Hello Ed,
It is not a question of fixing the process, it is a question of forbidding people taking advantage of it. Dishonest, nepotistic (if the word exists), cronyism and under-hand people should be forbidden from the process. Cummings for starters.
I believe in democracy wholeheartedly. Give people a say for the upper house, but beware. We do have the example of PMs in the HoC for the last 4 years! You must think of the USA because it is the most blinding example we have. And no, I am not against reform by any stretch of the imagination and am not peddling bad examples to further my argument — it is there for all to see! I am against ill-thought out, impetuous and PC (personal gain?) reform. There are very many lovely and positive aspects of democracy in this country — or at least there were. Take, and keep, the best.
You say holding those elected accountable. I would agree with no hesitation. The last 4 to 6 years would say that this is not happening. And it is not because they are elected people, well, some, a non-elected adviser seems to have an extraordinary influence on everything and answerable to.... the PM.... The dishonesty is what gets to me, as do the lies. Peddling lies is the name of the game!
As for examples of "most peers were experts in their subject", Betty Boothroyd, Maggie Thatcher, Michael Heseltine, Alan Sugar come to mind. I should be able to rattle more names out but tonight I am exhausted (or suffering from the humid heat!)
But I very much doubt that Ian Botham will be able to contribute to anything else than sport and support for Brexit, Kate Hoey politics and suport for Brexit, Claire Fox, politics and support for Brexit.
If you wish complete reform, please do have it. But a word of warning, reform for reform's sake is more dangerous than ensuring continuity and change as well as change and continuity. All based on honesty, of course!
Ivonne Holliday ● 1336d