What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

I guess Starmer agreed he'd done a good job of throwing mud.

Yes - Starmer would think that any bad publicity for the Tories is good news. There was a thread on here at the time (I think it was on here) and posters swallowed the preposterous accusations hook, line and sinker.

The investigation was actually going the right way til Tom Watson decided he knew better. He was after a story to stick on the Conservatives. And certainly for a long-time, thanks to the Mets ineptitude (how is it not a failing police force?), many members of the public felt they could call govt figures and dignitaries paedophiles with impunity because of the Met saying accusations of murder and torture of young children was credible.
I guess Starmer agreed he'd done a good job of throwing mud.

So Lord Watson has apologised to Lady Brittan but what about the others whose lives he ruined? Harvey Proctor?

I used to support the HoL for reasons given in previous posts, but Watson and Baroness Mone give it a terrible name.
If a Tory MP had given full support and publicity to a wicked fantasist like Carl Beech, Starmer would have gone berserk and would’ve done everything he could to prevent him becoming a member of the House of Lords.

This issue has just been discussed on BBC Radio 4's The Briefing Room: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fwj3

I am 100% in favour of retaining the HOL. Who gets waved in might need stricter checks and balances.... But over many years, far more sense gets spoken there than you'll find in the utter shit-show that the HOC increasingly is.

Not really. Trump was totally defanged by the crazy BlueAnon "Russiagate" conspiracy theory.

Democracy, oddly, can lead to autocracy.
(Trump? Nearly)

The dangers of a total democracy have been understood since ancient Greece. It's a system that is inherently unstable and tends to degenerate into factions and the strong dominating the weak.

At some point people forgot that and adopted this idea that it was the most perfect system, without serious weaknesses.

A system that has developed over centuries to take advantage of the positives of democracy, while mitigating it's dangers, is something to be treated with respect.

It can only stop legislation which has not been voted for by the general public.

Ultimately it can’t even do that if all the stops were pulled out.

I don’t agree. It’s just handing more power to the Commons, which has been a total shitshow for decades.

Philosophically I’d love to agree that any hereditary power at all is awful and abolish it, but the problem with that is that they plan to replace it with a bunch of politicians’ cronies.

The House of Lords has provided some top quality scrutiny of Parliament and of draft legislation and I am very very nervous about the idea of abolishing it.

Nonsense. There is no list with PR if you use Single Transferable Vote. I vote for candidates in order of preference. Regardless of party - although of course that will be a consideration.

They are all people who live in the constituency. The largest party here ( Fianna Fáil) have twice held Referendums to adopt the crazily corrupt FPTP instead. But this a very sophisticated electorate. They failed.

A Women's Party candidate would have a decent chance of getting a member elected here in Ireland actually.

Hmm, the country has a massive financial crisus on its hands, brexit issues are still not resolved, the nhs is failing, social care is - actually what social care, and what does Starmer want to prioritise? Reform of the House of Lords. You can't afford to heat and eat? Don't worry because we're going to get another tier of government for you to elect. The walk to the election booth will keep you warm. The man's an idiot.

Lords reform is important, but in the absence of even a vague consensus on how to do it the issue seems a crazy one for Labour to be promising ahead of the general election, not least when there are so many much more immediate problems that need fixing right now.

When Mrs Thatcher tried to stop striking miners getting benefits it was the House of Lords that stopped her in her tracks. They really are a protection against looney governance. As has already been pointed out, look at the hellish situation in Scotland where there is no protection against lunatic ideas.

One thing I like about the Tories is the willingness of their MPs to rebel. I consider the SNP block voting to be profoundly undemocratic.

PR means you are electing parties not constituency representatives. The party manipulates the lists so unless no one votes for them it is impossible to keep someone out if the party sticks them at the top of the list. Loyalties are always to the party. Again look at Scotland. PR gave us the greens, who hardly anyone voted for, in coalition with the SNP who sign a pledge to never rebel.

As an unelected chamber the HoLcan never ultimately overrule the HoC. They can bounce things around for a while but ultimately the HoC has its say. This would be an issue with an elected HoL - they would have the same legitimacy as the HoC so should no be overruled leading to potential stalemate.

I have grown to appreciate the HoL and the fact that they are lifelong and elected as that means no short termism or populism. But there have been some very poor appointments - on BOTH sides (labour get to propose them too even in opposition). I think the body that assesses the appointments has had concerns too. I am not sure what would be better way of appointing them though, perhaps some minimum standards might be a start

I totally agree the elected dictatorship that is the Scottish Parliament shows the dangers of a unicameral system.

There should be a purge of civil servants too as currently they seem to be partway to a coup ignoring government rulings and pursuing their own agenda. And for all the justified criticism of Boris and the Covid parties, many of those partying were civil servants who should have been fired by their civil service bosses.

Fantastic!

Or elected.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-63515299

@Abhannmor Our newest "Lord" is not hereditary, nor wealthy, nor white.

Most votes are worthless under FPTP. But lots of people are wary of PR because you would get coalitions- instead of an elective dictatorship being rubberstamped every 5 years. Go figure.

Anyway fear not : reading these posts I have realised old Steer Calmer won't actually do anything about their Lordships. ' England is ours by right of conquest ' one of them shouted as they tried to vote down Old Age Pensions in 1910.

And so it is.

Daniel finklestein on times radio ( bear in mind he is a lord but arguably can see the faults/ benefits better than most) says an elected HoL will either just pass all the legislation of the day or oppose it all causing chaos and gridlock and labours proposal sounds unthought through and if it goes ahead we will regret it in 20 years.