Any thought. I like the idea of Jury service, you get a flat and travelling expenses home,basic food in the flat, and paid the equivalent of your salary plus inflation. Perhaps can defer once to give you time to make arrangements.

Personally, I think it important to have people in the process for creating and passing legislation that are not always having to think about getting themselves re-elected. Amongst other things it allows people to take a longer term view of things rather than just a snapshot couple of years. I also very much like the idea that it not be exclusively populated by 'politicians' as it were.

Quite how one practically implements such a scheme is a different matter entirely.

Fully elected second chamber, 6 year terms elected in thirds, much like the US Senate.


Well that would't happen under the government's proposals, as you can only serve one term.

I will make a prediction.

It will cost substantially more to run than the current system after many promises that it wont.
If there is going to be elected members, make them all elected with no seats (unless they win them of course) for any religious groups or political appointtees.

I think it should go back to fully hereditary or leave it in it's current format.

The problem with a fully elected 2nd chamber is that it would be no better than the current HoL unless it was granted supremacy over the House of Commons.

The current HoL may be full of old "duffers" but at least they seem to do a good job scrutinizing legislation that the HoC have just quickly voted through and chucking it back for the HoC to have another look at.

This is largely true, but the snag is the HoL tends to get stuffed with superannuated former MPs as well. Cameron has already sent a bunch of cronies there - almost as many in a year as Blair did in a decade.

I voted "other". Not because I have any good suggestions; I just don't really understand the subtleties involved.

How does one even begin to choose the people who would elect the people that would second-guess the people that The People elected to government? Somewhere along the line, everyone has to agree to trust someone... and that's never going to happen. You may as well elect the higher parliament on the basis of who wins Celebrity Strictly Come Dancing.

Having the Lords as an appointed chamber is horrific - not only is it horrendously undemocratic, but it effuses cronyism.

We should have an elected second chamber and scrap the Parliament Acts (effectively removing the primacy of the Commons). We'll keep the convention that the Lords won't block manifesto legislation or budget bills, but everything else is fair game.

Why should the Upper Chamber be democratic at all? Inherent in your assertion is an assumption that democracy is the best model for parliamentary bodies.

However, the HoL is not really a second house at all but rather a Grand Revision Committee. It has almost no powers and exists merely to point primarily where the legislation from the HoC needs to be amended/redrafted and secondly where policies/actions are harmful/counter-productive. The HoL, by most accounts, does this job excellently and cheaply.

And as for the nepotism argument, that's easily neutered by the reality that most of the "cronies" seldom actually turn up or vote.

If one introduces political election, what would happen? The cost would increase geometrically, the level of expertise e.g. Dr. Robert Winston, Adm. Michael Boyce, would plummet and the politically-impartial cross-benchers would disappear. The moment that elections touch the Upper House is the moment it becomes useless.

No - as far as I'm concerned, the Upper House needs to be reformed to be a meritocratic chamber whose members are chosen by a committee of the HoC for their expertise.

A revising chamber with no power, what a waste of time and money. Since the Commons can (and frequently does) reject all amendments from the Lords, it might as well not be there. The Commons also can, and frequently does, push legislation through without the assent of the Lords anyway. The stupid chamber might as well not be there courtesy of the Parliament Acts.

If you support the Lords as it is you might as well just lobby for a unicameral system.

Either we get a proper second house with proper legitimacy & power to block the Commons or just abolish the whole damn thing.

An elected chamber worries me. Politicians claim is is more democratic, but the current Lords often vote along the line of public opinion much more than MP's do.