(Note that I said Life Peers there, when I meant "those whose life has been inevitably that of a Peer", i.e. Hereditary. Which will certainly trigger those who dislike the "by accident of birth", but which I think of as not that different from "by accident of ballot", i.e. sortition. Except that they're not someone like a plumber suddenly invited to put their career/self-run business on hold, out of the blue, but having a good inkling of whether at some point they'd be
possibly taking up their father's position and can plan ahead...)
Currently, the HoL is far from the "tyranny of birthright" that many assume (even assuming that's a given at all). The Hereditary Peers are a subset of those who might previously have sat, via the mechanism of a selectorate whittling down those who even wish to be considered... May not be perfect, but helps to deal with mere punch-clock attendees and skews definitely to the lordish equivalent of
Royals Who Actually Do Something. Maybe not enough for some (whilst others are all "No. Just no. Dump 'em all!" and may not even be sure about the non-Hereditary ones either), but significant reform over my own lifetime has blunted most of the old arguments against their basic existence, even if some still think there are too many anachronisms there.
Life Peers (appointed) are a supposed-meritocracy and have been given the upper hand over the Hereditary(+subselection) cohort. It puts people with particularly distinguished careers into the role, as a reward for long and valuable contributions to society... at least theoretically. In reality, they are overwhelingly political gifts to almost anyone who can be advantageously raised to the position by
the current political zeitgeist and many Life Peers have (or retain) a party affiliation. Really there should be more 'Cross Benchers' (truly unaffiliated, i.e. sitting on neither Left or Right (or Government-allied and titually Opposition, by whatever current mix of party trends), but taking the 'middle ground' red-leather seating in order to establish no party-allegiencs, or at least not declare any such bias), but that's what happens when it's political appointing and even the monarch is expected (after due dilligence by parliamentary committee(s)) to just rubber-stamp the whims of major party leaderships. - Depending upon how commited you are to the Party system (which I am not), and especially the
current blend of parties in the Houses of Commons/Lords, you may or may not want more of these chaps/chapesses (at the expense of the above/below category) or to cull less of them (than the other types) when reducing their numbers from their current 'bloated' degree.
A sort of offshoot/exceptionof the appointed Life Peers (of the Lords Temporal) are the Lords Spiritual, basically Bishops/Archbishops of the Anglican church (in the UK and British isles, so excluding those of Sodor (Isle of Man, crown dependency), Gibraltar and the reast of the overseas anglican realm). These are a semi-automatic position given to those who attain Bishophood (and above) and for whom there is a seat made available. Other religious leaders (and retired Bishops, given Peerages in their own right upon stepping away from their Spiritual seat) can be Life Peers by appointment. Some might say there's no reason for any of these guys (all 'guys' at the moment, possibly, I ought to check; though the very next female (Arch-)Bishop was supposed to be put next in line for the next compatible Spiritual seat over the otherwise selective appointment system that would have usually had the church put forward their choice of bishops-in-waiting) to have any part in the Second House at all; ...usually when the ABofC says something about their favourite policy that they disagree with. Personally, I would make
official the Spiritual entitlement of one or more Catholic/Islamic/Judaic/Sikh/Hindu(/Buddhist/Jaine/Druid... even Jedi, if it qualifies!) Lords with significant UK following of a recognisable faith, though of course this is another kettle of fish insofar as to which particular flavours (and subtones) of religion to so honour, and how much of a representative voice each is entitled once they're 'in the running'. Probably far more troublesome than 'merely' having to deal with (or do away with) the Hereditory positions. As a non-religious person myself, perhaps I should also tout for a "Humanist leader" included in that, but I suppose I imagine that there'll be a no-Spiritual element in the whole Temporal lot.
I describe myself not as a particularly pro-Monarchy person, but very definitely anti-Republican. So my reply to those who wish to see the Second House become another elected-only chamber is... "No. Just no. Not more self-promoting ballot-chasers,
please no!!!. Right now, the HoL is (politically-loaded as it is) an often rather efficient "revising chamber" to whatever kak-handed policies the elected government would otherwise just rubber-stamp due to transient popularism lacking anything but short-term popularity-maintenance. You'd have to have a vastly different election cycle to maintain the thoughtful continuity across knee-jerk electoral drift based upon some national 'feeling' (of the vocal/voting minority), or else might as well just become unicamoral and do everything on the Green Benches of the Commons and forget about any of the useful attributes of the second chamber.
As to what is "widely viewed" in the UK. I suspect it's like the B-word. Even if there's a supposed majority to change the current situation, as sure as I'm
not currently prancing around my bedroom (in just an ermine cloak and a cheesy grin) there's definitely going to be so many different ideas of how to change it, and not one that'll make people more happy than perhaps
tweaking the present setup just a little as a sop to both traditionalists (who recognise room for improvement) and reformers (who can see that it's not
all bad, when not incensed by some temporary issue that they vehemently disagree with the HoL on).
But you can probably find a lot of other very definite opinions that would disagree with even how I describe the opinions that are not my preference.
Author
Topic: Non-EU europe thread (with Russia, Israel and Australia included) (Read 198363 times)