purplecthulhu

The Lords is in general a Good Thing. The presence of several hundred hereditary peers was, and had been for some time, unjustifiable and untenable. But I don't really have a problem with retaining a relatively small number, as at present, because that way you get rid of the 'backwoodsmen' who were the real problem, and still get to keep the ones who, despite an accident of birth, actually have something to contribute and/or represent interests that would otherwise not have a voice.

I also don't really mind the presence of the 26 most senior bishops, because although I'm not a Christian myself, I recognise that a fair number of people in this country are (or at least think they are) and it's good to have their interests represented, although 26 is probably a bit high. However, this does rather open the doors for allowing lots of other religions (some more bonkers and objectionable than others) formal representation, so it's probably safer just to get rid of the lot - which doesn't rule out the possibility of appointing a few suitably-chosen representatives, of course.

So I wouldn't object particularly if either the bishops or the remaining hereditary peers were removed from the House. The removal of the bishops would, incidentally, complete a reform started by Henry VIII when (during the Dissolution of the Monasteries) the rest of the Lords Spiritual (namely the abbots and priors) were removed.

However, as someone who is not now, has never been, nor can currently envisage being a member of any political party, and who actually regards the current party-based system a subversion of the democratic process, I really do want the crossbench expert peers to stay, and I don't see how this can be achieved if the House is elected.

In fact, I'd prefer it if the party-political element in the Lords was drastically reduced - perhaps by delegating the selection process to the independent appointments commission, except perhaps for a few (but only a few) people every year who could be nominated by the party leaders in the Commons. I'd like membership to be for life (or at least, as in Canada, until some suitable upper age like 75 or so) not for a fixed term, and I don't want there to be any maximum limit on the number of members (although the current size is probably about right).

Appointment to the House should be on merit, not patronage, and should be vetted by the appointments commission, who should have the question "are these people more suitable and eminent than anyone else who's available at the moment?" at the forefront of their minds. Every appointment should be able to withstand objective scrutiny: "Why did you appoint Martin Rees?" "Because he's President of the Royal Society and one of the most eminent astrophysicists in the country, and we need some top scientists involved in the legislation process" "Good answer". "Why did you appoint Charles Falconer?" "Because he's an old flatmate of Tony Blair and we thought it'd be a wheeze" "Not good enough".

Parliament Act only applies to manifesto commitments, and this isn't one.

But yes, I would rather have an appointed second house than an elected one. For one thing, they don't have to worry about the bloodthirsty and ill educated electorate.

Our Senate is a bizarre mix of elected, selective elected, and appointees and it is a largely futile mess - in spite of the principled efforts of a notable few. As the appointees are only there for one cycle they really don't work. If a good party lad gets dumped by his electorate he can rely on being a Senate appointee while he waits to get back in. Life peers are much more useful!