option asking whether we really need the lords or not.

[122025278]

I wish people would get over this notion that the Lords is somehow undemocratic because they aren't elected; then given that, our whole political system is undemocratic.

In case you hadn't realised, neither the Prime Minister nor the other Ministers are elected to their posts. They were elected as constituency MP's certainly, but no one elected David Cameron to head the government, he was APPOINTED. The only mandate he has is from the good people of Witney, his constituents, to represent them in Parliament and legislate, not from the other 60+ million people in the country to run that country.

The Civil Service, Military, Judiciary, Bank of England, Police are all bodies which hold power and make decisions affecting the lives of everyone, yet none of them are elected, they again are all APPOINTED.

Certainly we need some Lords reform. Minimum attendance for a start, those who don't turn up, without good reason, should lose their right to sit. Those who have been sent to prison should also be expelled. Anyone not paying tax or who is not domiciled in the UK should resign or be expelled.

[ukip72]

I don't see the point but UKIP could be the main beneficiaries of a chamber elected via PR so I won't complain.

[SFsucks]

(Original post by ukip72)
I don't see the point but UKIP could be the main beneficiaries of a chamber elected via PR so I won't complain.

congrats

[@Sam]

Oppose, Australian Senate and the asylum seekr issue is a case study of why this would be an utterly dangerous idea.

[The Dark Lord]

There is no need whatsoever for a second elected chamber.

The Lords should be a house of experts and specialists from different fields who can actually make judgments on the proposals coming from the Commons using their own experience.

For this to be the case, they have to be selected. If reform has to happen, just change the way Lords are chosen; perhaps with an independent panel...

[JacobW]

It's a terrible idea. Politicians need to realise that the constitution is not something to be casually tinkered with for the sake of political convinience. Bring back the hereditary peers, then leave the damn thing alone.

[Historophilia]

I really don't like the idea of a elected second chamber. It'll result in it just being a crap version of the House of Commons, full of second rate people who couldn't get elected as an MP. It'll also be even more full of political cronies and former MPs than it is now.

Some aspects of the lords reform make perfect sense to me, like allowing Lords to resign and making it possible get rid of them if the misbehave.

But the rest of the bill is completely pointless.

I reckon we should have a referendum like we had on AV, then the idea that people want it reformed will be thoroughly destroyed. People don't care about it really, but if they had to answer they'd say that it seems to be fine as it is.

The House of Lords has a particular role to play which is in my view incompatible with being directly elected.

There are definitely some things I'd change about the Lords, particularly the selection process. I'd make it as independent from the government as possible and there are also arguments to be made for banning Lords having party affiliation in the Lords.

[wildrover]

No the only reason it's one of the ebst scrutenisers in the world is because it is full of experts.