House of Lords to be replaced

[JagLover]

brickwall said:

HOL should stay, but with 4 modifications IMHO:

a) Abolishing all the remaining hereditary peers
b) Allowing peers to retire: they retain the title and non-money privileges, they just don't get to sit in the house, vote, or contribute to law-making.
c) Having a limit on the number of 'active' (non-retired) peers. If a government wants to appoint some more, it has to convince some existing ones to retire.
d) Have a proportion of the house (e.g. 30%) elected, on non-renewable 10-year terms.

and have the elections "staggered" so that it would be a few changing at each election.

Something like this, with the same powers, would be a progression and allow us to see how it is working out before making any further changes.

[BlackLabel]

Looking at the various manifestos the SNP and the Lib Dems have joined Labour and are also campaigning to abolish the HOL as we know it.

On the plus side we will get rid of the paedophiles and convicted criminals however with an elected HOL we'll probably end up losing some of the independence that the House has because it will undoubtedly become a lot more party political when it becomes fully elected.

[McWigglebum4th]

BlackLabel said:

Looking at the various manifestos the SNP and the Lib Dems have joined Labour and are also campaigning to abolish the HOL as we know it.

On the plus side we will get rid of the paedophiles and convicted criminals however with an elected HOL we'll probably end up losing some of the independence that the House has because it will undoubtedly become a lot more party political when it becomes fully elected.

So paedophiles and convicted criminals or career politicians

[hidetheelephants]

The only way I can bring myself to approve of an elected 2nd chamber is if:

1. They serve a fixed term then go back to whatever they did before. perhaps 6-8 years.
2. No party affiliation of any kind, definitely no ex-MPs.
3. Candidates selected at open primaries to get rid of chaff.
4. Perhaps subject specialists nominated by professional bodies, but even that has problems.

Otherwise we just end up with another house of commons filled with the usual suspects, but with funny capes and a different colour of leather on the benches.

One concern I have is how do you encourage the likes of Lord Winston to stand for election? I believe subject specialists like him would run a mile.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

What we need is a function for the HoL. At the moment it doesn't have one.

The HOL has the power to veto an Act of self-perpetuation by a majority government. I'd consider this quite important and a very good reason to not have an elected upper chamber.
Its further purpose is to suggest change & improvement to hastily written (kneejerk) legislation; as someone else put it, acting as the brakes.

It should be noted that most civilised countries have a bicameral government & that for all its faults our system is admired & envied by many others throughout the world.