With great respect, Rachel, the US Senate has rotating 6-year terms. The idea is that a third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, along with the House elections. Thank you for your excellent commentary.
Ultimately, the upper house is supposed to be a revising chamber. This has been totally lost with the HoLs. The House of Commons isn’t going to vote for the Lords to supersede it. It should be made of expertise to make the commons think again and stop poor legislation getting through. It’s a quandary not helped by having a head of state that has no power and the executive branch dominating the Commons. We have no written constitution to delineate the exact powers held by each house.
Tbh if the Commons votes for it, precedent says they will have no choice. Pretty sure Starmer stated he'll pack the Lords with Labour peers to achieve that end.
If you're looking to keep that skill and knowledge factor and not have a duplicate house of common you might want to look at the Irish Seanad (Senate). It's 60 members with 11 being appointed by the Taoiseach and 6 elected from university alum. The rest are divided into sectors of the economy and can elect there members rather than geographical districts. So there is an education, public administration, labour, industy and agricultural panel. Only members from those sectors can vote. Its not open to the general public. It keeps the bit undemocratic nature of the house of Lords but since its just an advisory and scrutinising body it allows expert opinion and knowledge.
The obvious solution is to "onshore" all the quangos which have drained power from the Commons into the Lords, so that their decision-making happens in full view of the public.
You don't need to scrap it. Reduce the remuneration from £332/day and free restaurant meals to £4/day and one coupon for a Big Mac, fries and a Coke from Mickey D's.
it should be replaced with a house of experts who are chosen for their qualifications in specific subjects so they can review legislation and it should be appointed by an independent body definitely not by a party as it is now and not by voting we already have the commons for that
@@MichaelDowds1986 I think your better going for a fully elected second chamber with equal standing to the commons or doing away with the second chamber altogether.
@@zoso7889 surely it would have to be representative in a different way (like the way the US Senate represents the states and the US HoR represents 'the people'. I can see the unicameral system (with super beefed up committees) being a decent system.
I can't stand Starmer, but ftom a democratic point of view Lords should be replaced. People should elecct an upperhouse.. Also look at Lord Cameron,. Wasnt an elected MP but ended up the Foriegn Minister in an elected government. The whole place wou.d be a joke if it wasnt the fact that its the public who pay for this circus.
It has to be packed to be scrapped. In any case, Labour's history has shown us that they have made meaningful reforms to the HoL. unfortunately it's a difficult thing to do because there are too many simps who want to keep everything the same because of nostalgia and deference to authority.
@Red1Green2Blue3 you can't meaningfully reform the Lords, a legislature which is unelected is a travesty even with an age cap or the number of hereditary peers capped to 92 or whatever, and the suggestion it could block its own abolition is untrue. There is convention that the Lords doesn't block things in the governing parties manifestos, if Starmer truly wants to abolish the Lords he'd have just put it in the manifesto, something he did initially promise to do and that he could do without risk because of the fact he was basically gifted a huge majority via tory implosion
@@Red1Green2Blue3 There is a convention that the House of Lords passes things that were in the governing party's manifestos. If Starmer was truly serious about abolishing the Lords, he would have simply put it in the manifesto, something he initially promised he would do, but reneged on, something he could do with no risk because of the huge majority Labour was basically gifted by Tory implosion
Brown's House of the Regions has a huge flaw. You already take people around the country and put them in London. This would repeat that in a different form, but would in no way devolve power to regions. We need a Federal System, (with devolution Max) as works well in most other western countries and many other ones.
People don't like the House of Lords because it's perceived to have become a money for honours upper house. Instead of scrapping it there needs to be a robust and independent panel that vets all of its new members and makes sure each respective baron or baroness has the unique expertise and experience, that the country could benefit from.
people don't like it because it's undemocratic, sure you can put checks and balances in place to improve it but it's still a fundamentally broken system
@@rolinti9146 all political systems have undemocratic parts. Our judges are not elected either, and most people would agree that it is a good thing that they are not
@@LaputanAcademy why do you want the house of Lords to exist so badly. And unelected chamber that gets to decide if our votes "really counts". It shouldn't exist. It's just wrong. I'd rather we have 2 elected houses.
@@goodrobotsai well firstly,, it can't veto legislation, it can only amend it. Most of its amendments are accepted by the commons, however, because the quality of debate in the lords is much better than the commons and the amendments actually improve the legislation. If the chamber is elected it is either dominated by the same party, in which case its just a rubber stamp parliament, or its dominated by the opposite party, in which case we get gridlock and stalemate
Love the podcast, quick question for next week. Lots of new MPs have just arrived in the Commons, and have begun settling in and hiring their staff. In the past, there have been issues with misconduct and inappropriate behaviour from MPs towards their staff. Should Parliament bring in a more formalised HR system, perhaps in line with the private sector? Thanks
I think Britain needs to have a wider look at its constitutional arrangements before it tries to reform the Lords! So much power is concentrated in Westminster and London to the detriment of the regions and nations of Britain. So maybe a federal UK is what you need in which case an elected upper house (a Senate) representing the nations of the UK is the go (like Australia, the US and Canada - the Washminster system as its nicknamed in Oz). But if that's the case what becomes of the Commons - does it represent the UK or only England? If it represents the whole of the UK do you then need an English assembly - the equivalent of the Stormont, Holyrood and the Welsh assembly? Could you then have a federation without a federal constitution like Britain's english speaking offspring all have (US, Canada, Australia, NZ)? If instead you want an upper house of experts - how do you appoint them and what terms do they have?
And how poor professional journalists' knowledge of upper houses in other countries is. The only examples given here were France and the US, and the host managed to make errors about both despite reading from notes!
The democratic chamber isn't a great advert though, is it ? Look where it got us with the tories. Imho the second chamber saved us quite a bit of their worst excesses. Don't change them such that that is lost. And look at the senate. They're a disgrace. And the supreme court has been fixed.
Set term limits, not age limits, for both house of commons & lords of 15-20 years in each. No second jobs allowed while you are in either house. I agree that experts are the way forward, so lords should be broken into govt sectors (housing, health, business, environment, transport, education, law etc.). Only path into lords is after a 15y term in commons. No path from commons to lords without applying to serve in one of the lords sectors. Sectors should be added to in equal numbers every ~5 years to keep balance. Set a maximum number, and once the max is reached, no additions can be made until people leave at the end of their term.
No term limits for MPs. If you're **elected** you should be allowed to stand, it keeps institutional knowledge which is important. Maybe term limits for PMs and Ministers.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 The idea would be to keep institutional knowledge passing down the generations, and the 'elder statesmen' would stay in the system, they'd just be moved to the upper house following their term in the lower house, if they choose to apply. Commons is too stagnant and needs to be more regularly refreshed with new and relevant ideas. The last 14 years of govt have shown that. The tories - whatever your views on them - ran out of ideas by the end
I disagree. But please elaborate on why you think it doesn’t solve, or at least improve on, the problem. And what further problems do you think would be caused as a result?
Replace the HoL with frontier AI Large Language Models. The AI can easily read, review and decide if legislation should be passed or revised. I for one, welcome our silicon overlords.
The current Lords is full of appointees whose skill set is not what got them there see Lord Owen they're handed out as grace and favour rewards to donors and worse. It's a legislation proof reading house and it's members should be selected appropriately by a bi partisan committee. The current overflowing house should be left with titles only and the ones with skills necessary and the work ethic should be interviewed as part of a rebuilding process Truss Boris and previous Labour government's turned it into a charade.
What a great debate - 'experts', yes, they're useful but younger research tends to get forgotten. Lived experience, yes, so useful in housing, in mental health in everything but not on it's own.Need some peer reviewd evidence too. Cultural difference in the respect and wisdom of elders, how much should we respect them compared to younger 'experts'? - so much to think about. I plan my first ever visit to a House of Lords debate on your advice, all the way from Folkestone, before I take a stance (having previously had quite a definite stance). Thank you for this one.
Does it need reform? The only problem so far is that there is too many members. Introducing a manditory retirement age and then limiting the number of new members allowed to be made per year will fix that over time. Maybe make a limit for the numbers of lords as well. That is all it needs.
4:35 if, in the lord's, the quality of the debate, decision making and expertise is so much higher in an unelected body (most of whom are nominated by elected representatives as it happens) than in the elected commons, then why should we be wasting time reforming it? We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf and one of those is to nominate peers to oversee legislation.
All Keir had to do was condemn all violence, commit to punishing its perpetrators but also affirm that he understood & would address the fears & anger of ordinary people concerned about their families & communities. Not doing so will be the biggest political mistake of his career.
The political blindness of the British is astonishing. The elephant in the room or the very reason for nearly every political problem in GB is the monarchy. You are so used to this kind of inequality that you do not perceive the injustice woven into your system of ruling. If the House of Lords changes into a chamber representing the regions or so-called 'peers' will have to leave, reaching a certain age is a minor issue. The bigger or even huge one is that an uncontrolled individual who loses his nerves because of a leaking pen has the power to finalize laws; that so-called 'aristocrats' still possess huge territories inherited through their blood relatives and not earned by their own work; that a certain accent learned in a certain school still makes spoilt youngsters feel special and thus entitled etc. All of this is wrong! Anyone who wants to change this must change this accepted injustice i.e. abolish the monarchy.
Is this his way of trying to achieve total control? Thin edge of the wedge - wait to see what comes about by the time he has hit the wedge a few more clouts with the hammer.
What voting system would you use? If it were a national election, would voters need to read up on the background and priorities of hundreds of independent candidates?
That system will last around 15 minutes before the non partisan members start forming groups based off of ideologies. This will then give us a house of lords with exactly the same problems as the house of commons.
#KEEP_The_LORDS and Breadth & Balance ⚖️of #Omi_HANNAH👸Real_Careers #COUNT⚖️ That Why its #BRILL🐜ilAnt Debating #SAY_No_Totally_100 Career👴🏼 Polly🦜(ℹ️tion)s look@ Were #NOT🇺🇲.. Go Attenborough #EXPERT🇬🇧 #BRITISH
statutory churn is probably the best idea. Certainly not elected - that's the stupidity of the politically ignorant. I would be suspicious of experts; lobbying isn't restricted to the commons, and retired experts invariably have outside connections. Probably retired civil servants or public body officials would be a good choice.
I am so pleased with the fact that, contrary to a lot of blind criticism coming from the progressive centre and centre-left (that is, the normal New Statesman audience), the discussion here points clearly to the fact that the Upper Chamber is valuable exacltly because its members are not conventionally elected, that is, they do not think and argue within the context of electoral cycles, which to me has always been a ,ajor issue with 'career politicians', in any political system, of course, but especially in a representative democracy. One issue is of great importance, and which Hanna included is that the House of Lords has become, at least partly, the repository of incompetence, what Hannah called 'the failed/ retired politicians'. (Less so the civil servants who could be considered, in many ways, experts). So, failed/ retiring politicians, to the man (and woma - party-political appointees sent specifically to strengthen party numbers in the Chamber, rather that for any practical reason for the good of the country and public, are, to me at least, a much bigger problem than the few bishops or the small cohort of hereditary peers (after all, one might argue that these latter also represent a portion of the British public, and not necessarily even the richer or most porminent part thereof). For those of us who see value in the House of Lords, my own suggestion has been for a long time a restructuring of the appointment process. The Lords shold not be appointed by the government (unless in exceptional and very specific circumstances). Achievement and expertese, rather than party or gevernmental work should be the main, if not singular criterion. And selection should be for life, though with a 'good conduct' review process, i.e. increased power of ethics committees, procedurally moderated.
No he won't, look the house of lords has protected our democracy over the past 7 years. Reform yes, we have more important issues to deal with. Ideally we would have an elected upper house.
Well it’s about time we had an elected second chamber and got rid of friends of government. I have no problem with all the heads of faith. Being appointed by right. I do have a problem with Baroness Mone.
Here’s the problem with an elected second chamber - Nobody will vote for an expert. Experts aren’t popular because they are a lot smarter than the average voter. People in the UK would rather have an elected second chamber of celebrities than an elected second chamber of experts.
Watch next: Kamala Harris could be "much more impressive" as president - Andrew Marr ua-cam.com/video/wNCPPbcHTWA/v-deo.html
With great respect, Rachel, the US Senate has rotating 6-year terms. The idea is that a third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, along with the House elections. Thank you for your excellent commentary.
Ultimately, the upper house is supposed to be a revising chamber. This has been totally lost with the HoLs. The House of Commons isn’t going to vote for the Lords to supersede it. It should be made of expertise to make the commons think again and stop poor legislation getting through. It’s a quandary not helped by having a head of state that has no power and the executive branch dominating the Commons. We have no written constitution to delineate the exact powers held by each house.
Tbh if the Commons votes for it, precedent says they will have no choice. Pretty sure Starmer stated he'll pack the Lords with Labour peers to achieve that end.
@@blazzz13 no need, he can invoke Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 to pass legislation
If you're looking to keep that skill and knowledge factor and not have a duplicate house of common you might want to look at the Irish Seanad (Senate). It's 60 members with 11 being appointed by the Taoiseach and 6 elected from university alum. The rest are divided into sectors of the economy and can elect there members rather than geographical districts. So there is an education, public administration, labour, industy and agricultural panel. Only members from those sectors can vote. Its not open to the general public. It keeps the bit undemocratic nature of the house of Lords but since its just an advisory and scrutinising body it allows expert opinion and knowledge.
The obvious solution is to "onshore" all the quangos which have drained power from the Commons into the Lords, so that their decision-making happens in full view of the public.
You don't need to scrap it. Reduce the remuneration from £332/day and free restaurant meals to £4/day and one coupon for a Big Mac, fries and a Coke from Mickey D's.
Ex mistresses and Russian crooks?
And Ian Botham.
Scrap? No. Reform yes!
it should be replaced with a house of experts who are chosen for their qualifications in specific subjects so they can review legislation and it should be appointed by an independent body definitely not by a party as it is now and not by voting we already have the commons for that
This exactly. We want people who have knowledge to scrutinise legislation and are not influenced by electoral ambitions.
Why not discuss how the Irish Senate is elected? Surely seems like the most apt comparison for HoL reform.
The Seanad is only partially elected and is, for the most part, an ineffective talking shop.
@@zoso7889 Is it an improvement on the HoL though. That's the question.
@@MichaelDowds1986 I think your better going for a fully elected second chamber with equal standing to the commons or doing away with the second chamber altogether.
@@zoso7889 surely it would have to be representative in a different way (like the way the US Senate represents the states and the US HoR represents 'the people'. I can see the unicameral system (with super beefed up committees) being a decent system.
I can't stand Starmer, but ftom a democratic point of view Lords should be replaced.
People should elecct an upperhouse..
Also look at Lord Cameron,.
Wasnt an elected MP but ended up the Foriegn Minister in an elected government.
The whole place wou.d be a joke if it wasnt the fact that its the public who pay for this circus.
Indeed Cameron was, But starmer has already put 3 unelected in there in the last 4 weeks,
Just make it elected by closed list Proportional representation. No point tinkering it around the edges, the constitution needs fundamental reform.
Age matters when said politicians aren't elected. If you're elected you have a mandate regardless of age.
Spain has a -vaguely- similar system to what we could have if we wanted a regional upper chamber and a more proportional lower chamber.
He's literally stacking the Lords, of course he's not abolishing it he's telling us directly that he's doing the opposite!
It has to be packed to be scrapped. In any case, Labour's history has shown us that they have made meaningful reforms to the HoL. unfortunately it's a difficult thing to do because there are too many simps who want to keep everything the same because of nostalgia and deference to authority.
@Red1Green2Blue3 you can't meaningfully reform the Lords, a legislature which is unelected is a travesty even with an age cap or the number of hereditary peers capped to 92 or whatever, and the suggestion it could block its own abolition is untrue. There is convention that the Lords doesn't block things in the governing parties manifestos, if Starmer truly wants to abolish the Lords he'd have just put it in the manifesto, something he did initially promise to do and that he could do without risk because of the fact he was basically gifted a huge majority via tory implosion
@@Red1Green2Blue3 There is a convention that the House of Lords passes things that were in the governing party's manifestos. If Starmer was truly serious about abolishing the Lords, he would have simply put it in the manifesto, something he initially promised he would do, but reneged on, something he could do with no risk because of the huge majority Labour was basically gifted by Tory implosion
House of Foreign Lobbyists, MPs mistresses and economic grifters
Brown's House of the Regions has a huge flaw. You already take people around the country and put them in London. This would repeat that in a different form, but would in no way devolve power to regions. We need a Federal System, (with devolution Max) as works well in most other western countries and many other ones.
If only...
People don't like the House of Lords because it's perceived to have become a money for honours upper house. Instead of scrapping it there needs to be a robust and independent panel that vets all of its new members and makes sure each respective baron or baroness has the unique expertise and experience, that the country could benefit from.
people don't like it because it's undemocratic, sure you can put checks and balances in place to improve it but it's still a fundamentally broken system
Absolutely true.
@@rolinti9146 all political systems have undemocratic parts. Our judges are not elected either, and most people would agree that it is a good thing that they are not
@@LaputanAcademy why do you want the house of Lords to exist so badly. And unelected chamber that gets to decide if our votes "really counts". It shouldn't exist. It's just wrong. I'd rather we have 2 elected houses.
@@goodrobotsai well firstly,, it can't veto legislation, it can only amend it. Most of its amendments are accepted by the commons, however, because the quality of debate in the lords is much better than the commons and the amendments actually improve the legislation. If the chamber is elected it is either dominated by the same party, in which case its just a rubber stamp parliament, or its dominated by the opposite party, in which case we get gridlock and stalemate
Love the podcast, quick question for next week. Lots of new MPs have just arrived in the Commons, and have begun settling in and hiring their staff. In the past, there have been issues with misconduct and inappropriate behaviour from MPs towards their staff. Should Parliament bring in a more formalised HR system, perhaps in line with the private sector? Thanks
I think Britain needs to have a wider look at its constitutional arrangements before it tries to reform the Lords! So much power is concentrated in Westminster and London to the detriment of the regions and nations of Britain. So maybe a federal UK is what you need in which case an elected upper house (a Senate) representing the nations of the UK is the go (like Australia, the US and Canada - the Washminster system as its nicknamed in Oz). But if that's the case what becomes of the Commons - does it represent the UK or only England? If it represents the whole of the UK do you then need an English assembly - the equivalent of the Stormont, Holyrood and the Welsh assembly? Could you then have a federation without a federal constitution like Britain's english speaking offspring all have (US, Canada, Australia, NZ)? If instead you want an upper house of experts - how do you appoint them and what terms do they have?
At least one of the two houses should be elected by proportional representation. If the commons is fist past the post, the the Lords should be PR.
No They won't Its a nest egg for failed MPs In particular labour,
Labour and Tories both love the House of Horrors. Neither party will get rid of it.
Extraordinary how comfortable the New Statesman is with an undemocratic chamber as part of the legislative process.
And how poor professional journalists' knowledge of upper houses in other countries is. The only examples given here were France and the US, and the host managed to make errors about both despite reading from notes!
The democratic chamber isn't a great advert though, is it ? Look where it got us with the tories. Imho the second chamber saved us quite a bit of their worst excesses. Don't change them such that that is lost.
And look at the senate. They're a disgrace. And the supreme court has been fixed.
@@theelmonk Democracy is the worst of all political systems. Except for all the other systems.
No chance at all! Starmer wants to be there soon!
This will be the best thing ever! But Kier is not up to the task.
How hard can it be? An elected chamber is not hard to do.
Set term limits, not age limits, for both house of commons & lords of 15-20 years in each. No second jobs allowed while you are in either house. I agree that experts are the way forward, so lords should be broken into govt sectors (housing, health, business, environment, transport, education, law etc.). Only path into lords is after a 15y term in commons. No path from commons to lords without applying to serve in one of the lords sectors. Sectors should be added to in equal numbers every ~5 years to keep balance. Set a maximum number, and once the max is reached, no additions can be made until people leave at the end of their term.
No term limits for MPs. If you're **elected** you should be allowed to stand, it keeps institutional knowledge which is important. Maybe term limits for PMs and Ministers.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 The idea would be to keep institutional knowledge passing down the generations, and the 'elder statesmen' would stay in the system, they'd just be moved to the upper house following their term in the lower house, if they choose to apply. Commons is too stagnant and needs to be more regularly refreshed with new and relevant ideas. The last 14 years of govt have shown that. The tories - whatever your views on them - ran out of ideas by the end
@@gmanville1 Your proposed solution doesn't solve the problem you've stated, it just creates more problems.
I disagree. But please elaborate on why you think it doesn’t solve, or at least improve on, the problem. And what further problems do you think would be caused as a result?
Great discussion
Replace the HoL with frontier AI Large Language Models. The AI can easily read, review and decide if legislation should be passed or revised. I for one, welcome our silicon overlords.
We can but dream,why can we not have an elected 2nd chamber
The current Lords is full of appointees whose skill set is not what got them there see Lord Owen they're handed out as grace and favour rewards to donors and worse. It's a legislation proof reading house and it's members should be selected appropriately by a bi partisan committee.
The current overflowing house should be left with titles only and the ones with skills necessary and the work ethic should be interviewed as part of a rebuilding process Truss Boris and previous Labour government's turned it into a charade.
What a great debate - 'experts', yes, they're useful but younger research tends to get forgotten. Lived experience, yes, so useful in housing, in mental health in everything but not on it's own.Need some peer reviewd evidence too. Cultural difference in the respect and wisdom of elders, how much should we respect them compared to younger 'experts'? - so much to think about. I plan my first ever visit to a House of Lords debate on your advice, all the way from Folkestone, before I take a stance (having previously had quite a definite stance). Thank you for this one.
Does it need reform? The only problem so far is that there is too many members.
Introducing a manditory retirement age and then limiting the number of new members allowed to be made per year will fix that over time. Maybe make a limit for the numbers of lords as well.
That is all it needs.
4:35 if, in the lord's, the quality of the debate, decision making and expertise is so much higher in an unelected body (most of whom are nominated by elected representatives as it happens) than in the elected commons, then why should we be wasting time reforming it? We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf and one of those is to nominate peers to oversee legislation.
The inability of some women to be serious about serious subjects is becoming irritating . When is Marr back from holiday I wonder?
Good stuff, but oh dear -'peers', not 'piers' please..........
All Keir had to do was condemn all violence, commit to punishing its perpetrators but also affirm that he understood & would address the fears & anger of ordinary people concerned about their families & communities. Not doing so will be the biggest political mistake of his career.
Spot on. Starmer has already lost all credibility as a Prime Minister.
The political blindness of the British is astonishing. The elephant in the room or the very reason for nearly every political problem in GB is the monarchy. You are so used to this kind of inequality that you do not perceive the injustice woven into your system of ruling. If the House of Lords changes into a chamber representing the regions or so-called 'peers' will have to leave, reaching a certain age is a minor issue. The bigger or even huge one is that an uncontrolled individual who loses his nerves because of a leaking pen has the power to finalize laws; that so-called 'aristocrats' still possess huge territories inherited through their blood relatives and not earned by their own work; that a certain accent learned in a certain school still makes spoilt youngsters feel special and thus entitled etc. All of this is wrong! Anyone who wants to change this must change this accepted injustice i.e. abolish the monarchy.
Is this his way of trying to achieve total control? Thin edge of the wedge - wait to see what comes about by the time he has hit the wedge a few more clouts with the hammer.
Starmer is Dangerous..
I beg he does
I fully support the idea of Hannah choosing the members of the Lords. Go Hannah!
I like a fully nominated House of Lords. The King should nominate without political interference
FULLY elected, with around 300 members and every member being non-partisan and thus standing as an independent in an election!
What voting system would you use?
If it were a national election, would voters need to read up on the background and priorities of hundreds of independent candidates?
That system will last around 15 minutes before the non partisan members start forming groups based off of ideologies.
This will then give us a house of lords with exactly the same problems as the house of commons.
@@Bluecewe probably The D’Hondt method!
Basically, yes! Or else the parties would put forward each of the independent candidates.
That question is so funny
Never
There are 140ish universities in the UK. 2 appointees from each university on 4 year terms who are selected from and elected by the faculty
If you don't turn up and engage on a regular basis, you shouldn't be a lord
This isn't comment or analysis, it's speculation. get a grip.
Je needs to scrap the labour party
Too many of his mates in there no chance
#KEEP_The_LORDS and Breadth & Balance ⚖️of #Omi_HANNAH👸Real_Careers #COUNT⚖️ That Why its #BRILL🐜ilAnt Debating #SAY_No_Totally_100 Career👴🏼 Polly🦜(ℹ️tion)s look@ Were #NOT🇺🇲..
Go Attenborough #EXPERT🇬🇧 #BRITISH
How much money could be saved if the lirds was scrapped?
statutory churn is probably the best idea. Certainly not elected - that's the stupidity of the politically ignorant. I would be suspicious of experts; lobbying isn't restricted to the commons, and retired experts invariably have outside connections. Probably retired civil servants or public body officials would be a good choice.
Of cours e he wont all his mates. Got to go in first
What end the lords not starmers mates hes flooding in
I am so pleased with the fact that, contrary to a lot of blind criticism coming from the progressive centre and centre-left (that is, the normal New Statesman audience), the discussion here points clearly to the fact that the Upper Chamber is valuable exacltly because its members are not conventionally elected, that is, they do not think and argue within the context of electoral cycles, which to me has always been a ,ajor issue with 'career politicians', in any political system, of course, but especially in a representative democracy.
One issue is of great importance, and which Hanna included is that the House of Lords has become, at least partly, the repository of incompetence, what Hannah called 'the failed/ retired politicians'. (Less so the civil servants who could be considered, in many ways, experts). So, failed/ retiring politicians, to the man (and woma - party-political appointees sent specifically to strengthen party numbers in the Chamber, rather that for any practical reason for the good of the country and public, are, to me at least, a much bigger problem than the few bishops or the small cohort of hereditary peers (after all, one might argue that these latter also represent a portion of the British public, and not necessarily even the richer or most porminent part thereof).
For those of us who see value in the House of Lords, my own suggestion has been for a long time a restructuring of the appointment process. The Lords shold not be appointed by the government (unless in exceptional and very specific circumstances). Achievement and expertese, rather than party or gevernmental work should be the main, if not singular criterion. And selection should be for life, though with a 'good conduct' review process, i.e. increased power of ethics committees, procedurally moderated.
The New Statesman still scared to have the immigration debate! …. Why?😂😂😂
No he won't, look the house of lords has protected our democracy over the past 7 years. Reform yes, we have more important issues to deal with. Ideally we would have an elected upper house.
Breadth? Like Cyril Smith?
Are you saying that the ideal Lord is Jabba the Hutt?
No because Sir wants to join when he gets kicked out of no 10.
Bit of a stretch when he's previously said repeatedly that he wants to abolish it.
@@BadgerBoy59 he has previously said a lot of things. Good at u turning. You puppet or muppet
Hahaha 😂Hahaha Africans
Islam Out Christ is King
Well it’s about time we had an elected second chamber and got rid of friends of government. I have no problem with all the heads of faith. Being appointed by right. I do have a problem with Baroness Mone.
if it is elected you will have the same deadlock as in the US. elected members would vote on partisan lines rather than independently
Have we not learnt anything from electing politicians into governments during the past 14 years?
Here’s the problem with an elected second chamber - Nobody will vote for an expert. Experts aren’t popular because they are a lot smarter than the average voter. People in the UK would rather have an elected second chamber of celebrities than an elected second chamber of experts.
Lots of mistakes here in what is being said. Maybe you should get men to do this?
Do you know any? 😆