Lords Reform....

Wookster

I still don't see how this thread is relevant to "Debate House Prices & the Economy"

Out,_Vile_Jelly

We can't go round the world lecturing tinpot dictatorships about democracy when we have a chamber full of unelected part-timers in fancy dress paying themselves vast expenses.

Ideally, we should have a second chamber representing a variety of industries and backgrounds, who have all spent a minimum of 10 years doing a "proper job" (ie not in politics or PR), who will squash the more stupid ideas from the Commons. How these are appointed is a difficult matter though.

Wookster

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

We can't go round the world lecturing tinpot dictatorships about democracy when we have a chamber full of unelected part-timers in fancy dress paying themselves vast expenses.

Ideally, we should have a second chamber representing a variety of industries and backgrounds, who have all spent a minimum of 10 years doing a "proper job" (ie not in politics or PR), who will squash the more stupid ideas from the Commons. How these are appointed is a difficult matter though.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the unelected chamber has actually done a fair bit to protect democracy & freedom, including throwing out a number of authoritarian laws proposed by the previous government on detention without charge?

Ironic!

oldvicar

Is it time for a history lesson on democracy?

In ancient Athens, there was direct democracy. Citizens didn't elect others to represent them, they went and debated/voted on issues directly in person. Of course 'Citizens' were a minority - male, privileged, old (over 30?), and generally wealthy too. Not so dissimilar to our very own House of Lords at present. Most Athenians were not Citizens.

ILW

I think the Lords should be run on a lottery basis. A selection of taxpayers (drawn at random) are given 3 year stints on say £100k pa. No cronyism that way.

RichandJ

I haven't read the (Clegg's) actual proposals, but with a bicameral house, both directly elected, who actually has supremacy ?

FWIW I personally support the SQ, or even the SQ ante (before the last lot bu99ered about with it).

The_J

Irrelevant stuff like this just needs to be put on the back burner. This system has done alright for hundreds of years, lets review it when we aren't up !!!! creek without a paddle.

The Lib Dems are so out of touch it's embarrassing.

zagubov

ILW wrote: »

I think the Lords should be run on a lottery basis. A selection of taxpayers (drawn at random) are given 3 year stints on say £100k pa. No cronyism that way.

If it's going to be changed, it should be like National Service or Jury Duty. People in finance should be exempt; the bean counters have enough power as it is.

It should be open to people with high education levels (maybe graduates) and/or those who work in the caring professions who actually have to deal with people with needs. There should be a minimum age (senators meant elders I believe and with good reason)

There should be financial compensation but accommodation should be in a hostel / hall of residence to stop house-flipping etc. Maybe a minority of them should be experts in specific fields. Robert Winston would still be in it if I had any say. Ben Goldacre should be as well.

trotter09

Lords Reform would be at least as significant a change as the (defeated) proposal to change General Elections to AV. We had a Referendum on that, there should be a Referendum on Lords Reform.

Lords Reform was in all 3 main parties' manifestos at the last election: in other words, the eleccrorate had no opportunity to vote against Lords reform by voting for any significant party that opposed it.

An e-petition has just been started demanding a Referendum on Lords reform:

Lords Reform Referendum e-Petition