"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.
Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have
one that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a
system where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with
only 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.
The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified more
a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding the STV
system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members comprise
some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the clergy
and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the elected
side. While I would like some reform I actually like the present system,
where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it back for
reconsideration.
Well here's my stab at it

First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do,
regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve
bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and identify
possible unintended consequences.

The reality is that it cant do that given those who sit there.

A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge to
the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent constituents
but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put on the table.

The other obvious alternative is a
unicameral parliament, just the house.

Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such a House but
nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.

I suggest the following:-

a) Size
The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

b) Hereditary Peers.
Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

c) Bishops
As long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be reviewed
perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

d) Law Lords.
Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has
shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is
deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It
has become political as much as judicial.

e) Elected Peers
A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments
could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their area,
They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps with single
transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years
but could then stand for re-election

f) Party Nominees
within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such by
the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of members in proportion
to the number of votes they received rounded down to the nearest integer
(meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get a seat). These
members would serve until three months after the next General Election
(when they could be re-nominated).

g) Other Expertise
How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a range
of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public services,
foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.? (Note the
Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and contribution).
With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group would also be capped.
They could be for life which would restrict new blood coming in, for a
fixed term such as 15 years, or with a compulsory retirement age. They
could be nominated by public suggestion even voted for or selected by an
appropriate committee.

Makes more sense to scrap it completely.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of tradition,
introduce an element of election, keep political appointments in line with
overall party representation in the HOC and still provide for the
inclusion of specific expertise. It would also remove the current right of
party leaders to nominate whoever and as many as they wish into the Upper
House almost at random.

Constructive comments welcome.

Too radical by far.