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 Aside from the obvious patriarchy, it seems so outdated and middle ages.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

[quote Plbrookes]@Gwenhwyfar
Yes, Allergictoironing said it and you agreed.[/quote]
I never agreed that all the bishops were in the House of Lords. I agreed that there are bishops in the House of Lords and that that is wrong. I don't see why it matters exactly how many there are.

I always thought they should do it like jury service. So rather than the awful appointment of cronies, or the even worse hereditary peers as it always was, or electing what could end up as a carbon copy of the commons, we have the “lords” or whatever we call it chosen completely at random.

People could do House of Lords service for a year or so, and be recompensed accordingly. Obviously they’d have to be adults and no criminal records etc, but otherwise just a random selection!

@Gwenhwyfar
I've copied your post below - you quoted Allergictoironing saying all bishops are automatically in the Lords and said 'Yes, that is wrong'.

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

Yes, that is wrong.'

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

Yes, that is wrong.'"

I meant that it is wrong that ANY bishops are in the Lords. Makes no difference to me whether it's some or all. Why are fixating on this?

"we have the “lords” or whatever we call it chosen completely at random."

Have you not watched any of those vox pops that would show you what happens if you let people chosen at random make all the decisions :)

@Gwenhwyfar
I very politely corrected the incorrect assertion and you rudely answered with 'Did anybody say that all of them are.' If you get so upset at someone correcting your factual errors you'd be well-advised to avoid making them.

[quote Plbrookes]@Gwenhwyfar
I very politely corrected the incorrect assertion and you rudely answered with 'Did anybody say that all of them are.' If you get so upset at someone correcting your factual errors you'd be well-advised to avoid making them.[/quote]
You weren't polite at all!

@Gwenhwyfar
Well my initial post is there for people to read and make their own mind up on. It didn't even mention you but you evidently felt the need to inject some rudeness to complement the factual inaccuracy of the original post and your agreement with it.

Ok ok so not ALL bishops, I'll happily admit I got that bit wrong, "only" 26 people who are there thanks to being C of E clergy, with most being there by merit of their years of service as a bishop.

Surely this is a form of religious discrimination as even allowing for the fact that England (they are all English) is nominally a Christian country, the spiritual oversight which these bishops are there to carry out only represent a little over 50% of the people.

"Surely this is a form of religious discrimination as even allowing for the fact that England (they are all English) is nominally a Christian country, the spiritual oversight which these bishops are there to carry out only represent a little over 50% of the people."

Not only are many Christians not Anglican, many people are also not Christian. It's totally wrong and makes no sense at all for Scotland, Wales and NI where there is either a different established church or none at all.

Sorry for the added "rudeness" last night, had a few too many drinks!

Directly elected second chambers are a mess when the second chamber has a primary role of scrutiny and checks and balances.

The pace of the Lords is slower, more time for details to be considered. Mostly less partisan and showboating too, more reasoned debate.

Most democracies have a "second chamber" in their legislature. Variety of methods of voting for them, none is yet ideal.

It's quite handy having a chamber where member can't be deselected before the next election so can (and do) vote in accordance with their consciences rather than on partisan lines like the US...

@Gwenhwyfar
Thanks, no problem!

Agree with many others. A second chamber is essential to scrutinise legislation, and a non elected 2nd house works best to keep the roles distinct, and so we don't have a democratic deficit, as described by a pp. It's good that we have so many people from different walks of life in there. Some are excellent and would never have stood for election but are happy to use their experience/expertise when appropriate. I do think there are far too many former politicians though.

I remember watching an interview with Dr Robert Winston, the doctor who did child of our time, saying that there was absolutely no chance that he would ever have stood for election to the house of lords, but having been made a lord, he did his best to apply his (considerable) expertise to bills where this was relevant. In fact, while googling his name just now, I found this article which is a few years old now, but towards the end includes his thoughts about the house of lords how it works and what he does there. I found it interesting...

www.projects.law.manchester.ac.uk/religion-law-and-the-constitution/robert-winston/

You seem to know virtually nothing about the House of Lords - your opinions are therefore not worth much - sorry but YABU.