If it's about expertise then make the second house a meritocracy and appoint academic experts. Instead we have bishops, political favours and hereditary peers.

Tory Peer in “doesn’t want to lose his peerage and salary” shocker

Love how the ones in charge of the bloated excess are now scrambling to reconfigure and continue the bloated excess in a lesser manner!

How did David Cameron's wife's lingerie supplier & shop owner friend get a peerage FFS !!

I Love our heritage and its shame it needs changing but the Lords is outdated unfortunately. The cap between rich and poor is getting out hand and it needs fixing.

Some of the current appointments are a disgrace. Who would ensure the appointments committee was independent. The Tories have systematically undermined every independent entity that they have got their hands on. Electoral commission etc.

Scrap the pomp and circumstance. Make the house of Lords electable. Easy !!!!

Baroness Mone OBE ~ what a joke

More nonsense from the opposition

The House of Lords is meritocratic? That's a new one on me.

After the mess that labour got itself in with Corbyn and the far left, I miss Gordon Brown.

He advocates for meritorious appointments. That's something.

Delete monarchy in Britain

I object to the term Nations and Regions . Non English elected peers can veto the affairs for England only . This is the upper west Lothian question

Dismantle it

The house of lords should be selected in the same way as Juries are. The house would be truly representative of the country but not be able to challenge the commons in the way that an elected house would. I would then suggest that at a general election the electorate should get the chance to retain or deselect thier 'Lord' a replacement being selcted as above. The house itself should be able to selct perhaps 50 further 'expert Lords' should it feel short on expertise.

The BSC Consulting Group recommendations have been very clear -Both the commons and lords will be reduced to 449 members -The commons will be limited to two election terms in a lifetime of four years each. -A five party state will be determined by election law with the major party having no more than 43% of seats. Those MPs leaving at the next election will not be replaced and the boundaries commission will move the borders to reflect this. -The second chamber will no loner be a politcal chamber and will be elected from the professions which exceeded 25 k member on the 1st December 2000 for one six year term only. -Both chambers will contain 5% severely disabled members elected under a different election cycle according to primary legislation. -Members in both chambers will have mutually exclusive membership of both chambers written into an updated constitutional settlement between the people and King Charles whom is the keeper of the constitution. It is sad that kier thinks he is in any small part in change or be part of forming constitional law which he is a servent of its outcome procluding him from qualifying in the process.The corruption starts before the election is run..... Politions are like leaches they must be reduced.......doubling them under kiers plan is corrupt suacide!

the house of lords should be abolished

No one needs Norton security anymore.

I'd rather have PR and Holyrood than FPTP and Westminster 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Indyref2 please 🇺🇦

Its an anachronistic house. Its full of mumbo jumbo. Its far too big. Its totally undemocratic. He seems to want the HoL "slimmed" down to 650 members. Perhaps we should look at all the Lords who dont speak and get rid of them first.

Why not instead write a constitution like other grownup democracies have?

The Lords has become a branch of the executive rather than the legislative, though it has legislative powers. This is a failure of separation of powers essential for democracy.

The point about experience and the cross-bench contribution is not unreasonable, however it does not outweigh the democratic deficit that the HoL currently represents. That is the fundamental point. It is also wrong to suggest that appointed second chambers are that common. Of the 82 'free democracies' around the world only 12 have entirely appointed second chambers (14% - it's even only 35% if you exclude all the unicameral systems). Interestingly, with the exception of Germany, every country with an appointed second chamber was a part of the British Empire. The prevalence of this system owes more to colonialism than it does to any intrinsic merits.

Gordon Brown....glum glum glum

God this guy can drone on. No wonder they all fall asleep in the HoL

No unelected official should be able to vote on legislation. That's the main point. And they can't stop legislation now anyway, only delay it, so what's the point of it especially when it's so prone to corrupt appointments.

Yer okay

in 1910 Labour first promised to abolish the undemocratic circus house of lords. 112 years later & the Undemocratic Circus is still in existence. Vote Labour wait 112 years for progress.

In the year 2000, the Lords had over 1300 members; a figure cut in half by Tony Blair, which has again risen steadily, even while successive Prime Ministers have curtailed the power of the Lords to block the will of Parliament. In theory, the Lords is, or was an important safeguard against extremist governments with large majorities. In practice, there are far too many Lords, with far too little power to serve that function anymore. It needs looking at, but I'm sceptical of an elected second chamber. Without a revision of the powers of the office of Prime Minister vis a vis leader of the largest party in Parliament; an elected second chamber will either make for dictators or lame ducks, neither of which are good.

If the plan is to abolish the lords completely, i would happily support that