Where do you stand on the subject? Is it really something a self-styled "national interest" coalition government should have been trying to prioritise? Is it the beginning of the end for the coalition? For Cameron too, maybe: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/norma ... very-much/ Is it just a minor side-show?

Where do you stand on the subject? Is it really something a self-styled "national interest" coalition government should have been trying to prioritise? Is it the beginning of the end for the coalition? For Cameron too, maybe: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/norma ... very-much/ Is it just a minor side-show?

Needs change, its un-democratic and it is not right that in the 21st century our laws can be influenced by someone who is there by patronage or accident of birth.

Indeed so.

Plus Dave created more peers in his first year than any previous PM had ever done (whilst, at the same time, formulating plans to reduce the number of MPs).
How is that democracy?

In the intervening time until they get around to sorting anything out, there's one simple decision all three parties could take without the need for Parliament: Hold a moritorium on proposing anyone else for elevation to HoL.

It is strange that the only other country in the world that allows unelected clergy to have influence in the legislature is Iran, so kicking the Lords Spiritual out should be the first job. Then ban anyone who has previously held political office from being in the second chamber. Introduce a different voting system (STV would be my preference), for a fixed term and then euthenase them at the end of that period. Then we'll see who really wants the job

But I'm not sure how an elected chamber improves things. Blair it was, I think, that said having an elected second chamber would very significantly undermine the Commons, and I agree with him entirely.

Then, you have the fact that there might be many people of huge intellect and ability that could do a magnificent job in the second chamber, but who have no interest whatsoever in running for office. For one example, the law lords, some with at least 2 brains apiece. The legislature would be a much poorer place without people like that. And it does seem to be the case that the House of Commons is attracting lower calibre MPs than in the past, as evidenced by some of the toe-curling incompetents we now so often see promoted beyond their competency.

Then you have the bishops. Whilst to me, having them in the Lords is as nutty as hereditary peerages, the inescapable fact is we are stuck with them, absent a revolutionary constitutional change.

And, anachronistic and seemingly undemocratic as it may appear, and despite the endless attempts at and discussions and inquiries and commissions about reform, I reckon the HoL continues to do a passably good job, and is often a welcome thorn in the side of the government of the day.

I am not against reform. It is hard to know exactly what though. I'm sure a fully elected house is certainly not it.

As the Lords main task is to review laws passed in the Commons I think elected members, as in the case of hereditary peers, may not necessarily provide the best people for the job.

I would like to see an independent appointments committe select suitable people for the Lords refelecting all political and religious views (these two categorys would be minor) and experts in a variety of fields (probably could be done with well under the proposed 300 members). All positions , bar the Lords Spiritual, would be reviewed by the relevant political parties or the panel on a 5 yearly basis

Thus we would have the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Westminster representing the Christians, the chief rabbi the Jews and a.n.o. for the Muslims. there would be half a dozen ex politicians from Labour and the same for the Tories and Lib Dems. The Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalist would have one seat each as would the Irish loyalists. These people would be nominated by their parties. Add in a few ex union leaders and business men for further balance and that would be politicos sorted.

A few ex judges and ex snr civil servants, police and prison officers could advise on law and constitutional issues.

From here on it would be experts all the way in the fields of economics, media, sport, arts, science, medicine etc.

Hopefully this would lead to a high standard of debate sensible decisions in the best interests of the country rather than those based on party political agendas.

Why would you have a place for an overtly misogynistic entity such as the CofE? There can be no place at all in the legislature for any group that practises any form of discrimination.

But, whether we like it or not, they represent a viewpoint in the country. You and I might think its bloody ridiculous viewpoint, but it's still there.

I'm torn between a fully elected 2nd house which can review the commons actions but maybe with a rule attached whereby the commons can over-rule the lords but only by a high majority?

And an appointed house full of experts from every field and part of life, including religious viewpoints. But those religious viewpoints would be no more represented than say business, sport, education etc so would only be a tiny, tiny part of the mix.

Either way, the current system with hereditary peers and a large religious viewpoint from only one religion, isn't acceptable.

I'd just say that the upper house needs a complete makeover.

I just don't think now is the time to be doing it.

If we simply must have some political entity to keep the House of Commons honest then I don't think it's too much to ask that it should predominately be made up of working class people with entry decided more by merit than patronage.