-
I think this is what the Economist like to argue from time to time.
Make the Lords into a sort of technocrat think tank. Filled with people more beholden to their field of expertise than to party whips and populist media. I am positive to the idea in principle, but I have no idea how it can be put into practice with all the right checks and balances. -
I don't think this is a particularly controversial view - mainly because it requires a lot less reform than other suggestions about the Lords.
It's not too far from being a collection of appointed experts- give or take the remaining hereditary peers, bishops and political favour appointments.
Alright, so it is quite far from this, but it's closer to that, and less effort to reform it, than it is to a fully elected and properly bicameral system.
All it would need is a system of appointment with less susceptibility to manipulation, and maybe some term limits, and it actually would be a chamber of experts.
Then MPs could focus more on representation and government leadership.
You are reading a single comment by @aggi and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
starfish&coffee
tbc
@aggi
Personally (and it's not a popular view with a lot on here I suspect) , I'm of the view that the House of Lords should be where we look to for experts. A second house that can afford to take a more long term view and can focus more on specific areas of expertise.
Obviously the issue is how to pick them. No hereditary peers of course but also not picked on party political lines (maybe by a cross party committee).