What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

I read this with dismay. I have always thought that the House of Lords is an example of something that shouldn't - but does - work.
Scottish legislation on devolved matters - even on uncontroversial topics - is often poorly and very widely drafted to maximise prosecutorial discretion and shows clear evidence of oversights and inaccuracies that proper scrutiny would pick up. The Scottish committee system doesn't really work- completely party political and dominated by the SNP. Not what was originally intended.
At Westminster, what would replace the cooler heads of a slightly less political second chamber?

I'm very much in favour of the HoL, for the reasons stated above.
None of them have to appease parties or public and court votes, they are mature people with a wealth of expertise and experience, and enough time to scrutinise things thoroughly. Even the hereditary peers have the tradition of serving and noblesse oblige.
Heaven only knows what the HoC would inflict on us without the checks and balances of a second (yes and unelected) chamber.

Removing things without proper thought to replacing them creates power vacuums. Power vacuums are bad things. They are unregulated voids in which power grabs occur without accountability and oversight.

Regardless of the problems the HoL has (and there are many) if you have not learnt from politics over the last 6 years, that the 'burn the house down and then try and figure it out' approach doesn't work, you need shooting. To be blunt.

Some kind of second chamber is good.
expertise and long term thinking is good
lottery system (like jury selection) to get a variety of voices could be interesting
packing the lord with political appointees and lazy people is bad
bias towards the church / hereditary peers etc is not great
replicating the shouty electoral politics of the HoC would not be great

some kind of reform that can improve on the existing system without destroying it would be good. And I think that is likely to be what Starmer could do. completely abolishing or radical change is very hard to implement. But minor tweaks could improve things.

This about sums it up for me. I like the fact there are lots of people in the upper chamber who aren't party political, or at any rate not there primarily because they're politicians.

The members of the second house could be nominated for their value and competence in their areas of expertise. We have reason to be quite grateful for the interventions of some of the Lords and Ladies. (No not you Cashman or Hunt)

But there are thousand of Lords largely thanks to Blair and ensuing PMs.

Labour is wanting to bring more power to the regions - in this region you cannot speak to a planner - can’t phone so should you have a problem you can email and wait weeks/ months til someone gets back to you. NO don’t give these idle twats MORE power.

Hear hear

The HOL has a long perspective not shared by the HOC. We need that.

If we had an elected hol they would quickly become partisan and the jeering would start immediately. That it is not elected and lords can speak their minds and not worry about elections is why they can have good wide ranging discussions in the first place. That keir doesn’t understand the benefits of that and speaks up for its merits is bewildering.

I completely agree Keir is utterly vision less.
Covid taught me that when he completely jumped on the lockdown bandwagon and seemed in capable of alternative perspectives. He said Boris was a danger to the world and it was a dangerous experiment re. Freedom day on 19th July 2021. He gets so much wrong imo and is a weather vane. He looks the part but that’s as far as it goes for me.
He is not a deep thinker imo and although I dislike ideologues in politics and prefer pragmatism, I think Keir is neither but I can’t quite figure out his motives for wanting to be PM.

Same here. My view has changed completely. We've had far more sense and rationality (and compassion) come out of the HOL than from government.

I was ambivalent about the HoLs until they sponsored the upskirting bill. I also kept a lazy eye on the Brexit shenanigans and the HoLs seemed to be only people with sense fighting against a hard Brexit. They do seem to care more than the Commons do about the people and our country’s welfare. The Commons is a school playground compared to them. The PMQs are all about bullying and making snarky one ups. Showboating, grandstanding. It’s so disheartening.

Even my 18yo is sick of it. They said our government is ‘a revolving clown show’

When I was younger at law school, I had to write a paper on the HoL, my original premise (and personal opinion) was against having them, by the time I finished writing I had completely changed my mind and have been very pro HoL ever since. Especially since the removal of inherited titles.

I was devastated to hear this from Starmer.

The HoLs is good as is. All that needs to be reformed is to stop PMs packing it with nominated cronies. If it became an elected house, it would get all partisan as the political parties would have candidates and seats. Then we’d have the shit show you see in the US Congress.

Sashagabadan Today 20:36
Unelected people have freedom of thought and can think long term in a way that elected politicians just don’t.

I agree with this.

I don’t even mind a small number of hereditary peers. We all inherit things from our parents and they bring a longevity historical perspective plus these days probably do work or are in business rather than idle layabouts. They bring something to the table too but I agree should be first born child not son.

I think an unelected lords is a very precious thing and we lose it at our peril. Unelected people have freedom of thought and can think long term in a way that elected politicians just don’t.
a good example is the maternity policy debate. I have no doubt some are lazy buggers but I suspect the vast majority take their roles seriously.
they also tend to be older people that have life, business, social experience and that’s a good thing. We need a mix of course , diversity of perspectives etc.