Should we scrap the unelected house of Lords?

That would be like arguing with a Holocaust denier. I dont stoop that low.

So, overall, depending on the purpose of the upper house, it should either be depoliticized or changed into a 'The National Congress of Councils' where Councils have direct oversight of the legislative process therefore providing relevant input that should be incorporated into legislation. This must be coupled with a change in the electoral system for the lower house. It should move to a PR system, kind of like Switzerland. The head of government should comprise a multitude of parties if no outright majority stands. Which means informal coalitions will be required. The parties select their potential government members and people can choose on a party basis and person basis. This will create a nationally representative lower house and a relevant upper house. I haven't figured out how the legislative powers should be separated between the two houses. Generally the upper house should funnel people's thoughts to ensure that they are considered during the legislative process.

What do you think?

To hold the Government to account, to debate public issues, and to revise and improve legislation.

It's a revising chamber that challenges, embarrasses, and sometimes delays legislation, but rarely if ever objects to something clearly in public demand.

Why? What a bizarre and baseless claim.

Why? On what basis? You have to make it meaningfully different from the Commons, remember. Two elected chambers representing the same thing is what Italy has, and it sucks for them.

It's not. I agree.

Doesn't mean election would do any better though.

I'm strongly in favour of reforming the appointments system so that the PM cannot appoint whoever he likes, and that it goes through a more stringent process.

Trouble is this never gets support because shallow twerps like Mr. Clegg argue it's election or nothing, and they throw their toys out of the pram when they don't get their way.

Which is as it should be, you nitwit. If it ever stops legislation it's only ever through securing enough criticism in the Commons to stop that legislation proceeding. It's through pointing out flaws and arguing merits that it serves our system. See the 90-day detention limit, for example. And what about supercasinos, and the major revisions to technical legislation like the Public Bodies Act?

Why measure legislative power only in terms of Bills blocked? That's a bizarre idea.

How do you mean? If you mean they don't have any electoral or formal link with the electorate, then that's a feature, not a bug. It's the Commons concern, that is.

Such an idea is baseless and wouldn't last five minutes. Legislators are inherently opinionated, and cannot legislate without voicing their opinions. Unless you propose to make the House of Lords entirely closed-door, shut down the public galleries, and turn off the TVs and microphones, there's no way the Lords could replicate civil servants, to which they are nothing alike.

Somewhat a different discussion there, but that's an aside. Disagree entirely with your views on the upper house, though.

How would an elected House 'funnel people's thoughts' any differently than the House of Commons does?

The Swiss Council of States represents the cantons and semi-cantons of the Swiss Confederation, not the people. The purpose of the Councillors there is to think of the concerns of the federal structure of Switzerland. Its a fundamentally different representational basis.

It's not replicable here in the UK.

Many reservations about the exact mechanism you are proposing but I have some agreement with parts of it (def not the crossed out bit!).

Here's my idea for political appointments that stems from yours. The problem is the majority party/PM packing the Lords. So how about we move to PR or similar for the lower house*, making single-party majorities unlikely, and have a Commons vote on the list of partisan Lords put forward for appointment each year. This means there at least needs to be some cross-party consensus, if only in the ruling coalition, on who gets in. I suppose voting on the full list at once could cause problems with people taking issue with problematic candidates, but it's an idea (hopefully this stuff would be ironed out at the committee stage).

*A proportional system is better and more justifiable these days as people are more mobile around the country. Electing a local representative is not quite so important. As a soon to be graduate I don't really care what happens in my university town, I care about London where I will hopefully end up working, and I suppose I care about where my parents (will) have retired to, and where I'll go when I get fed up of London.

I don't even think an upper house is necessary. It's just reviews legislation to make sure it does miss things or has no errors. An additional function in government should be created that deals with such things. The committees and consultation processes should deal with the majority of issues.

I don't even like the separation between civil society and the state. I'd rather have the legislative system under the control of the people directly. Then the executive and judicial branch members are elected by the people in the most democratic way possible.

Elected judges? Are you insane?

I don't even think an upper house is necessary. It's just reviews legislation to make sure it does miss things or has no errors. An additional function in government should be created that deals with such things. The committees and consultation processes should deal with the majority of issues.

I don't even like the separation between civil society and the state. I'd rather have the legislative system under the control of the people directly. Then the executive and judicial branch members are elected by the people in the most democratic way possible.

To hold the government to account for what?

Why do they debate public issues?

What revisions and improvements have been made to legislation?

So it's purpose is technical. Make sure the legislation is error free. If not, suggest some amendments to the way a piece of the legislation is written.

Parliament should be unicameral.

Why? What is so special about the upper house. It seems pointless to me.

If the parliament wants some sort of oversight of legislation or some additional debates to try to improve the legislation just in case something important has been missed, why not consult an 'expert'

or issue the draft legislation to the public.

It's not like the upper house ever stops legislation though. It's there as a formality. Just to suggest adding a specific condition here or a caveat there. The government bill goes through 100% of the time. All they do is review and suggest a different way of doing something. If the member of parliament agree, they agree and the legislation is changed. If not, **** goes on as usual.

This check and balance crap is *******s. Legislative power is the parliaments to use. Executive power is the governments. The government produces most of the bills therefore they monopolize the legislative power. To have an effective check and balance means what? To make sure the government doesn't control all three branches of government lol

The executive branch controls the legislative branch. Therefore the upper house serves as just a reviewing platform. That's all.

Within the legislative branch, the separation is not of power but of role within the legislative process. The executive controls the legislative. Simple.

Let me change what I have said. This is a separation of civil society and the state issue.

I'd like direct democracy but people won't want that bizarrely. This whole system is democratic dictatorship.

Meh. I've come to the conclusion that the upper house doesn't matter.

I guess direct democracy is the only way eh...the legislative branch should be controlled by the people directly. The executive branch should be elected by the people. The same for the judiciary.

Ta ta

I think it is very outdated, and does need changing. As a whole I think the democratic element to our country needs changing to be more representative. I find it shocking that with 24% of possible votes, the conservatives some how have 50% of the seats - it is wrong. I think it is made worse that Cameron wants the House of Lords to represent the scene in the House of Commons better - he wants fair representation where it suits him. I personally am of the belief that the current system is far from what democracy should be.

I personally would like to see an elected upper house and for both houses to be representative of voters. We certainly should not see a case where 1 million+ votes results in 1 seat. I am yet to see a reason to keep the current FPTP system that I agree with, it simply does not work. Sorry for going a little off topic, but I think the two topics of electoral reform and reform of House of Lords are strongly linked if we are aiming for a more democratic society.

I would like to see proportional representation in the House of Lords and a fixed term of service.

PR would be hard to bring in to the House of Commons as it takes away the accountability of MPs whereas in the House of Lords it can serve to better represent the views of the public as a whole.

That's problematic. What happens if two elected chambers clash? If the FPTP Commons and the PR Upper House disagreed, who ought to win? If the Commons still uses the Parliament Act, wouldn't that be a democratic outrage from your point of view?

Also: why would we want another House of elected politicians? Why not something different, like a chamber of experts, to complement the Commons and not to challenge it?

Do the two chambers not already clash? The current process by which a policy is allowed to pass through should continue. As is already dictated by convention, if a policy specifically outlined by a party in their manifesto passes through a vote in the House of Commons then the House of Lords should not be able to block it.

A chamber of experts would be a nice proposition but that could still be incorporated in my proposed system. Parties can suggest experts to represent them in the House of Lords and an independent body can decide whether the individual has sufficient expertise to vote on issues regarding their specific subject. Obviously this represents issues if we consider parties who have very few representatives due to gaining only a low percentage of the overall vote but exceptions can always be made. To be honest, I just believe that while a FPTP system remains in the House of Commons, I feel bringing in a chambers that can also provide PR would be beneficial to democracy.

Also, who's to say that experts in this chamber you suggest would not already have political leanings that affect their vote? Ensuring that we know where members of chamber's loyalties lie will give a certain level of transparency not afforded by the system you proposed. (That's not to say they'll always vote in favour of the party that selected them)

The Parliament Act has as its basis that its logic only lasts as long as the House of Lords is unelected. This problem is the precise reason why Clegg's Lords Reform Bill of 2012 fell on its face, and you haven't solved it.

Sorry, are you now saying the Lords should be appointed? It seems to contradict your earlier demand that it be elected.

I don't see why political opinions shouldn't be a valid reason for having a view in the chamber. The point is to persuade those who don't, and that's what debate is about.

I didn't say that the House of Lords would be elected - I said that its composition should reflect the proportion of votes in the country. In other words, each party will have a fixed number of individuals that they would be allowed to select for the House of Lords dependent on the percentage of votes they received in the general election. Combine this with a fixed term of service and you get, in effect, a PR system.

There is always scope to include those independent of any political leanings as there already exists with the Lords Spiritual.

bs

Elected judges? Are you insane?