[Barry the Sprout]

Now, I a going to actually buck the trend a bit here and say that I think Life Peers do have a very definite place in the constitution...

I don't like the way they are appointed obviously. The decision at the moment comes almost straight to the Prime Minister without any intervention from other people almost. So Yorick is right to an extent - at present it is a bit of an old boys club. So that needs to be changed, but how you do it is beyond me I am afraid.

My point is though that with the purpose of the House of Lords in mind it is a good idea it is unelected. Also I would say that an unelected second chamber is essential considering the current role of the House of Commons (rubber stamp anyone?). The House of Lords is only really able to get amendments to an act, it is rare that they will completely stop a bill. The only time that will happen is if there isn't enough political support for the government of the day for them to get heavy handed. So I would say that the House of Lords plays an advisory role, rather than a legislative one. I think this is extremely consistant with it being unelected, as long as it is is chosen in the right way. If we could fill the House of Lords with Doctors, Scientists, Musicians, Authors, and general members of the public from all walks of life, then it would work I think.

However getting there is a different story...