They didn't choose who to be born to. Any more than an "ordinary worker" chooses who to be born to. I have no problem with abolishing automatic seats for accidents of birth from now on. I do have a problem with expelling people with a long track record of hard work & commitment, & losing expertise.
The HoL as a revising chamber needs knowledge & expertise. It doesn't need people who never attend but have seat through political patronage. I would also advocate for a full separation of parliament & honours, i.e. Lords should be appointed for expertise; gongs shouldn't automatically = seat in HoL
Hence my question: what is the goal? What is the HoL for? Decide that and appoint members accordingly. Their origin should be immaterial; their knowledge and expertise *for the purpose of the body* should be all that matters.
It shouldn't exist in this form, any steps towards reform are welcime
It needs closed down in its current form, but the current bill is a good first step
This is utterly mad, to suggest those born into privilege who have a role because of that privilege are disadvantaged.
It's a pragmatic thing. Never said they were disadvantaged; I said the HoL could lose much needed expertise. It's similar to companies changing goalposts and insisting on RTO. Is it really sensible to lose institutional knowledge, skills etc. just because a person lives too far away?
If you're looking for an equitable solution, then simply reversing the criteria doesn't achieve that
They didn't get there on merit. This is a good start
Does that outweigh performance in the job? They stayed on merit when the heriditary numbers were slashed. Would you rather have someone elected because they're popular but performs terribly?
I would want people elected solely on merit.
It's nothing like that. Companies recruit on merit, not birthright
Aww bless
You are rude and argumentative. Muting you now.