What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

I can’t sum up my views any better than this.

I'm worried about losing it. There are some good eggs in there.

I don’t agree with removing it, though I do feel concern about ‘crony’ appointments.

The idea of a voted for HoL does not appeal to me either though because it means more politician types.

Keep it! Just rename it as the House of Lords and Ladies and let the hereditary peers be firstborn child not first born son.

I have grown to appreciate our antiquated system and the stability it provides but most of all the freedom from commercial and societal pressures which Peers of the Realm seem to by virtue of not needing to seek election.

I also appreciate the variety of people with have there now due to recognition of their achievements in various fields.

I didn't used to be in favour of the HOL because they were unelected, but politics has changed. Now the HOL seems to be the last bastion against extremism, which seems ironic.

I think the reason Keir Starmer is talking about getting rid of them, is because he's worried that if there's an absolute overload of Tories in the House of Lords, he won't be able to get anything passed.

@pattihews nails it. The reason we've held the line so long, is the second chamber.

It should be composed of the retired great and good though -a sort of uber village elders.

Yes - although it should have younger people too, although that would be harder both in terms of assessing their 'worthiness' and also their time. Maybe it would need a rolling set of younger people available for sabbatical years?

We need a slimmed down HoL, remove all the inherited titled individuals, appoint people based on their contribution to society, not political, financial or inheritance patronage & insist on a level of active commitment to debate and discussion about legislation. Too many of the current intake are not fit for purpose. BUT, recent experiences of the HoL being prepared to openly debate issues that captured labour politicians are scared of raising, shows how much a second chamber is needed.

I like the HoL. I would reduce the number of overtly political appointments and have it as an expert reviewing chamber. You want people with expert knowledge who are free to ignore the party line and ask awkward questions.

The HoL acts as a sense check - because they are not elected they don’t have to worry about pandering to the public/lobbying groups. It should be composed of the retired great and good though -a sort of uber village elders. They need to reform the system where grubby politicians nominate people who pay for their holidays in Martinique, but should retain the HoL generally imo, it does a lot of good work.

No, they are an essential balance. They are free to say as they wish, don't get whipped, don't need to be elected.

They have little need to be there, so are motivated by responsibility and a desire to see change.

We need more Robert Winston's, not less.

Im an optimist…thats it, thats all i got

A bicameral system is so much more sensible than unicameral. HoL needs to stay, but I do agree with reforming who sits in it. I think it should be leaders across the different spheres of life - industry, emergency services, education, arts & culture, and religion - and those people should be elected by their spheres, perhaps.

That'll be a nope from me. Reform maybe but not remove.

Exactly what I was trying to work out how to say.

A chamber with the likes of e.g. Robert Winston and Tanni Grey-Thompson (to pick the first two names that come to mind) is a jolly good thing. Get rid of the dead weight of automatic places etc and find a way of truly getting a cross section of 'the great and the good'.

we absolutely need The House of Lords, they are the check and balance to the Commons

I'm not sure Starmer would be able to get rid, would he? Because any "get rid of the HoL" legislation would presumably have to go through.......the House of Lords?

Maybe there's a loophole or something.

No, I think having only an elected chamber is a terrible idea.

I'm less attached to any specific version of how the people in the HoL are chosen, but I am somewhat skeptical that another method would result in a significantly better outcome. And I am not inclined to make changes without some real reason to think the outcome would be significantly better, because they would almost surely be some unexpected downside to whatever was chosen to replace it.

I have come to a place though where, when I see political parties or MPs etc who are pushing for things like this, it really makes me think they don't understand the political system, or haven't watched how it functions in reality. Because you just get these claims about how much more democratic it will be, without any real sense that they understand what it does, or have any idea to replicate that function in some other way.

And it's notable to me how often those who talk about it seem to be attempting to draw on something like class resentment in the public, rather than formulating a sound political argument.

Let me just say Doreen Lawrence

Without the House of Lords to act as a reality check, we could end up becoming the shit show that the Scottish Parliament has become. A populist chamber of incompetence, just rubber-stamping any old rubbish Sturgeon puts out, in hock to activists.

No, Thank you.

i would like to retain a second chamber - but radical reform is required. I’m a big fan of the lottery system recommended by some very sensible people!

its such a shame i was really looking forward to him becoming leader, really thought he’d make a difference

Why did you think that, he was spineless before becoming leader and is now?

I think the HOLdo a good job overall of moderation (for want of a better term). What would replace them, because I do think their function is important...