Aaooooii! But They're SWEET! (Should the House of Lords be abolished?)

Member Name: Alindrail

Product:	Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Date:	20/04/01 (49 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Reviewing body is CRUCIAL

Disadvantages: They are kinda old.

The House of Lords! The heights of the upper classes! Late lunches and nodding off to the man talking on the big cushion thingy. A kind of docile resting home where the blue bloods went out to pasture, and old politicians could keep a hand in to the political process!

Shoudl it be scraped? Good Lord (no pun intended HAH HAH) no! As others have said, a second chamber is CRUCIAL for parliamentary scrutiny. We have an electoral system which allows for huge majorities (as in the current Labour Gvt) and whips to keep parties in line. Without a second chamber legislation could be rushed through without any kind of scrutiny or delay, or even really time for debate outside the House of Commons.

Should the Lords in its present form be reformed? That is a yes. The hereditary peers notion has some merits (shock -horror!) - representatives who usually (though not always) have a high standard of education, and have known since birth that they will have a position in this Chamber and can spend their whole lives working towards it. In reality of course, this doesn't happen, and many hereditary peers do not attend and do not care what happens. They are also usually party political, and Tory at that, which causes all kinds of problems to anyone who is leaning slightly left.

Should the chamber be elected? No - that too causes problems. The second chamber has a review function, nothing else. It should not become a challenge to the Commons! Two elected chambers creates two Commons essentially, it is a bad idea. Then what should be done?

I propose that the current nomination system be maintained for life peerages - but it should be a body of independent and mixed experts who will actively seek good members for the house. There should be a balance of views from all sides, with as many neutral parties as possible. These people should be well qualified experts in legislation and other fields who can act not only in the interests of the nation as a
whole, but from operating in fields which will be affected by legislation.

I think such a body should still be only able to postpone legislation, but as these will no doubt be pro-active members due to their being actively put in the Chamber, they will be driven to put their point across, forcing the issues to be considered and examined by the outside world and members of the Commons.

So- get rid of the hereditaries, get rid of the PM nominating life peerages, get rid of the Bishops - but KEEP THE LAW LORDS (added authority to the highest level of legal appeal, and experts in dealing with issues and implementation and interpretation of legislation).

Any objections?

Summary: