http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13830071

All I know is I quite like the Lords as it stands today...

I quite like the idea of a second independent house of parliament that acts as a brake on the excesses of the Commons, especially when one party has a large majority. I see no indication at all that an elected second house would serve that function. I see no way a second house filled with people nominated by the Commons can serve that function. if we're going to pick randoms to be the second house (and off the top of my head, I can't think of another way that's practicable) it might as well be the lot we currently have.

The only reason any politician wants to reform the Lords is if they think they can reform it so it's more likely to vote their way. Therefore, any political move to reform the Lords should be resisted.

Jon

Indeed. If they're to be changed, it shouldn't be parliament that decides. If it's up to anyone, I guess it should probably be the Queen.

I've been told on here many times that the Royal Family are just dandy because they have no influence on our democracy or the way we are governed so I can't see why they should have any say in the matter TBH.

If the Queen is to be our version of a President then our version of a Senate should not be influenced by her in anyway. A good whack of the Lords are there through generations, like the Queen, who were born into the position. Do we really want to fuel this caste system attitude by having her have a say?

It's time to reform the whole lot and the reformation of a system like this has to be done by those who will be able to work their way into such a position rather than be born into it.

I think that it is appalling that the PM can create so many potential lords in an attempt to sway the balkance of power in the Lords like Cameron did with his 35 new peers last year. I preferred the heriditaries. As long as they were regulars so exempting those living in tax havens from being elligble, and keeping the backwoodsmen out it was pretty effective as a revising chamber.

See I don't agree with the idea but I can understand why people would think that, I mean the people we vote for are hardly trustworthy.

Let's just go the whole hog, go fully Feudal and install Stephen Fry as King of the Empire.

Well they are more independant than any appointed peers. Though maybe we should make Stephen Fry a peer as well?

Well i think Stephen has been fairly chummy with a few politicos in the past so...

I don't really are how we choose the second house - do it by random selection of National Insurance numbers, by being the children of former members, whatever - what I do know is the one way we shouldn't do it is to allow MPs any say at all. It's like picking the judge for your own trial, it's idiotic. Which is of course why both the major parties have attempted to bring it in .

Jon