To not 'get' the House Of Lords?

[CatVsChristmasTree]

I don't really understand the point of them? They help make laws, or something? That seems quite important, fair enough, but in the case surely they should be elected by the people and maybe be slightly representative rather than random ex politicians and Russian media moguls. Saw an article in The Times this morning, apparently they're adding more Lords, despite Teresa May promising to cut the numbers down. I think they're up to 830 odd

My biggest issue though, is the name. Lords FFS. This is 2020! Aside from the obvious patriarchy, it seems so outdated and middle ages. We're not peasants (well, maybe we are).

Does anyone else think there's no place for a 'House of Lords' in modern Britain?

Two chambers is the norm and acts as a check/balance. I wouldn't want to lose that. Other countries elect them.

Well they're quite useful as they are a) not career politicians and b) they have a long term outlook rather than just focusing on the next election.

They are necessary but agree they should be elected and no more signing on for £300 a day to read the paper.

@Aahotep

Two chambers is the norm and acts as a check/balance. I wouldn't want to lose that. Other countries elect them.

I can see the value in having two Chambers, but I'd want them to be elected or qualified based on maybe having experience in things that would be helpful, like teachers and doctors and things like that. Also, 830 is too many surely?

The purpose of a second d chamber is to provide checks and balances on the first. The second chamber should therefore be non partisan as far as is practical. Lord are sent by the first house however they are not subject to whipping or party control. An elected second chamber has a number of difficulties not least partisan blocking seem in the US. I would like to see strengthening of the powers of the second house up to and including a full veto awaiting referral to a public vote.

I think I'm mostly annoyed with the name, TBH. Lords

I don't think that teachers or doctors are necessary qualifications. A broad spectrum is best. Etonians/statesmen, business leaders, those of outstanding public service from any walk of life and of course those needing to be bought off by the gov of the day!

Some Lords are very useful and use their knowledge and skills to hold the government to account. Some are cronies who were put there to wave through legislation of their mates.

The lord's have been quite useful in Brexit, by insisting the government not break the law etc, but that's why Boris etc are stuffing it now - so they won't hold them to account properly anymore.

In the USA they also have two "houses". The Representatives and the Senate. Then the third branch of government is the President. Supposedly the three branches are supposed to keep each other in line but in practise, corruption talks and the leader of the Senate refuses to even discuss bills passed in the House, and it's not in the president's interest to make them. Many bills die on Mitch McConnell's (the leader of the senate) desk despite widespread support in the House and even the president - McConnell refused to pass a lot of things Obama wanted to do just because not party politics.

My point being that even when the two chambers are both elected, it doesn't always work.

Well they do alright out of us don't they.

Subsidised food and drink, keeping the cab running so they can sign in and get their pay.

Leeches.

From Plato onwards (and probably before, but I've not read it personally) there has been argument that democracy allows for a load of fuckwits to elect an even bigger fuckwit. I would rather the counter balance to democratically voted eejits were chosen for their intellectual capabilities, scientific knowledge, philosophical skills and fairness rather than peerage however, but there you go.

I quite like having a non elected house actually. Election means only the short term is privileged; long term, considered plans are never vote winners. I remain unconvinced that democracy is always a good thing.

If you're annoyed with the name 'Lords' whatever must you think of the name 'Commons'?!

If more and more keep being added, how do the numbers ever reduce?

Do they just have to die or retire?

It must cost the country a fortune paying all that number of ‘Lords’

@HoneysuckIejasmine

Some Lords are very useful and use their knowledge and skills to hold the government to account. Some are cronies who were put there to wave through legislation of their mates.

The lord's have been quite useful in Brexit, by insisting the government not break the law etc, but that's why Boris etc are stuffing it now - so they won't hold them to account properly anymore.

In the USA they also have two "houses". The Representatives and the Senate. Then the third branch of government is the President. Supposedly the three branches are supposed to keep each other in line but in practise, corruption talks and the leader of the Senate refuses to even discuss bills passed in the House, and it's not in the president's interest to make them. Many bills die on Mitch McConnell's (the leader of the senate) desk despite widespread support in the House and even the president - McConnell refused to pass a lot of things Obama wanted to do just because not party politics.

My point being that even when the two chambers are both elected, it doesn't always work.

One thing I learned from watching The West Wing was how much potentially useful legislation and change doesn't happen because of this.

The name is a hangover from the feudal era. Are you also offended by the House of Commons? The Commoners are now the ones with power. The Lords can hold up proposed laws but can't veto them altogether. The vast majority of them now are life peers, not hereditary peers. It is a weird system, but you don't get made a life peer for absolutely no reason, whereas a hereditary peer gets a title by sheer accident of birth. Life peers are often ex-MPs or trade unionists or community leaders, or successful business or professional people, or scientists, academics, religious leaders. The hereditary peers often have professional/business backgrounds too, these days. There's a good mix of knowledge and experience in there and it's all a lot less party political than in the Commons. I like that. If we elected them, it would just come down to party politics again and we'd have another chamber made up of people who've never worked in any field except politics.

@Gobbycop

Well they do alright out of us don't they.

Subsidised food and drink, keeping the cab running so they can sign in and get their pay.

Leeches.

Actually the vast majority are extremely good. They have a lot of expertise, and largely don't vote along party lines. They do a LOT of scrutinising (much to Gov's annoyance)

@Herja

From Plato onwards (and probably before, but I've not read it personally) there has been argument that democracy allows for a load of fuckwits to elect an even bigger fuckwit. I would rather the counter balance to democratically voted eejits were chosen for their intellectual capabilities, scientific knowledge, philosophical skills and fairness rather than peerage however, but there you go.

I quite like having a non elected house actually. Election means only the short term is privileged; long term, considered plans are never vote winners. I remain unconvinced that democracy is always a good thing.

That's a good point, maybe not being elected is a benefit. But ours aren't chosen for those reasons are they, I mean isn't Boris Johnson's brother a Lord now?

X Post- didn’t see this and just created a thread saying the House of Lords should be abolished. It’s corrupt croneyism at its worst tbh

@titchy

If you're annoyed with the name 'Lords' whatever must you think of the name 'Commons'?!

I hadn't actually thought of that, I didn't realise it means 'common' people!

@Blackcelebration12

X Post- didn’t see this and just created a thread saying the House of Lords should be abolished. It’s corrupt croneyism at its worst tbh

I actually respect the arguments put forward here with good reasons for having it. But I still think it should be broken down and rebuilt as something else with a better name and members ALL chosen for the value they bring rather than who they are mates with. With more women (though I'm actually impressed it is currently as many as 26% women).

i studied public law last year and some of the work of the House of Lords is pretty good, a check and balance on the government who can get anything through now it has a large majority,

Now, you can get around the Lords not approving, with the Parliaments Act but it does highlight unpopular decisions which make the government think again.

There are a lot more decent normal people now, people like Doreen Lawrence? Or Floella Benjamin. So yes its unelected but its also reflecting more points of view.

@Wearywithteens

Why not read up a bit about it?

I am, thanks I just find getting opinions from people who have a totally different view really helps. It's what I love about MN. I can have a really strong opinion based on possibly false or misguided assumptions and people will come along and give another side that I hadn't considered.

The issue I have with it is that people like Ian Botham have been given a life peerage and £300 a day tax payers money in expenses to have views on our democracy. He is unelected and yet the reason he has been given a peerage is because of his brexit views, where he campaigned against being ruled by ‘unelected burocrats’ in Brussels. It STINKS!

I do definitely take issue with HOW we get our non elected counterbalance. As I said, I would rather they were placed for their minds than their parentage or nepotism. This is slowly beginning to change bit by bit though.

I would rather by far the idea of a radical shift in who becomes a member of HoL, than an entirely democratically elected government system though. Frankly, too many people think in the short term and of their personal circumstances too much for that to feel wise.

Though, as in my dream world we would live in a pastoral, non industrialised anarchic society, which had been built on a world re-leveled along socialist vision, I'm not that keen on any of it, but I am well used to the idea that I will never get what I want!