In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 18:49, bert wrote:
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.
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. 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.

Ok

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

I think 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.

No, with one exception. I would accept followers of any denomination,
Santa Claus or other as long as nominated members must come from a
group that profess their atheism. Atheism is supported far more than
any mythical deity. Even ones that are agnostic don't generally align
to a religion.

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.

I would disagree, SC pulled in the reigns of a dictatorial PM. I accept
the final result was the same but hey.

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

This is something I find abhorrent. The idea of politics entering a
second house means it will become playground for attention. The current
strength of the HOL is that it represent experience and not pandering
to the public. We have the HOC for that.

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).

I prefer this, and most people seem happy with the names put forward.
It is rare to see negative media attention towards a proposed candidate.

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.

I see no reason why these cannot be appointed, perhaps ones that have
worked in an advisory capacity and not aligned to any party. We could
have political and non-political appointees.

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.

As I said we have enough political bickering as it is. I'm tired of the
posturing that comes with (re)election.
Constructive comments welcome.

I don't feel the HOL is as important as the HOC. They do not formulate
policy, not can they stop bills being passed. There is also the
principle that any proposal in a manifesto is accepted.

At the very worst the HOL can delay legislation, they cannot stop it.
It is effective at weeding out extreme or ill conceived laws from
knee-jerk reactions to public outcries and pointing out deficiencies.
That only happens because of the tenure of its members, it would cease
to play that role as soon as you have elected members.
Thank you for your feedback
--
bert