Okay, a UK politics question here. Does the House of Lords need reform? If so, what kind of reform?

I myself don't see much point in an elected second chamber - its function is to scrutinise and if necessary block legislature, and it's not going to do that well if it's effectively a mirror of the House of Commons. Also, as it stands, the Lords has some extremely knowledgeable and qualified members, which would be lost in a purely democratic House.

I would organise the House on meritocratic lines. I'd set up a quango to appoint experts in various areas of knowledge - economics, sociology, healthcare, energy, the environment...all the areas which our legislature addresses. The House would have more or less the same powers it has now - to examine legislature, make alterations, and if necessary block it entirely. I'd keep the Salisbury Principle, that the Lords will not block a Bill that was laid out in the governing party's electoral manifesto.

Hmmm... not so sure about using a quango for that purpose. Quangoes aren't very transparent by nature, and nor are they democratically accountable. Perhaps a branch of the Dept For Constitutional Affairs, or a permanent Select Committee, or a new type of Committee could be used instead. Quangoes make me uneasy.

Anyway, I still think a democratically elected upper house would be better. It needn't mirror the Commons - why not use Proportional Representation in its election? This would provide a nice moderating balance for the Commons and the Government. Also: genuine democracy. Wouldn't that make a nice change!?

The other problem with your system is that it means we get ruled by lawyers. The Commons is already 90% lawyers anyway, and the Lords is only marginally less under-representative of the population. Not to say that lawyers aren't intelligent and competent, but their domination of government is very unrepresentative of other important professions. Perhaps instead the Upper House (I propose that "Senate" would be a more appropriate name) could instead be composed of special interest groups elected from a variety of respected institutions. I can't be bothered to think exactly how this would work, but it seems pretty appropriate to me. And probably very similar to your idea.

I didn't clarify - the Second House would have representative numbers of each profession.

Proportional representation would allow fringe parties to block legislation and make revisions purely to cause trouble with the existing government. It would basically reduce the Second House to the same thing PR has always reduced governments to - a squabbling mess. I also wanted the Second House to be - relatively - free of party loyalty, and not dominated by the governing party.

My thoughts from my post on another forum... lazy if me I know... but I'm ill and it's 4 am here.

_______________


2. Yes - fixed term governments. Everyone knows what date the next election is - any changes to that have to be agreed with 75% of the legislature vote. We should have set general elections - that can only be altered with 75% (or higher?) consensus from Parliament as a whole (the Legislature as well as the Executive).


3. A set of constitutional rules that clearly define the role of the executive, as well as means of redressing any breaches - where the PM / Cabinet / Ministries act 'ultra vires' (beyond their statutory powers). These rules will form the backbone of the checks and ballances that ensure that if there is a massive majority in either house - it passes law and policies without going too far.

4. In an earlier thread JP cleverly suggested that PR be used for electing the upper chamber - thus allowing for real democracy in some element of Legislature...

Proportional Representation, as you mentioned, would be a good means of limiting massive majorities and the conviction politics that seem to accompany them... PR can have it's own problems though, including weak governments, temporary coalitions and extremists getting some say... perhaps by combining our current 1st past the post system with some form of PR will enhance democracy and limit a one party state - whilst still providing effective government and limiting extremism.

5. I do see your point in adopting a cross bench non-partizan upper house who are appointed rather than elected via the party system. If there was a clear and impartial method of such appointments then I might even be tempted to agree with your proposals... As the situation currently stands I'm not convinced that the existing means of appointments to the Lords isn't tainted and wholly undemocratic.

Perhaps having a mixture, as was previously the case, might provide some kind of remedy? Previously there were 4 kinds of Lords in the Upper Chamber: Spiritual (the upper echelons of the Church of England), Permanent (Hereditary Peers who were born into the role - now being phazed out), Temporary (appointed by the Crown - though almost always having been first vetted by the PM's office), and Some senior Law Lords (who only ever got involved in constitutional matters and the Lord Chancellor who sat as head of the Judiciary, on the Cabinet and in the Lords).

What if we were to adopt a Senate where: (i) electedSenators make up (for example) 40% of the Upper chamber, (ii) the appointed Senators (who are appointed by a non-partizan commission and draw appointees from a set of key industries and public services - though care must be taken to ensure industry bias and special interests don't override a senator's duty to his/her country) making up the next 40%, and (iii) the final 20% comprising of: spiritual Senators (representing all major faiths and / or charitable enterprises???) the Crown's appointed Senators (representing the head of State and / or the various dependencies such as Falklands, Gibraltar, Jersey etc) and Legal Senators (from the Judiciary).

There's no real reason for it to exist at all.

If a party has a majority in the Commons and is passing disagreeable legislature then the voters would have to show their dissaproval through popular protest or by voting for someone else at the next elections.

You live in the UK, am I right? Then you'll have seen exactly how much effect popular protest has on the government.

Yes but we would have no choice but to protest.
Besides, the Lords doesn't always represent the peoples best interests.

1. Why have an Upper Chamber at all?

The Lords form one of the few (and rapidly decreasing) checks and balances against an abuse of position by the Government of the day.

Bicameralism (having 2 distinct and seperate houses in Parliament) has proven to be an aide to democracy in the UK when the straightforward first-past-the-post election system has caused elective dictatorships. Here an overly powerfull Executive can introduce laws and policies that the electorate didn't vote them in to power for.

Various elections within the UK's recent history have shown how convition politicians like Thatcher swept into power with only a 35 - 45% majority of the vote, and yet command massive majorities in the lower house. Without major electoral reform this is set to continue.

It's sad to note that throughout the 80s the most effective opposition against some of the Thatcher administration's more radical and outlandish policies and laws came from the Lords (typically a bastion of the conservative establishment). The official opposition being too small to do anything effective. This was repeated during Blair's second administration, a weak official opposition and way too much party politics for any real dessent against the Government.
______________________

2. How Accountable is the Upper Chamber? How to Change this?

On the issue of protest - Yes, we must continue to protest, no matter how ineffective it may appear - it is still better than sitting back and doing nothing... However, this - as Commie has stated - is far from effective, especially with the conviction and spin orientated politics (that currently dominate the UK political scene).

So why give up an effective tool in keeping the Government in check? The Lords provides such a means of holding the Executive to account, but as Sgt_Pilcher says - "... the Lords doesn't always represent the peoples best interests."

This is why I have suggested reform of the Lords, where appointed lords are drawn from a wider more representative pool of leading academics, proffessionals, industrialists and public servants - appointed by an impartial and non-partizan committee. I would also suggest a fixed term of office for these lords after which they can reapply to be reappointed. I would suggest that they make up 40% of the Lords (or Senate)

Elected Lords would be voted in during local elections, through a mixture of the first-past-the-post and proportional representation (as they have in Germany) which would provide further (and more democratic) representation and accountability. I would also suggest that the ellected Lords (Senators) would make up the next 40%.

The remaining 20% would be made up by the Law Lords, Spiritual Lords (reps from all major faiths), and appointees from the various dependencies such as Falklands, Gibraltar, Jersey etc.