A second chamber is a necessary body to review legislation.

It needs to be comprised of experts within fields for obvious reasons.

Now, who gets to sit in that chamber is the key.

Personally, I think it has to be removed from all political interference and be as apolitical as possible.

How that is done.....How you ensure that a political wing doesn't influence who gets a vote....therein lies the rub.

My ideas would probably not involve actually having the houses of parliament as a place you needed to attend and instead legislation would involve only those experts within that field, plus apolitical lawyers. So, it wouldn't always be the same set of people involved and voting on every piece of legislation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2022 12.56am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

As an aside, does anyone know what has happened further to the reports that the Palace of Westminster needed a massive amount of repair work, meaning that the two houses would have to relocate for a significant period? I remember a TV report that highlighted a load of problems with the fabric, including rainwater cascading down an internal flight of stairs.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Yup all this. And faith leaders, regrettably. This from a confirmed atheist!

Currently it is the monarch who decides; but only through the PM. The office of the PM has full effective control on who gets in. Absolutely ridiculous; and now numbering an unwieldly 800.

Ironically, it is the Lords who are crying out for reform and the Commons who are still happy with a politically partial second chamber that serves their needs.

That is, even after the Brexit challenges where Boris said he would scrap it in revenge. Clearly, he didn't mean it.

If someone wrote a book detailing all the things Johnson has said, which he then didn't do or indeed, sometimes did the opposite to...they would have to import extra pulp.

I agree, the use of that chamber to reward political allies and stooges really has to come to an end. All the parties do it and it's embarrassing.

I mean, I like Ian Botham and all that....but what the feck is he doing in there? The list goes on and on.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The Aviary?

One more point

I agree with most of this. I certainly don't think we ought to have an elected, political, second chamber. It would just be an expensive, pointless diversion with the capacity to generate heat but no light.

A second chamber of the experienced, wise and skilled is what's needed to review, suggest and improve. Ensuring the appointments are solely on merit, without any kind of political input, is essential, as is the need to remove hereditary rights, which are an anachronism in the modern world. A standing Commission reporting to the Monarch seems the way to go.

How they should meet, whether together, or as specialist committees is something that itself could be reviewed by them, but probably a mixture of both dependent on the subject.

I do though think that some ex politicians need to be included. Like it or not, politics has an influence over whether things are deliverable, or not, so having some who have been in the mix to add wise counsel to the advice being sent forwards seems sensible.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.