To think life peerages should be scrapped?

[AngeloMysterioso]

Michelle Mone, Liam Booth Smith… why should people like this who nobody elected, get a say in what becomes law?! And paid a six figure sum to do so.

the house of Lords should be scrapped and an elected second chamber should replace it.

I think the rules should be tightened to prevent people getting in just because they're donors or because they demanded it like John Prescott. However there's been some good recent appointments - I'm very pleased about Hilary Cass for example.

I don’t know anyone who is happy with the House of Lords set up

Labour have been promising reform/abolition of the HoL for over a century. It's highly unlikely that a Knight of the Realm will be a radical, "populist" reformer.

I think that, in any system of government, there will be those who do a good job and those who don’t take it seriously or fall short in other ways - look at the outgoing crop of MPs!
On the other hand, I found out last night that someone I know has recently been given a life peerage and, in this case, it is richly deserved.
I also think that having people in the House of Lords who are not career politicians (Tanni Grey-Thompson and Robert Winston spring to mind) brings a lot of breadth and knowledge to debates which would not be there in an elected chamber.

Not necessary scrapped but certainly not handed out by ministers to their chums in a huge back slapping exercise to afford the super privileged even more privilege.

True, but I can't see 'Sir' Kier Starmer doing much about it...

I agree it’s outrageous.

I object to:

1. religious leaders being in it. Why?
2. hereditary peerages. Still numerous. Why?
3. ludicoris appointments like Mone
4. Politicans that have lost their seats - Gavin Barwell for gods sake

It needs reform. Whole thing a joke.

What has his being a Sir got to do with it?

I've contacted members of the Lords a couple of times and the ones I've dealt with were both better informed and more accessible than my MP so I can see the value of a second chamber.

I think the unelected nature of their positions is a double edged sword; not having to worry about losing your job means you can vote with your conscience but it also means you are unaccountable to the people who lives are influenced by your decisions.

My main gripes are the size of the Lords; why is our second unelected chamber larger than the elected chamber and the ability of the party of government to pack the chamber with their mates.

I would like to see a smaller HoL and perhaps the general public vote to appoint peers either for life or a long fixed term. I think all C of E bishops should be removed. There have been several attempts to reform along these lines but those attempts have (conveniently) stalled for various reasons.

There is no point in having a second elected chamber; they will just reflect the views of the Commons. It needs to be people who can vote without needing to pander to short-termism with a horizon longer than the next election. Members should be appointed for knowledge and probity - a chamber of experts. It ought to be the preserve of scientists, economists and people who have shown them to be of high moral standards.

Life peers make less sense than hereditary peers because a government can put forward whoever they think will be supportive of their cause. At least with hereditary peers they were there regardless.

The House of Lords doesn't make much sense at all. Why have a second chamber if their role is to moderate and improve the legislation put forward by the Commons? It would make more sense to reform the Commons so that it is willing and able to moderate and improve its own legislation.

When the House of Lords could actually block legislation entirely it kind of made sense, but these days their role is just obstructive. They can't prevent bad laws if the Commons is determined to pass them, so why even have them?

I agreed Michelle Mone and the PPE scandal, awful.

Failed Tory politician Ruth Davidson is another grifter on the HoL gravy train...

Theya re not paid a six figure sum - where have you got that?

They get an allowance if they turn up. I am not defending the HoL, but just wondering why you think they get a salary.

AFAIK, Mone has not turned up and therefore not claimed since it all kicked off?

They get an allowance not a salary, but their berth in the HoL gives them a platform to influence legislation without democratic legitimacy.

It may not be perfect but before you demand an elected chamber just remember Nigel Farage is now an MP. Be careful what you wish for.

It could work if the elections were out of synch with the Commons elections,and people were elected for a longer term, 20 years, say.

The Lords can’t stop legislation, but they can force a pause. They do a good job. But I don't like the deliberate packing of the Lords with people on your side, on the other hand it can be useful to have the continuing experience of ex-ministers.

Bit like big business then

I don't agree. It owuld be fine for 18 years, but the last two years they would all be currying favour, subject to the same electoral pressures.

Not if they could only stand once.

Well, if you staggered the election dates, there'd only be 10% of them in their last two years.

It's one of the best things about British politics. Or it should be.

Good people - and those eminent in other fields - won't enter politics. The HoL is a reforming chamber and it mostly respects that role.

It's been debased in recent year by things such as the huge number of LibDem make-weights that were appointed under the coalition government: lots of county councillors and medium ranking business people. Nothing wrong with them as such, but not the calibre of people that should be appointed. And then the dodgy political appointments don't help. Political appointees should be senior politicians who have served with distinction, not those appointed as a consolation prize as upper house lobby fodder.

The problem with an elected upper house is just that: it's more politicians. And that's not an answer to anything.

Life peers make less sense than hereditary peers because a government can put forward whoever they think will be supportive of their cause. At least with hereditary peers they were there regardless.

Hereditary peers shuts women out. It is a complete and utter anachronism.

I like the idea of a non-elected body who can hold the Commons to account. I don't like the way political parties nominate members, I believe they shouldn't have a political affiliation.