OrangeRakoon wrote:I actually support a non directly elected House of Lords. Being selected/confirmed by MPs still makes them democratically accountable (they are chosen by the people's representatives) but that one step removed frees them from the damaging effects of chasing popular approval, and dampens the swing from reactionary elections. It enables the house to be populated by subject experts rather than "politicians", who can concentrate on ensuring workable and sensible laws rather than just immediately popular and reactionary ones.
I am not fully against the House of Lords being appointed, but if it is to remain so then it needs to have term length limits. People should not be in there as a job for life handed to them by their Prime Minister mate.
It’s a nice idea to have “subject experts” in there, but how often does that happen in practise? Usually the appointments are ex MPs and mates of the establishment,
I would personally have an elected House of Lords, but only allow them a single term of 10/15 years with no extensions. Once in they would not need to chase popularity and would be free to disobey their party if they felt it necessary. A single term would stop it being a job for life as well.