To think life peerages should be scrapped?

why do we want politicians making all our laws?

They can't.

They don't know enough about anything. We need outside experts having an input, and this is how we get them.

the house of commons sends a rough first draft of new legislation to the Lords

The MPs in the house of commons know what they want ideologically, but not how anything actually works in practice.

The life peers in the Lords, of which there are thousands, will include many experts in the matter under discussion, whether it be tanning leather, generating electricity from tidal turbines, education of children with Down's - what ever it is, there will be people in the Lords who are experts.

They amend the bill and send it back to the Commons for further discussion.

They do this twice before anything becomes law.

Without them, there would be no expert scrutiny over any bill from the commons

Patrick Vallance has been made a Minister of State by Starmer so I’m sure he will.

To think Paula Vennells was in the running for Bishop of London ...

And Patrick Vallance.

I hope he works with Hilary Cass and Robert Winston to inject some actual scientific reality into parliament.

(And the hereditary ones, for that matter).

Agreed they should be abolished.

@Brefugee how does any part of your comment support they are not unelected?

It's in labours manifesto

Even if the Labour Party want to replace it, there are so many higher priorities that they have to deal with. Maybe a second term change if they get in again in 2028 or 2029.

they aren't unelected. There are a limited number of hereditary peers. All men. There are a number of bishops and other (but not atheist) equivalents. Mostly men.

There are a number of life peers, most of whom are elevated in a jobs for the boys-and-girls who scratched our backs.

Nothing that should be happening in a democratic society.

the unelected nature of the HoL is its biggest benefit. Members vote with their conscious and for what they believe in rather than because they are required by their party or to ensure they retain their job.

Their role in revising legislation and holding the government to account is of critical importance and could not be performed by an elected group.

I agree with this.

I would rather it vanish into thin air, but that would be a welcome change.

As it stands if the eldest son were a transwoman the title would still be inherited. If the eldest child were a transman... nope.

Harriet Harman the long serving labour MP has just been appointed to the HoL and said she would be working like a turkey voting for Christmas. Absolutely wants reform. I’m intrigued to see the plans. Current system is mad.

I favour hereditary peerages as the political obligation fades with the generations.

and because they all work due to male primorgeniture - how will you feel in 50 years when the HoL, reversed to only hereditary peerages, is all men?

The main reform I think the HoL needs is for the eldest to inherit, regardless of their sex. This is now the case with the Royal Family, so no excuse now for it not the be the same for hereditary peers.

The bishops, even with cut numbers, annoy me just as much.

I'm very much in favour of the House of Lords, the unelected nature of it is its main benefit.

However, I am not in favour of any religious leaders being members, as either leaders of all religions should be members or none should. And I'm not a fan of Life Peerages in general, I favour hereditary peerages as the political obligation fades with the generations.

Having said that, I'm not against making up the HOL to a particular number of members with life peers who are made peers for something other than their political service, so no more peerages for former Primer Ministers or their cronies. Some service for the country or their community should be the criteria and an opportunity to make someone a peer should only occur once a life peer dies. I appreciate that may sound rather harsh though. 🙂

I like the idea of a non-elected body who can hold the Commons to account. I don't like the way political parties nominate members, I believe they shouldn't have a political affiliation.

Life peers make less sense than hereditary peers because a government can put forward whoever they think will be supportive of their cause. At least with hereditary peers they were there regardless.

Hereditary peers shuts women out. It is a complete and utter anachronism.

It's one of the best things about British politics. Or it should be.

Good people - and those eminent in other fields - won't enter politics. The HoL is a reforming chamber and it mostly respects that role.

It's been debased in recent year by things such as the huge number of LibDem make-weights that were appointed under the coalition government: lots of county councillors and medium ranking business people. Nothing wrong with them as such, but not the calibre of people that should be appointed. And then the dodgy political appointments don't help. Political appointees should be senior politicians who have served with distinction, not those appointed as a consolation prize as upper house lobby fodder.

The problem with an elected upper house is just that: it's more politicians. And that's not an answer to anything.

Well, if you staggered the election dates, there'd only be 10% of them in their last two years.

Not if they could only stand once.

I don't agree. It owuld be fine for 18 years, but the last two years they would all be currying favour, subject to the same electoral pressures.

Bit like big business then