I wonder how many peers have actually been appointed by the commission, compared to those appointed through the party machinery.

Would it not be good idea to have some ‘normal’ members of the general public in the Lords – even if for limited periods.

I doubt that students, the unemployed, housewives, single parents etc. are very well represented in the upper house… especially in comparison to ex-MPs, teachers etc.

James Clarke: I agree with your first paragraph. There are some bodies that do support retaining an appointed chamber (see, for example, http://www.effectivesecondchamber.com). I fear I take a different view on the second paragraph: I share your concerns about meddling with the present system – which works far better than critics give it credit for – but for the reasons given in some of my earlier posts, I am not a supporter of referendums. My support for the present system means that I look to Parliament to protect that which works.

Of course we have MPs (although Birmingham will have just ten in the next parliament for a population of over a million, which seems not very much), but if you have another forum (the Lords) you need representation there as well. Otherwise you’re at a disadvantage. Although, the whole idea of an appointed “democratic” body that calls its members “lords” in a supposedly egalitarian age is clearly ridiculous in any case and perhaps it’s for the better that we have less to do with it.

Why does anyone pay attention to these idiotic ideas from think tanks? It seems to me that the Lords seem to be the only people who actually read the legislation that is drawn up. New Labour seem to be determined to break what doesn’t need fixing! Is there a think tank putting forward the idea of maintaining the lords in its current form? I would certainly be for that.
I have deep concerns about meddling with our political system. A clear idea of what kind of political forum that our people wish to be ruled by should be gained by referendum before changes are made that effect the very foundation of our democracy. After all everyone seems to be obsessed with turning our system into a carbon copy of America so why not just ask everyone if that’s what they want. Its been far to long since any government organisation has trusted the general public of this country to have half a brain its about time we were allowed to have a say about big issues such as this.

I am glad the data was of interest. Yes, it has to include those whose territorial designations are not formally part of their title. The bulk of the data came from a website called ‘Government Evaluations’. From what I remember, the 60 or so not covered in the regional breakdown are referred to as ‘National’.

Howridiculous.

Nice One Sunderland!: I fear (for the reasons I have given) that one’s location is not likely to be sufficient in itself for putting oneself forward for a peerage. However, if you have significant personal merits, it is possible to put your name forward to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The Commission considers self-nominations as well as nominations submitted putting forward others for consideration. For anyone interested in the work of the Commission, and what it considers, information is provided on its website: http://www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk

I’d be more than happy to help boost the numbers if there’s any peerages going spare at the moment!?

I entirely agree that we already have regional representatives and they are MPs. In fact, they are even better than regional representatives because they are local ones and people have a greater affinity with their localities than with their regions. I don’t imagine people in Oxford and Canterbury have much regard for themselves as being ‘South East’!

Had the NLGN looked at territorial designations they might have made a stronger case for the London/Home Counties claim. A rough analysis of some 690 peers reveals the following territorial designation breakdowns. Whilst it does not include all peers it is unlikely those missing from the survey would significantly impact on the London/South East concentration.

East Midlands – 27

East of England – 66

London – 141

North East – 17

North West – 58

South East – 106

South West – 51

West Midlands – 44

Yorkshire and The Humber – 41

Scotland – 82

Wales – 35

Northern Ireland – 22

Howridiculous.