Lords Reform

The Lords can't go on as it is. I forget the exact number of members but
my thought when I heard it was that it made the Commons sound like a bunch
of people meeting for a discussion in their local.

If we are to reform the second chamber the first decision must surely be as
to its function. As I see it their really are only two options, a revising
chamber as now or a full-blown and powerful body with similar powers to the
Commons. If we go for the latter option, a fully party-political chamber,
then clearly all or virtually all of the members must be elected and we can
move on to discussing how that should be done and it makes sense that they
are elected on a different basis from MPs.

However my personal view is that we should keep the Lords as a revising
chamber and for it to be most effective in that role we need to keep the
huge body of expertise and experience from many fields that sits on the
cross benches.

We must certainly stop the practice that every PM elevates enough of his own
people to the House to ensure a majority for his own party and, insomuch as
there is to be a party political aspect to the membership then these should
be elected. However I do feel that the overtly party cohort should be kept
to a minimum.

And whatever way we go the last hereditary peers must go.