The Question of the House Of Lords

I think most of us would agree that overpaid & unelected ‘Lords’ in the UK presiding over government business as a second house to the House of Commons, is not part of the future vision of Meritocracy.

As these unelected peers and those with inherited titles take advice from ‘experts in every field’ and also sit in on discussion groups with them - would removing the ‘Lords’ themselves from office be a way of cutting out the middle-men?

It’s been put forth many times that Meritocracy seeks to put ‘experts in every field’ at the heart of government, or at least in a high position within government, so maybe working with them directly, instead of the Lords, is a kind of solution?

I may not have worded this perfectly, but I think you’ll catch my drift…

Thoughts anyone?


Now that, we can unequivocally agree upon. They should be for the chop as they are not electable under any means.

1 Like

We could change it to the House of Experts.

1 Like

Interesting thought. However, if we were to have a ‘house of experts’ they would have to have some sort of regular auditing in order to ensure they continue to be the experts we need them to be. If someone more meritorious comes along, there must be some means for them to contest a particular seat.

However, this would make the necessity for anything other than a House of Experts to be completely redundant. What would be the equivalent of the house of commons, ‘the House of Mediocrities.’

I believe two distinct houses to be surplus to requirement.

1 Like

Another way is for Parliament to be only representatives of the people, with no Houses and a voting system without the issues first-past-the-post has. Everyone can still vote for their MP. The goal being to have independents or as much variety as possible, because even if it’s “just regular people” - they’ll probably do a much better job looking after the common good than professional politicians.

The Cabinet could then be composed of people who are deemed experts in their fields of expertise and who have been voted in by their peers. E.g. the Secretary of State for Health is voted in by doctors, surgeons, nurses and anyone who works in the health sector or who can prove they have adequate knowledge to make an informed opinion on who the best person would be.

This changes the system radically and gives a starting point to continue refining it. People still have direct representatives and in addition they can apply their knowledge and experience to vote for the Cabinet. I think it’s something that would appeal to voters while enabling Meritocratic Democracy to flourish to a great extent.

It’s also something that we can work on because the same way we have a “Shadow Cabinet” formed from the major opposition Party, we can have an “Expert Cabinet”. It’s a question of setting up the system and making enough noise for it to be relevant.


Interesting. This sounds as if the cabinet is some sort of professional consultancy team.

However, how would these expert cabinet members be voted? What would make you eligible to vote and indeed what would make you eligible to stand? Or would it almost be a nomination type process among your professional peers?

1 Like

Most citizen’s gripes with the House Of Lords include the fact that they are not elected. By ANYONE.

So it seems the choices would be -

a. Scrap the House Of Lords, end of.
b. Embellish the new ‘House Of Experts’ into the Parliament Cabinet.
c. Scrap and replace it with something else.
d. If choosing c - what is the format and what do you call it?

‘House Of Honourable Advisors’ might be a better name, if going down that route. But it’s all up for debate …

“House of Lords-merely bloated, Ermine coated, never been voted”

Pete Wishart [SNP]

“On Wednesday, a fired-up Pete Wishart secured and led a Westminster Hall debate on reform of the archaic House of Lords and my word, did he make the most of the opportunity. In a stunningly erudite and articulated speech, the Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Perth and North Perthshire highlighted the absurdity, corruption and fundamentally undemocratic nature of the privileged ‘other place”

Watch the Debate on Youtube