Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

137 replies

MarshaBradyo · 25/11/2022 16:22

I don’t follow them much but I remember the very emotive and excellent speeches re the word mother in the maternity act.

Some of us followed it on here, and I was grateful enough to the four key players to email them.

My concern is that without those speeches we would have gone in a direction many didn’t want

With proposals to remove it - do you agree?

OP posts:
donquixotedelamancha · 25/11/2022 17:07

We certainly need a reviewing chamber.

Ideally I'd get rid of the titles, the bishops, the hereditary peers and the failed politicians.

The problem has always been how to keep a chamber of people with independence and expertise but not allow the ruling party to pack it.

RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · 25/11/2022 17:01

Having a totally elected second chamber risks generating the same issues that exist in the HoC, where party politics and career ambitions drive people rather than honesty, integrity, decency etc.

this absolutely sums it up for me, everytime that man opens his mouth my opinion of him goes down

its such a shame i was really looking forward to him becoming leader, really thought he’d make a difference…and politics degree studying 19 year old ds2 is just as disappointed before any fucker tries any agist shit

RoseslnTheHospital · 25/11/2022 16:52

Apparently Starmer thinks this will restore trust in politicians.

It's obviously problematic to allow outgoing PMs to appoint their mates as life peers. It's also an issue having hereditary peers, and having the 21 archbishops as the lords spiritual. I would definitely support reforms to address these issues. Having a totally elected second chamber risks generating the same issues that exist in the HoC, where party politics and career ambitions drive people rather than honesty, integrity, decency etc.

HotPenguin · 25/11/2022 16:51

I think we need a second chamber but people should be appointed for legitimate reasons, eg experience/knowledge/community links. Not birth or political patronage.

glamourousindierockandroll · 25/11/2022 16:50

I'm in favour of the HoL. I'd like to see the bar raised to make sure that appointments really are extremely experienced people in the full range of industries and backgrounds, and not just mates of PMs.

heldinadream · 25/11/2022 16:50

Well you know what they say about views changing as you get older - I used to be rabidly anti-Lords and anti-monarchy. And very left wing.
Now I'm old I'm more moderate, like the Lords and this year following the Queen's death now have a grudging admiration for aspects of the monarchy.
I'd still rather poke my own eyes out than vote Tory though, I'm happy to say!

MushMonster · 25/11/2022 16:50

Heck no! Who would keep an eye on this goverment without them and the civil service? Imagine the laws they would come up with without the House of Lords.
It needs a change of name and a written constitution to work with though.

tilder · 25/11/2022 16:48

I want it to stay. The in built Tory bias concerns me. But overall, I value the sense check it brings.

endofthelinefinally · 25/11/2022 16:47

Oh goodness. I meant that the three members of the HOL I mentioned are the good guys! Nothing to do with the HOC. That will teach me to try to pay attention to DH and type at the same time.

RoseslnTheHospital · 25/11/2022 16:46

I would rather reform it rather than remove it completely I think. I don't know what the Labour party are proposing in detail?

pattihews · 25/11/2022 16:46

A few years ago I would have been all for it, now I feel fiercely protective of it. Because it became clear watching the gender ideology debacle play out that MPs weren't prepared to say what they thought because they were bound by party loyalty or because they were scared of being removed by the TRAs in their constituency parties. Members of the HoL, who are there for life and don't have to toe party lines, were able to say things that desperately needed saying and they really kicked the debate off. It made me realise how incredibly important it is for democracy that there's a second chamber that brings experience and can speak freely without fear of losing their job.

What do Wales, Scotland and New Zealand have in common? They are unicameral — they don't have a second chamber — and gender ideology has been able to take hold unchecked. I'm in Wales and Mark Drakeford and his government have dealt with resistance by snippy refusing, time and time again, to meet anyone who is gender critical. Women, teachers, doctors: they just refuse. This is not democracy and it's very serious. Here in Wales we've had a one-party state for more than 20 years now and it can just do what it likes, unchecked, because it doesn't have to listen to anyone it doesn't want to.

endofthelinefinally · 25/11/2022 16:44

I don't agree. I know there are a number of people in there who do not deserve to be there, but there are many active, clever, responsible people without whom we would be a lot worse off. Just look at the absolute shower we have ended up with in the HOC as a result of the election process. Baroness Nicholson, Baroness Casey, Lord Winston, for example.

Swipe left for the next trending thread