I was listening to a couple of Lords (one was a Lady actually) on the radio last week and they were both in favour of a fully appointed chamber. Although there are some advantages in an appointment system one comment that really annoyed me were their comments that they were in effect independent of the party system and could go their own way. This annoyed me because the current Labour government have over turned a number of Lords decisions on the basis that they didn't have a mandate as they weren't elected (or some similar argument). What is the point of an upper chamber that doesn't have sufficient clout?

I'm in favour of a system similar to jury service: one registered adult is chosen at random from each constituency (criminals and party members excepted) to serve a fixed term.

Although why, where soon everyone will be on line the public can't make their own decision on each vote proposed by parliament.