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 Aside from the obvious patriarchy, it seems so outdated and middle ages.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?

Most Lords are very experienced in their field. Many are former ministers and have seen it all before so can lend their considerable expertise to the governance of the nation. Others are religious leaders, academics, former senior military or police officers etc. Then we have Baroness Lawrence who was a significant campaigner for justice. The hereditary peers may seem like an anachronism but they have their own advantages because they owe no one any favours.

Remember that they are a revising chamber so are only really there to improve laws put forward by the Commons.

@Blackcelebration12

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!

But a) there aren't many like that and b) much as it pains me, it is very fair to have Brexiters in the Lords - they deserve representation as much as the rest of us.

I've a lot of respect for what goes on in the upper house actually - particularly now I've got an awareness of what they do.

Botham's views on Europe may or may not have influenced his peerage, but bearing in mind his sporting achievements and extensive charity work he would have been in line for one anyway.

He's not the only cricketer to have a peerage, and there's plenty of other sportspersons and people from occupations like entertainment in the House of Lords. That way you get a very good mix of all types of people, who may have more of an idea how sectors of the public think.

Personally, it's the fact that all bishops are automatically in the Lords that irritates me.

I used to be very anti the House of Lords - coming from a poorer backgrounds I was happy to go along with the common message that they’re all unelected upper class jobs. Then I gradually realised that elections are not the cure all in a multiple-y gerrymandered, FPTP system. It also gradually dawned on me that some of those ‘nobs’ are there because they’ve used their gifts to achieve something and in the process gain skills, knowledge, experience and expertise. Not all, but some, while it has been drained out of an increasingly elite and unrepresentative ‘Commons’. I’ve also watched them apply common sense to Brexit and other matters again and again where the Eton cronies in the so-called Commons have failed.

While there are questions going forward about composition, I therefore think both houses need to be subjected to those questions, and I will never again take the word of the manipulative career politicians at face value. We need those two houses for checks and balances.

Second chamber pretty vital for check and balance. Unelected far better IMO for partisan voices.

Other than that I agree with you - the selection process needs to change from cronyism, to a broad base of knowledge. Teachers and doctors should be in there amongst many others.

I’d like to drop the term lords but think it’s the least of our worries right now.

If we did have reform I’d like to extend the 2nd chambers powers to manage an out of control parliament like we have now.

Read up on it, tis important to know how your government works. There’s another thread on this BTW.

They are very important as a process and would never support its abolition.

I wish they were elected rather than hereditary.

I have a HUGE issue with hereditary privileges and think the monarchy is the crowning glory of class immobility.

There is a place for a second chamber for scrutiny I think. It does not need to be large, say no more than 100 people, and I would like eligibility to be such that there is a role for those with no party political involvement nor just a retirement home.

Mr Johnson's appointments are just examples of his cronyism and misogyny.

We do need to have a second house and there is a value in those people not being elected, or at least not at the same time as the MPs. There have been times when the Lords may represent our interests in a way the MPs haven't been able to because of concerns about the next election.

I totally disagree with inherited peerages, but they are only a minority now I suppose.

Re. the £300, you have to think of the cost of a train to London and a hotel - you can't expect someone in their 70s to take the coach for a long journey and stay in a hovel. Once you've paid for your train and hotel there's not much left for those who don't live near London. They shouldn't abuse it of course and we could look at different options like some kind of public owned hotel for them.

"Personally, it's the fact that all bishops are automatically in the Lords that irritates me."

Yes, that is wrong.

A lot of the Lords are very knowledgeable in their own fields - tbh there’s probably a much higher degree of capability in the Lords than in the Commons at the moment. The cross benchers (non-party affiliated) tend to come from a pretty wide background. Most of the hereditary peers are gone now.
They do a lot of scrutiny of legislation which is invaluable, it saves a lot of time in the commons. A lot of the work they do is behind the scenes, in committees etc. If you look at the parliamentary website they’re at least as active as the commons most of the time, and a lot of the peers are very busy indeed.

It does sometimes look like a retirement home for ex politicians but they bring decades of experience to the job and they know their stuff. And they aren’t afraid to challenge the government - some of the sessions are pretty brutal on ministers.

"they’re at least as active as the commons most of the time, and a lot of the peers are very busy indeed."

But there are some who don't do anything I think. Of course you can be a lazy MP as well, but there's always constituency work for them whereas Lords don't have constituency offices.

@DorisDaisyMay

They are very important as a process and would never support its abolition.

I wish they were elected rather than hereditary.

I have a HUGE issue with hereditary privileges and think the monarchy is the crowning glory of class immobility.

I think you got your wish in 1997! Though a small number of hereditary peers were invited back in on their own merits.

I think the nomination process is OK,
but it should a 10 year term only and no re-nomination. Stops the accumulation of more and more Lords and means they won't be acting in a articular way to get voted back in.
Also banned from being an MP after accepting a Lordship.
They can be an important check and balance and I'm very glad that check is there with this current government tbh.

An unelected chamber is a disgrace in a modern democracy. We, the people, don’t vote them in and we can’t vote them out.

Lords and Ladies are in place until they die. There are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords, who are there because their great, great etc grandparents fucked or murdered a prince hundreds of years ago. (The 1997 act didn’t abolish them.)

It’s a dreadful, corrupt system of privilege and patronage enshrined in our constitution. An unelected elite deciding how you and I should live. It’s outrageous!

They hold the HoC accountable, and in recent years I’ve found them a strong force that despite coming from different political parties have displayed a United front. Most of them are there because they passionately care and with our current gov, I’d be terrified without them. We wanted sovereignty apparently. Lords are a huge part of that.

Betty Boothroyd is a particular favourite.

@MasterBeth

An unelected chamber is a disgrace in a modern democracy. We, the people, don’t vote them in and we can’t vote them out.

Lords and Ladies are in place until they die. There are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords, who are there because their great, great etc grandparents fucked or murdered a prince hundreds of years ago. (The 1997 act didn’t abolish them.)

It’s a dreadful, corrupt system of privilege and patronage enshrined in our constitution. An unelected elite deciding how you and I should live. It’s outrageous!

You think the FPTP system in the Commons and relying on that alone is better?

"They hold the HoC accountable, and in recent years I’ve found them a strong force that despite coming from different political parties have displayed a United front"

I agree with this.

You think the FPTP system in the Commons and relying on that alone is better?

Yes, it’s better because the Commons is a wholly elected chamber.

But democratising the Lords and/or reviewing our whole system of government would be a far better option.

@MasterBeth

You think the FPTP system in the Commons and relying on that alone is better?

Yes, it’s better because the Commons is a wholly elected chamber.

But democratising the Lords and/or reviewing our whole system of government would be a far better option.

Fair enough.

When a second chamber is elected, you end up with a democratic deficit, because the two chambers block each other (see the US for plenty of evidence of this). One chamber tends to fall to one party, and the other, the opposing party.

The HoL should be more representative of the regions/classes than it currently is, but I wouldn't want to elect its members.

@Allergictoironing
Not all bishops are members of the House of Lords. The Lords Spiritual consists of 26 of the 42 Diocesan Bishops in the Church of England provinces of Canterbury and York.

[quote Plbrookes]@Allergictoironing
Not all bishops are members of the House of Lords. The Lords Spiritual consists of 26 of the 42 Diocesan Bishops in the Church of England provinces of Canterbury and York.[/quote]
Did anybody say that all of them are. None of them should be. We are a Christian country by tradition, but we shouldn't be ruled by clerics of one particular Christian denomination, or any other religion.

Peter Mandelsohn 🤮 yeah, I’d be happy to have the HOL abolished on those grounds taps nose

We aren’t ruled by the lords, clerics or no clerics.

@Gwenhwyfar
Yes, Allergictoironing said it and you agreed.