What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

And, of course, an unelected judiciary and trial by jury.

There were some interesting discussions about "perverse" verdicts when the Coulston Four were acquitted. Arguably the very last defence against an unjust law.

Hol supports democracy imo and good governance overall.

We have an elected hoc, unelected HoL, heredity monarchy and a free press.
All are checks on each other to guard against any getting too big for their boots. Media need taking down a peg or two now and again e.g Murdoch and news of world saga. Even “the people” shouldn’t be all powerful as what people do they mean? the loudest?
all helps prevent the rise of any authoritarian or dictatorship.
yes not perfect but no system is and our one works on balance imo

Plenty of arguments here against democracy.

Perhaps, but the UK isn't a straight forward democracy. Every vote isn't worth the same, and once elected your MP is there for years and there's nothing you can do about it. If you live in a safe seat there may be nothing you can do about it for decades. Party politics also makes the situation complicated, as representatives are serving their parties ahead of their constituents.

And, of course, democracy without checks and balances is also the rule of the majority. You need things in place to protect the rights of minorities too. Which is why many countries have proper written constitutions in place.

The HoL, by the way, cannot stop legislation which comes directly from the government's manifesto. It can only stop legislation which has not been voted for by the general public.

I too used to be opposed to the HoL when young, but have now seen how valuable it can be. How about renaming it the House of Lived, for those who've lived in a range of UK settings? And the reforms re numbers and selection as suggested by other posters all sound sensible.

God, middle age. Maybe my Nan was right all along about not going out with wet hair....

Plenty of arguments here against democracy. And in favour of having 850 people who will govern without fear or favour because they don't need to be elected - and are rich beyond avarice , presumably.

You could also reduce - or simply abolish - MPs salaries. Get more ' talented amateurs' in the Commons. Chaps with a bit of hinterland who will just do the job out of love of country. Far removed from this gross material plane. Like JRM.

And why elect the Commons, since the Lords are doing such a grand job. Elections are so divisive , aren't they ?

@LlynTegid I agree you can't eliminate party politics entirely - people will always have private allegiances. But eliminating any 'formal' party status - nobody stands for a party, parties don't sit together on particular benches - would, I think, reduce the tribalism.

This seems quite sensible.

Agree.

I want to keep the Lords but reform how Peers are appointed. I really don't like that outgoing PMs use it as a place to "thank" their cronies.

I would like to see a system whereby Peers are in the HoL for life, selected by a committee rather than PM appointment, and that there is a maximum number of them so no government can stack the deck by appointing loads. And in my dream world, the committee for appointing Peers would be proportionally representative too.

We already have an elected House of Commons. There should not be an elected HoL - the measure of independence and ability to hold the government to account is a hugely valuable asset - should not revolve into cronyism or reliance on election

We need a House of Lords to keep the House of Commons in check and it must be non-partisan.

I think what we currently have is probably as close as we are going to get to a good option.

I do wonder about hereditary peers. I like the idea that you have a group of people who have a born responsibility to serve the country and therefore devote themselves fully to public service. The problem is, there are also a group who don't care, or who use it to advance themselves.

Maybe we should have referendums on everything instead - like the Swiss.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn sensible ideas I think. I don't think you could completely avoid some party politics though.

Our local council here in Scotland falls totally on party lines - so if you have a council of 8 snp and 7 conservatives the snp decision always wins regardless.
If we had a voted Lords the same would happen. Those standing would be like Parliament - so a Cons from the home counties, labour from london, and each candidate would know that if they did anything to annoy their Cons or Labour electorate they'd lose their seat at the next local election so the Lords would be indentikit of the Gov. So no benefit.

I’m a bit torn to be honest.
In principle I don’t want a group of unelected unqualified people helping to decide our laws but there are some really good, intelligent members who are there due to success in their field. Plus the fact that they are unelected gives them the ability to make decisions not based on getting re elected (which may or may not be a good thing). Also they are probably not there for the money so hopefully less susceptible to corruption

Hereditary seats were stopped in 1999 (though there are some still remaining, time will sort that out)

Starmer is essentially removing the body that regulates the commons and thus regulates him.

Why? What does he want to be able to do that the sitting Lords have prevented. I think we know.

This is dictator level overreach and this man is dangerous.

Yes, the Scottish gov runs roughshod over anything - there have been so many bad and costly decisions made - eg the new parliament, these blooming ferries -could do with a Lords with some with financial wisdom (or any wisdom come to that).

My own thoughts have evolved very much like yours over my lifetime. I used to consider myself anarchist, anti monarchist, never in my life voted Tory. Now I find I am ever more appreciative of our constitutional monarchy and even the hereditary peers in the HoL, I want to first born child rather than firstborn son similar to how the monarchy now works. I am even in favour of the Lords Spiritual, although not a church goer myself or member of the C of E, because the Church of England is connected with the monarchy and the state, my local infant and junior schools are C of E for example, this is part of our history and culture and church leaders naturally are interested in the wellbeing of their flocks, the people of this country, they bring a different perspective and about just under 50% of people in the UK “identify” as Christian. Representatives from the other main religions established in the UK should have similar representation too, to bring a Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu perspective.

I look across at the US in horror, no thank you I definitely don’t want an elected head of state nor an elected second house. I like our mixed system I think it works better, it is more diverse! The US appears to be driven by the interests of money alone, it is to my mind way more elitist than our system, wealth seeks and gains power to further increase wealth which further increases power and so on until wealth and power concentrates in the hands of the few, a new aristocracy or rather an oligarchy with no sense of responsibility to the people or the structures of government, no sense of past or future, none of the noblesse oblige or scared duty mentioned by another poster. In fact there really isn’t any accountability at all, the wealthy individuals and corporations running the show are private citizens and private companies and owe nothing to anyone apart from increasing the wealth of their shareholders if they have them.

oh and I am still not voting Tory, too many of them seem enamoured of US style neo liberal economics.

Sounds like a good plan. Let's keep the shitshow we have now.

This makes me not want to vote Labour. I won’t vote Tory either. Maybe I will write to my mp who is labour.

Reform, yes. But not to anything like the US system.

The good things about the current HoL - long term view, not chasing votes - need to be reinforced, not scrapped.

Ger rid of the bishops. No outgoing PM, or other sitting government, appointments. Nobody who has been an MP in the last 10 years. No party affiliations, no whips. Terms of at least 10 years - and if terms are shorter than life, no re-election. If any hereditary element is kept, then equal ops - no male bias to inheriting the post.

Oh FFS MN. Literal hours trying to write a reply only for it to get eaten just as I was getting the last link over. I shouldn’t have to draft my posts to say more than a few words.

They're constantly deadlocked. Govt workers didn't get paid because they couldn't get the budget through. Yeah, great idea.

It's a bad short-termist idea. Why do we keep fiddling round with our constitution thinking it can do no harm? Amd then being surprised when it does? Having experts in the second chamber who are not only passionate - easy to find those - but actually know more than their arse from their elbow - they're much rarer - is really beneficial to the country as a whole.