House of Lords

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Nov 20, 2022 21:08:50 GMT ricmk said:

I'd make it part of the honours system. Nominate in public or private, then on strict criteria including merit, achievements in field, and a thorough review of any troubling aspects, the successful nominees can be chosen. As per existing honours they can mix celebrity, political, and community heroes. I hate the idea of random draws, but people who are nominated locally for honours are exactly the sort of people who should be considered to sit in the Lords. So the PM can nominate all his cronies all he likes, but they won't get any preference over nominees from others. And it's totally forbidden to put your mate in the Lords so you can make him a government minister.

I would have happily gone along with the coalition proposals, but a few years on I can see why you don't want election the same way to create competing mandates. When I waver on this, I look at the US Senate and House. However if it can be done by merit and nomination - I'd welcome all shortlisted nominations being made public and a period of consultation - that should sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Only issue I can see is who sits on the panel that decides this? Who makes the final decisions in borderline cases? If the PM can't get all his nominations through on the nod, he'll rig the nominations panel to put all his mates *there* instead. And we are then at how you select the nominating panel. Same issues, one step removed.

This = almost no change from now, why bother to change it if your not really going to change it.  It just pretends to include the public in it.

[neilm]

Nov 20, 2022 21:08:50 GMT ricmk said:

Only issue I can see is who sits on the panel that decides this? Who makes the final decisions in borderline cases? If the PM can't get all his nominations through on the nod, he'll rig the nominations panel to put all his mates *there* instead. And we are then at how you select the nominating panel. Same issues, one step removed.

Exactly why I don't like 'independent panels.' They're made up of either the great and good or their mates, so it'll just be the same people being appointed.

[J.G.Harston]

Nov 20, 2022 21:08:50 GMT ricmk said:

I would have happily gone along with the coalition proposals, but a few years on I can see why you don't want election the same way to create competing mandates. When I waver on this, I look at the US Senate and House. However if it can be done by merit and nomination - I'd welcome all shortlisted nominations being made public and a period of consultation - that should sort out the wheat from the chaff.

As with the NHS, America isn't the only other alternative to what we currently do. What do the other 190 countries with second chambers do?

[aargauer]

It's like the royal family - a useless relic. Get rid and don't replace.

If you need a check and balance - bring in direct democracy as the oversight.

[islington]

Nov 20, 2022 14:51:52 GMT polupolu said:

Nov 20, 2022 10:00:38 GMT matureleft said:

The composition of a second chamber and how it is chosen and renewed should follow from a clear definition of its purpose, not the other way round.

If we seek an expert revising chamber with no powers to substantially delay, let alone thwart legislation than we need to ensure that we have a membership that can do that job. If it’s intended to reflect the nations and regions of the UK then some thought on how that works in a more devolved state is required. The establishment of the Supreme Court valuably simplified the definitions of purpose.

Just a few thoughts...

matureleft seems to me to hit a key point in any discussion of the future of a second chamber.  Purpose first.

The HoL is one of the few checks on the powers of the HoC (limited in its scope though it may be).  I can understand that people who want/wanted sweeping changes (from whatever perspective) like the idea of removing that check.  I don't think there is much appetite for that in this country.

On the other hand, there is clearly no appetite for a second chamber that has a similar (or even superior) democratic mandate compared to the HoC.  That would be a recipe for legislative grid-lock and would mean any change would be very difficult to get through.  So an STV elected second chamber won't do.

Eliminating those possibilities, we fall back on something similar to the powers of the current HoL.  So what would a second chamber with some powers to examine legislation and potentially delay bad laws look like, ideally?  And what should it NOT look like?

The original purpose of the HoL was to ensure that the privileges and interests of the Peers would not be eroded without their acquiesence (vis a vis first the Crown and then the HoC).   There is no case for that in 2022 that I can see, so the continuation of the heredetary element seems to be anachronistic at best and damaging to the interests of the rest of the country at worst.  Having an ancestor who performed "sevices" for the monarch a few centuries ago, should not be the qualification for a legislator today. 

A chamber filled entirely with political donors and cronies of party leaders is going to lack a lot of credibility and suffers from a similar problem as the Hereditaries in terms of whose interests they serve (though there is an argument that some ex-MPs and other politicians would be useful in terms of knowledge of how the systems of government actually work).  Consequently a system where party leaders or party machines choose who goes into the second chamber is sub-optimal.

So we come to the question: how should the second chamber be chosen (if we discount direct elections and party machines)?

One possibility is to take a leaf out of the Jury system, and introduce an element of chance.  At its most extreme, this would be a chamber chosen at random from the electorate.  As in the Jury system, you would get a lot of chaff; but make it large enough to be able to overcome that and you might have an interesting sample of the country.  More practically, the random element could be used to create a group of selectors to choose who sits in the second chamber (so more like a simplified version of the old Venetian system).  Add in appropriate safeguards (a sensible nomination system; long overlapping terms; a removal mechanism etc.) and there is something to recommend this.  However I doubt whether anyone would like this method very much.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

OK, try this.

I completely agree with those arguing that unelected legislators are an offence to god and man, so my preferred option would be outright abolition with no replacement. To provide the reviewing and revising role, for each major bill you could appoint a panel of experts in the relevant area to examine the proposed legislation and suggest changes. But they wouldn't be legislators, they would have no role beyond the bill in question, and while, in this plan, the HoC would be obliged to consider and discuss their proposed changes, it would be entirely free to reject them.

But I accept that most legislatures are bicameral, so I imagine it would be thought that we must have a second chamber so I'd suggest this.

At each GE MPs are elected from individual constituencies in the established way. But in addition, the votes cast for each party's candidates in each constituency are added together, on a regional basis, and seats in the second chamber (whatever we're calling it) are apportioned between party lists using STV or some similar proportional mechanism. In each region at each GE the number of persons 'elected' in this way is, let's say for argument, one fifth of the number of MPs for that region, rounded to the nearest whole. So NI, with 18 MPs, would elect four; SE England, with 91 (incl IoW) would elect 18. The persons elected would serve for three Parliaments. So about 130 persons would be elected at each GE giving a chamber of about 390 (or if you think this is too few, make the proportion one-fourth rather than one-fifth, which would mean 487-ish in all). There would be no byelections - casual vacancies through death or resignation would be left unfilled until the next GE, when an additional person would be elected in the relevant region to serve out the remaining one or two Parliaments of the term.

Essentially I want them to owe their position to a popular vote but I don't want them to have the authority that comes from direct election. From the point of view of your average voter, a GE would feel just the same as it does now and the ballot paper wouldn't look any different except perhaps for a reminder at the bottom in very small print that in addition to electing your local MP in the usual way, your vote will also be counted at regional level to choose new members of the second chamber.

Crazy, I know, but would it work?   

[islington]

Nov 21, 2022 2:46:39 GMT aargauer said:

It's like the royal family - a useless relic. Get rid and don't replace.

If you need a check and balance - bring in direct democracy as the oversight.

I agree about the Lords but not the monarchy.

The latter is a downright weird way to choose our head of state, I agree, but it works and I am deeply uneasy about the alternatives.

[aargauer]

Nov 21, 2022 14:08:02 GMT islington said:

Nov 21, 2022 2:46:39 GMT aargauer said:

It's like the royal family - a useless relic. Get rid and don't replace.

If you need a check and balance - bring in direct democracy as the oversight.

I agree about the Lords but not the monarchy.

The latter is a downright weird way to choose our head of state, I agree, but it works and I am deeply uneasy about the alternatives.

No head of state, and a proper constitutional procedure about when an election can be called, who is invited to form a government, etc.

[yellowperil]

Nov 21, 2022 14:08:02 GMT islington said:

Nov 21, 2022 2:46:39 GMT aargauer said:

It's like the royal family - a useless relic. Get rid and don't replace.

If you need a check and balance - bring in direct democracy as the oversight.

I agree about the Lords but not the monarchy.

The latter is a downright weird way to choose our head of state, I agree, but it works and I am deeply uneasy about the alternatives.

Of course once you get rid of the surviving hereditary element in the Ho L (and you should), it becomes that much harder to stick with a hereditary element to the monarchy. 

You could of course have an election system for both peers and monarchs, where the only eligible candidates were there by right of birth.  We are of course near to that for the elected hereditary peers at present.

[islington]

Nov 21, 2022 14:37:34 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 21, 2022 14:08:02 GMT islington said:

I agree about the Lords but not the monarchy.

The latter is a downright weird way to choose our head of state, I agree, but it works and I am deeply uneasy about the alternatives.

Of course once you get rid of the surviving hereditary element in the Ho L (and you should), it becomes that much harder to stick with a hereditary element to the monarchy. 

You could of course have an election system for both peers and monarchs, where the only eligible candidates were there by right of birth.  We are of course near to that for the elected hereditary peers at present.

Is that right, though?

Sweden, the Netherlands, &c, seem to have been able to maintain hereditary monarchies without, so far as I know, having an hereditary element in their Parliaments.

Anyway, I didn't say I'd get rid of the peerage. That's a different question on which I haven't expressed a view. All I'm saying is that being in possession of a peerage shouldn't entitle you to sit in Parliament, any more than having a knighthood.  

[yellowperil]

Nov 21, 2022 14:55:45 GMT islington said:

Nov 21, 2022 14:37:34 GMT yellowperil said:

Of course once you get rid of the surviving hereditary element in the Ho L (and you should), it becomes that much harder to stick with a hereditary element to the monarchy. 

You could of course have an election system for both peers and monarchs, where the only eligible candidates were there by right of birth.  We are of course near to that for the elected hereditary peers at present.

Is that right, though?

Sweden, the Netherlands, &c, seem to have been able to maintain hereditary monarchies without, so far as I know, having an hereditary element in their Parliaments.

Anyway, I didn't say I'd get rid of the peerage. That's a different question on which I haven't expressed a view. All I'm saying is that being in possession of a peerage shouldn't entitle you to sit in Parliament, any more than having a knighthood.  

I did say having an hereditary principle for the monarchy when you were getting rid of it for the House of Lords would be made more difficult, not impossible. As you say it seems to work for other European ( or non European for that matter) constitutional monarchies - better in some than others I would say. I think the difficult point would come exactly when the hereditary principle was being removed for one element of the constitution and not for another- in other words when the absurdity of basing a constitutional role on heredity was being actively explored. If it survived that, it would probably muddle on for years- might also depend on how the person of the monarch was being viewed at that point in time. 

On the last point, it is of course true that possession of a peerage per se does not entitle you to a seat in the House - most hereditaries do no longer get anywhere near sitting in the House, most life peers are not in fact there for life, and of course there always were lesser peers who didn't get a seat in the House and I include baronetcies in that.

[islington]

Nov 21, 2022 14:19:14 GMT aargauer said:

Nov 21, 2022 14:08:02 GMT islington said:

I agree about the Lords but not the monarchy.

The latter is a downright weird way to choose our head of state, I agree, but it works and I am deeply uneasy about the alternatives.

No head of state, and a proper constitutional procedure about when an election can be called, who is invited to form a government, etc.

Yes, that would be one of the alternatives about which I'm deeply uneasy.

You imply an entirely mechanical constitutional system but I don't care how good it is, someone - an actual person - will have to apply it and when, as is bound to happen sooner or later, some unforeseen situation arises in which it is unclear how the mechanism is supposed to operate, that person will make a decision about how to proceed.

And whether you like it or not, that person, whoever it is, is the head of state. 

[aargauer]

Nov 21, 2022 17:40:56 GMT islington said:

Nov 21, 2022 14:19:14 GMT aargauer said:

No head of state, and a proper constitutional procedure about when an election can be called, who is invited to form a government, etc.

Yes, that would be one of the alternatives about which I'm deeply uneasy.

You imply an entirely mechanical constitutional system but I don't care how good it is, someone - an actual person - will have to apply it and when, as is bound to happen sooner or later, some unforeseen situation arises in which it is unclear how the mechanism is supposed to operate, that person will make a decision about how to proceed.

And whether you like it or not, that person, whoever it is, is the head of state. 

Courts. Obviously would have to go straight to the top if necessary.

I hate common law and a vague constitution! (I also think common law is morally not compatible with unelected judges).

Under the current system the defacto head of state is some faceless civil servant. Not sure that's acceptable.

[nobodyimportant]

Nov 21, 2022 14:05:50 GMT islington said:

Nov 20, 2022 14:51:52 GMT polupolu said:

Just a few thoughts...

matureleft seems to me to hit a key point in any discussion of the future of a second chamber.  Purpose first.

The HoL is one of the few checks on the powers of the HoC (limited in its scope though it may be).  I can understand that people who want/wanted sweeping changes (from whatever perspective) like the idea of removing that check.  I don't think there is much appetite for that in this country.

On the other hand, there is clearly no appetite for a second chamber that has a similar (or even superior) democratic mandate compared to the HoC.  That would be a recipe for legislative grid-lock and would mean any change would be very difficult to get through.  So an STV elected second chamber won't do.

Eliminating those possibilities, we fall back on something similar to the powers of the current HoL.  So what would a second chamber with some powers to examine legislation and potentially delay bad laws look like, ideally?  And what should it NOT look like?

The original purpose of the HoL was to ensure that the privileges and interests of the Peers would not be eroded without their acquiesence (vis a vis first the Crown and then the HoC).   There is no case for that in 2022 that I can see, so the continuation of the heredetary element seems to be anachronistic at best and damaging to the interests of the rest of the country at worst.  Having an ancestor who performed "sevices" for the monarch a few centuries ago, should not be the qualification for a legislator today. 

A chamber filled entirely with political donors and cronies of party leaders is going to lack a lot of credibility and suffers from a similar problem as the Hereditaries in terms of whose interests they serve (though there is an argument that some ex-MPs and other politicians would be useful in terms of knowledge of how the systems of government actually work).  Consequently a system where party leaders or party machines choose who goes into the second chamber is sub-optimal.

So we come to the question: how should the second chamber be chosen (if we discount direct elections and party machines)?

One possibility is to take a leaf out of the Jury system, and introduce an element of chance.  At its most extreme, this would be a chamber chosen at random from the electorate.  As in the Jury system, you would get a lot of chaff; but make it large enough to be able to overcome that and you might have an interesting sample of the country.  More practically, the random element could be used to create a group of selectors to choose who sits in the second chamber (so more like a simplified version of the old Venetian system).  Add in appropriate safeguards (a sensible nomination system; long overlapping terms; a removal mechanism etc.) and there is something to recommend this.  However I doubt whether anyone would like this method very much.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

OK, try this.

I completely agree with those arguing that unelected legislators are an offence to god and man, so my preferred option would be outright abolition with no replacement. To provide the reviewing and revising role, for each major bill you could appoint a panel of experts in the relevant area to examine the proposed legislation and suggest changes. But they wouldn't be legislators, they would have no role beyond the bill in question, and while, in this plan, the HoC would be obliged to consider and discuss their proposed changes, it would be entirely free to reject them.

But I accept that most legislatures are bicameral, so I imagine it would be thought that we must have a second chamber so I'd suggest this.

At each GE MPs are elected from individual constituencies in the established way. But in addition, the votes cast for each party's candidates in each constituency are added together, on a regional basis, and seats in the second chamber (whatever we're calling it) are apportioned between party lists using STV or some similar proportional mechanism. In each region at each GE the number of persons 'elected' in this way is, let's say for argument, one fifth of the number of MPs for that region, rounded to the nearest whole. So NI, with 18 MPs, would elect four; SE England, with 91 (incl IoW) would elect 18. The persons elected would serve for three Parliaments. So about 130 persons would be elected at each GE giving a chamber of about 390 (or if you think this is too few, make the proportion one-fourth rather than one-fifth, which would mean 487-ish in all). There would be no byelections - casual vacancies through death or resignations would be left unfilled until the next GE, when an additional person would be elected in the relevant region to serve out the remaining one or two Parliaments of the term.

Essentially I want them to owe their position to a popular vote but I don't want them to have the authority that comes from direct election. From the point of view of your average voter, a GE would feel just the same as it does now and the ballot paper wouldn't look any different except perhaps for a reminder at the  bottom in very small print that in addition to electing your local MP in the usual way, your vote will also be counted at regional level to choose new members of the second chamber.

Crazy, I know, but would it work?   

What would happen if you had 3 general elections within 5 years?

[islington]

Nov 21, 2022 17:54:34 GMT aargauer said:

Nov 21, 2022 17:40:56 GMT islington said:

Yes, that would be one of the alternatives about which I'm deeply uneasy.

You imply an entirely mechanical constitutional system but I don't care how good it is, someone - an actual person - will have to apply it and when, as is bound to happen sooner or later, some unforeseen situation arises in which it is unclear how the mechanism is supposed to operate, that person will make a decision about how to proceed.

And whether you like it or not, that person, whoever it is, is the head of state. 

Courts. Obviously would have to go straight to the top if necessary.

I hate common law and a vague constitution! (I also think common law is morally not compatible with unelected judges).

Ah, well, there we differ because I cherish the common law as the distilled wisdom of the ages; and the British constitution, an intricate and sometimes ramshackle structure that has evolved over the centuries, has proved itself more reliable than many a written constitution in the support of liberty, public order and accountable government.

So, anyway, you want the President of the Supreme Court (or maybe the whole court collectively) as head of state. Well, maybe. I grant it's an arguable position. But answer me this: if it should happen, for reasons that were not foreseen when the constitutional mechanisms were established, that the person (or court) applying them is actually being called upon to routinely exercise a much more active decision-taking role than originally contemplated, how long do you think it will be before ways are found to politicize the process by which the court is chosen?

  

[islington]

Nov 21, 2022 17:59:47 GMT nobodyimportant said:

Nov 21, 2022 14:05:50 GMT islington said:

OK, try this.

I completely agree with those arguing that unelected legislators are an offence to god and man, so my preferred option would be outright abolition with no replacement. To provide the reviewing and revising role, for each major bill you could appoint a panel of experts in the relevant area to examine the proposed legislation and suggest changes. But they wouldn't be legislators, they would have no role beyond the bill in question, and while, in this plan, the HoC would be obliged to consider and discuss their proposed changes, it would be entirely free to reject them.

But I accept that most legislatures are bicameral, so I imagine it would be thought that we must have a second chamber so I'd suggest this.

At each GE MPs are elected from individual constituencies in the established way. But in addition, the votes cast for each party's candidates in each constituency are added together, on a regional basis, and seats in the second chamber (whatever we're calling it) are apportioned between party lists using STV or some similar proportional mechanism. In each region at each GE the number of persons 'elected' in this way is, let's say for argument, one fifth of the number of MPs for that region, rounded to the nearest whole. So NI, with 18 MPs, would elect four; SE England, with 91 (incl IoW) would elect 18. The persons elected would serve for three Parliaments. So about 130 persons would be elected at each GE giving a chamber of about 390 (or if you think this is too few, make the proportion one-fourth rather than one-fifth, which would mean 487-ish in all). There would be no byelections - casual vacancies through death or resignation would be left unfilled until the next GE, when an additional person would be elected in the relevant region to serve out the remaining one or two Parliaments of the term.

Essentially I want them to owe their position to a popular vote but I don't want them to have the authority that comes from direct election. From the point of view of your average voter, a GE would feel just the same as it does now and the ballot paper wouldn't look any different except perhaps for a reminder at the  bottom in very small print that in addition to electing your local MP in the usual way, your vote will also be counted at regional level to choose new members of the second chamber.

Crazy, I know, but would it work?   

What would happen if you had 3 general elections within 5 years?

The members of the second chamber would serve unusually short terms, but I don't see why this would matter particularly. Members whose three-Paliament term had finished, whether that took fifteen years or only five, would be eligible to be put forward for reelection if their parties wished them to continue.

I should have added that, much as I dislike the current way of forming the second chamber, I wouldn't throw anyone out. Existing members would be allowed to continue but I wouldn't allow any new appointments. So the current members would stay there with their numbers gradually declining through death or retirement. This would mean a gradual shift from the old system to the new without any dramatic upheaval. (It's the British way.) After a couple of decades the occasional, by then very elderly, old-style member would become an object of curiosity, and eventually the last one would succumb to the passage of time and the new-style members would have the place to themselves.

[Deleted]

What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber?

[pl]

Nov 21, 2022 23:35:02 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber?

House of Lords, perhaps?

[carlton43]

Nov 21, 2022 23:35:02 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber?

The House Of Mirth?

[carlton43]

I support a Second Chamber as a revising and delaying mechanism.
We already have one called the HOL so why change the concept or the name.
We have a constitutional monarchy on an hereditary principle so the Lords should have an element of hereditary members.
It needs to be wholly non-elected for various reasons :-
1) To remove the pernicious and toxic direct party poltical element.
2) To ensure far better quality of member than seen in the HOC.
3) To ensure a heavy element of relevant high level expertise from people who would never want to stand for election.
4) To ensure a wide spread of highly qualified lawyers to help the detailed quality revision.
5) To ensure a heavy portions of medics, scientists, moral philosophers and like persons.
It should have a fixed maximum of say 1000 and none may be appointed until there is a vacancy by death and retirement.
It should be purged annually of those not participating at all in previous two years.
It should be an 'Honours System' by being entirely Honorary with no payments at all to weed out grifters.
It should have no obligation to attend but a penalty if you fail to do so at all.
There should be an expectation of retirement when not up to the detailed work or to regular attendance.
Publish an annual list of days and total hours of attendance, and list number of votes and speeches.
List in precise detail all ministers and committee members and their actions and publish it.
Have a proportion set for appointment by various systems:
A) Hereditary Peers by election of all Peers recognized by the Colleges of Arms on a non party political basis. Elections open to all who would once have recieved a Writ of Summons. The vote to be made in person at Westminster on one set date.
B) A Royal List of the King. His own sole input. Right to create hereditary titles. Very small numbers.
C) A Public List run by a Special Commission. Any citizen may nominate one person per year. List vetted and purged as to bankrupts, criminals who have ever been convicted in their lives to a sentence of 2-years or more, people on Sex Offenders Register and other such published sensible criteria. Small list with annual vote open to all.
D) Standing Royal Commission List to choose outstanding citizens for any and every reason. Fully vetted. Then published. Then a public vote not of approbation but to blackball block by majority of votes against over those for.
E) A Sortition List run by the Special Commission set up under C) above. Electors chosen at random and vetted for usual purposes including command of English language and basic test of IQ and basic acceptable knowledge. Anyone can refuse to serve. This to be paid at much same rate as the MPs.
F) A Specialist List to ensure we top up on high quality specialists chosen under advice from many institutions by the Standing Royal Commission set up under D) above. These may opt for Honorary status and attend at wiil, or be paid the same as MPs and be required to staff committees and attend a set number of minimum days and hours.

Here we have the makings of a complex but involving Second chamber with direct input from King, Lords, Common People, the Great Institutions, but crucially NOT from the PM nor any political party. Gradually this will be a Chamber I can see being more revered and more trusted and more respected by far than the HOC.

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Nov 22, 2022 1:39:00 GMT carlton43 said:

I support a Second Chamber as a revising and delaying mechanism.
We already have one called the HOL so why change the concept or the name.
We have a constitutional monarchy on an hereditary principle so the Lords should have an element of hereditary members.
It needs to be wholly non-elected for various reasons :-
1) To remove the pernicious and toxic direct party poltical element.
2) To ensure far better quality of member than seen in the HOC.
3) To ensure a heavy element of relevant high level expertise from people who would never want to stand for election.
4) To ensure a wide spread of highly qualified lawyers to help the detailed quality revision.
5) To ensure a heavy portions of medics, scientists, moral philosophers and like persons.
It should have a fixed maximum of say 1000 and none may be appointed until there is a vacancy by death and retirement.
It should be purged annually of those not participating at all in previous two years.
It should be an 'Honours System' by being entirely Honorary with no payments at all to weed out grifters.
It should have no obligation to attend but a penalty if you fail to do so at all.
There should be an expectation of retirement when not up to the detailed work or to regular attendance.
Publish an annual list of days and total hours of attendance, and list number of votes and speeches.
List in precise detail all ministers and committee members and their actions and publish it.
Have a proportion set for appointment by various systems:
A) Hereditary Peers by election of all Peers recognized by the Colleges of Arms on a non party political basis. Elections open to all who would once have recieved a Writ of Summons. The vote to be made in person at Westminster on one set date.
B) A Royal List of the King. His own sole input. Right to create hereditary titles. Very small numbers.
C) A Public List run by a Special Commission. Any citizen may nominate one person per year. List vetted and purged as to bankrupts, criminals who have ever been convicted in their lives to a sentence of 2-years or more, people on Sex Offenders Register and other such published sensible criteria. Small list with annual vote open to all.
D) Standing Royal Commission List to choose outstanding citizens for any and every reason. Fully vetted. Then published. Then a public vote not of approbation but to blackball block by majority of votes against over those for.
E) A Sortition List run by the Special Commission set up under C) above. Electors chosen at random and vetted for usual purposes including command of English language and basic test of IQ and basic acceptable knowledge. Anyone can refuse to serve. This to be paid at much same rate as the MPs.
F) A Specialist List to ensure we top up on high quality specialists chosen under advice from many institutions by the Standing Royal Commission set up under D) above. These may opt for Honorary status and attend at wiil, or be paid the same as MPs and be required to staff committees and attend a set number of minimum days and hours.

Here we have the makings of a complex but involving Second chamber with direct input from King, Lords, Common People, the Great Institutions, but crucially NOT from the PM nor any political party. Gradually this will be a Chamber I can see being more revered and more trusted and more respected by far than the HOC.

Not actually a terrible idea, closer to the Irish Seanad. The only issue is the salaries - without the casework component, the salaries should be lowered to a perfectly liveable stipend of around £40,000.