House of Lords Reform

I am just interested as to what you all have to say on the subject.
Do you think it needs reforming?
Do you want the Lords to become party-political?

Personally, I would rather not have it become an American-style second House, blocking laws and generally causing trouble. Instead, it should be comprised of Life Peers, perhaps prominent judges, officers or doctors. This would allow it to host more reasonable debates, free from the rhetoric of the Commons. The function should remain the same, having only the power to block or delay laws.
I don't think people in the UK have enough interest or enough faith to elect another group of politicians.

Therefore, I am thoroughly against the changes being proposed.

I guess the Brits around here will have the most to say on the subject.
@Jingles
@Achtung Kommunisten!
@Epiccheesegrater
@C_G

I thought somebody would have brought this up sooner or later.
So what you mean to say is you would rather have a non-elective House of Lords?

Yes. I don't see how having a carbon-copy of the the Commons would make anything better.

As far as I know, all they planned to do was make membership in the HoL an elective position, not change it's entire purpose.

Well I know. If all these elected people can do is block laws, then literally nobody will care about who they vote for. It's simply not worth going about the bother of holding an election for such limited powers.
I doubt the turnout will be more than 40%. In which case, it's hardly democracy.

@Epiccheesegrater
What would you prefer the Lords to be like?

I honestly think that it should be done away with altogether for two reasons. The first is it's associations with an aristocratic society that hasn't really existed for at least a hundred years whilst the second is it's inability to act.

But would you rather leave it in its current form, or change it to an elective party-political system?

The fact that the Senate is elected is only partiality responsible for the excessive use of filibuster and other obstructionist actions and not in the way that you are describing. Let me break it down for you.

There are basically two thought processes on how politics work: a market society where services are bought and sold (whee policy is awarded to whomever makes the best offer), or an arena (with, the audience, us cheering or booing). The main point that these two ideas have in common are that the political process is a competition and that competition is good. Competition is obviously going to be more fierce in districts that are more politically neutral, therefore the odds of either side winning are about the same. What is stopping politicians from become more neutral is the presence of the two stage election. People who are voting in primaries are different from those who vote in the general election, primary voters are far more likely to be ideological purists. This means that they are more likely to have contributed to a political party, more likely to have tried to convince people how to vote, ect.

While primary election results are difficult to determine since registration requirement vary state-by-state and often county-by-county. We can still determine that participation is low. The party activists that do vote in primaries are, on average, more extreme in their ideology and for good reason. They have become activated and look on the opposition's platform to be especially onerous. And so policy debates become a battle of good vs evil, this created a a culture of voters who are less likely to compromise or "betray" core beliefs saying, "it's better to be right than to win". It also means that the more intense ideological battling happens in the primaries rather than the general election. Seeing how Britain does not have a primary system like the US does a similar situation will most likely not arise.

Well, perhaps not, but what I really meant was that the Lords could end up with a different political make-up to the Commons. As members of the Commons make the laws, and people in the Lords can only block laws, this could mean that if a party has a majority in the Lords yet does not control Parliament, the Lords will simply block almost every law that the Prime Minister attempts to pass.
That is what I meant, rather than the system being exactly the same.
Although your point about only the political purists voting still stands, small parties especially could do quite well.

When you say Lords do you mean Crown appointed Lords? Or a fancy way of saying Senator.

Currently the Lords are appointed, but the reform itself aims to make the position elective.

When I say 'Lords' I usually mean the house of Lords, which is the Upper House in Britain. All members must be titled, so either lords or baronesses. Some have been given their titles by thr Queen, others come from aristocrstic families and have inherited their titles. No commoners are allowed in.

While, being a Republican I'm supposed to be against the Lords in general, I can't deny its usefulness as an institution. Filibustering is the bane of good government and good democracy, and anything that might run a risk of opening those particular flood gates bothers me.

This is an excellent suggestion, though. The Lords should definitely be home to more than just cobwebbed aristocrats, ex-politicians and wealthy businessmen. The inclusion of prominent public servants is a must in my opinion. That's the kind of reform I'd like to see.

Far better, in my opinion, than turning it into a less powerful version of the Commons.

Furthermore, I don't think this issue is getting enough coverage. The reform could fundamentally change the way our democracy works, and I'm not sure most people have realised that.

Sounds rather Monarchist.

Didn't you used to be a Monarchist?

Anyways I agree with @UtterlyImpeccable, that the House of Lords should be reformed to include prominent public servants. I also think they should not be elected but still appointed. This is because of the reasons given, it should not be turned into just a block against whoever disagrees with the majority of the House of Lords.

Classical Monarchist, mostly because of the Historical events that happened to them, but nowadays no.

Oh alright.

As it stands it really is a useless organ. For those non-Uk-ers who are interested a brief history of the lords will follow:

Originally the House of Lords was made up of unelected members of Landed Title and was the Upper, as well as more powerful, House of Parliament. The Commons by contrast was weaker and "elected" to use the term loosely by owners of land that were not Titled. And so it continued for many years until the Representation of the Peoples Act began to give the commons more mandate and power. After the Acts of Settlement Parliament was established as above the Monarch and the Commons as the prime house but the Lords were still very powerful. In 1911 the Liberal government attempted to pass the peoples budget but was blocked by a Tory Lords, therefore the Parliament Act removed the Lord's power to a three year block on Leg, and no control over money bills. Around this time the Salisbury convention was created which meant the lords would agree not to block Manifesto Legislation. In the 1990s under Tony Blair the next set of Lords reform destroyed many Hereditary peers and replaced them with Life peers, appointed by the Queen on Recommendation of the PM (and later an independent committee) based on their life work and worth (ir Doctors, Lawyers, buisnessmen etc) The final slight change was just a few years ago when a Supreme Court of the UK was established as the Highest court of appeal in the UK removing that function from the House of Lords

Personally, I think the Lords should be totally rejuvinated but maintain a similar function. It should have all Hereditary peers destroyed and only have Life Peers appointed by a committee that have expertise in some area like finance, law, medicine, science etc. I would make it so that someone who served in the House of Commons could not serve in the House of Lords. It should have the power to block and amend legislation without a limit, except money bills and the Salisbury Convention should be actual law, as well as the Sewal Convention.

I agree totally with that.