How many Lords do we need?

[Osem]

Not 800 surely?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201

I'm all for having a second chamber but it seems to me that it's about time the for every new peer created we need to cull (not necessarily literally,... although in some cases... ) one of the old guard, preferably someone who's acquired a habit of picking up their £300 daily allowance but whose contribution amounts to little more than a snooze, a drink in the bar or even just signing a register before heading off to do more important things...

I'm sure there are many active peers who do an excellent job but frankly there are a good number of leeches sucking at the lifeblood of parliament who are a disgrace and need to be burnt off. Tough decisions have to be made and I think continuing to allow the abuse of the system by peers who contribute little or nothing is setting a particularly poor example to the country, albeit involving relatively small sums of money.

Contrast the Lords with England's rugby union world cup squad where players who've consistently given 100% to their sport and view representing their country as an incredible privilege, get dropped because there are only so many places. Let's have some competition for places in the Lords rather than a cosy club ever more bloated with old farts and those more interested in the prestige and expenses than anything else.

[arcimedes]

I am all in favour for an elected second chamber but you to accept the consequences of having one. Being legitimate it will then have to have powers and you get the possibility that different parties will control each house. Look at the mess in the USA which wanders along with various parties controlling bits of offices.

But I agree the number of members is ridiculous and should be culled

[nomadking]

You have to bear in mind that for most of them it is not a full time job. Most of them just get on with their daily and/or business lives. It is a pool of people from which those who take part varies.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by arcimedes

But I agree the number of members is ridiculous and should be culled

Maybe they can tag that onto the badger cull that has just spread to Dorset?

[arcimedes]

Originally Posted by Taf

Maybe they can tag that onto the badger cull that has just spread to Dorset?

Perhaps they could put the badgers in the house of lords

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You have to bear in mind that for most of them it is not a full time job. Most of them just get on with their daily and/or business lives. It is a pool of people from which those who take part varies.

Of course that's true but that's not reason for having ever more of them or being able to get shot of those who contribute little or nothing but take the perks. IMHO we should expect a certain amount from our peers and get shot of those who can't or won't deliver that.

[Taf]

A Hogg in the House of Lords.

Oh the irony.

[rhyds]

Numbers: Certainly no more than the House of Commons, I'd say 650 max, minimum 450.

Who can be there: First of all I'd bin the automatic right of Bishops to sit in the Lords. By all means let them stand with others for election as may be, but no automatic right.

Secondly, I'd have lords sit for a defined, but long term of "office" (Say 10-15 years). This will hopefully reduce the need for them to go for populist ideas and focus their view on long term issues.

As for how to chose those lords, there's two options. First option is to use some kind of proportional representation system based on the last general election result. This saves the cost of running a separate election, but doesn't allow for the GB public to chose a more left/right/centre revising chamber as needed.

The second option is a totally separate election done using proportional representation. Unlike constituency MPs, Lords don't represent a given area so are ripe for selection by PR

[Ignitionnet]

We don't need 450 members of the second chamber any more than we need 650 members of a first chamber.

India has a population of over 1.25 billion, a parliamentary system based on ours, and somehow manages to get by with only 790 members across both houses.

Devolution of power to local areas is an excellent opportunity for a mass cull of the Commons, and the Lords is way past its use-by date.

I'd love to see Bishops out of the Lords, it's us and Iran that automagically appoint clerics to legislature, what great company to be in, and indeed the Lords become a fully elected house.

Of course I'd also like to see the Commons cut at least in half, and switch from FPTP to STV with full-on list-based PR for the second chamber, and Parliament moved out of Westminster.

None of it will happen. Too many vested interests. The odds of MPs happily allowing half of their number to be removed from the gravy train prematurely are slim.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

A Hogg in the House of Lords.

Oh the irony.

Well let's face it, it's been an exclusive club for old chums for a very long time. I suppose the only good thing about it is, the more Lords there are the less exclusive they'll be.

[figgyburn]

A picture speaks a thousand words.

[fatmat8]

the previous post seems to be correct !