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.

I'm very much in favour of the House of Lords, the unelected nature of it is its main benefit.

However, I am not in favour of any religious leaders being members, as either leaders of all religions should be members or none should. And I'm not a fan of Life Peerages in general, I favour hereditary peerages as the political obligation fades with the generations.

Having said that, I'm not against making up the HOL to a particular number of members with life peers who are made peers for something other than their political service, so no more peerages for former Primer Ministers or their cronies. Some service for the country or their community should be the criteria and an opportunity to make someone a peer should only occur once a life peer dies. I appreciate that may sound rather harsh though. 🙂

The bishops, even with cut numbers, annoy me just as much.

The main reform I think the HoL needs is for the eldest to inherit, regardless of their sex. This is now the case with the Royal Family, so no excuse now for it not the be the same for hereditary peers.

I favour hereditary peerages as the political obligation fades with the generations.

and because they all work due to male primorgeniture - how will you feel in 50 years when the HoL, reversed to only hereditary peerages, is all men?

Harriet Harman the long serving labour MP has just been appointed to the HoL and said she would be working like a turkey voting for Christmas. Absolutely wants reform. I’m intrigued to see the plans. Current system is mad.

I would rather it vanish into thin air, but that would be a welcome change.

As it stands if the eldest son were a transwoman the title would still be inherited. If the eldest child were a transman... nope.

I agree with this.

the unelected nature of the HoL is its biggest benefit. Members vote with their conscious and for what they believe in rather than because they are required by their party or to ensure they retain their job.

Their role in revising legislation and holding the government to account is of critical importance and could not be performed by an elected group.

they aren't unelected. There are a limited number of hereditary peers. All men. There are a number of bishops and other (but not atheist) equivalents. Mostly men.

There are a number of life peers, most of whom are elevated in a jobs for the boys-and-girls who scratched our backs.

Nothing that should be happening in a democratic society.

Even if the Labour Party want to replace it, there are so many higher priorities that they have to deal with. Maybe a second term change if they get in again in 2028 or 2029.

It's in labours manifesto

@Brefugee how does any part of your comment support they are not unelected?

Agreed they should be abolished.

(And the hereditary ones, for that matter).

And Patrick Vallance.

I hope he works with Hilary Cass and Robert Winston to inject some actual scientific reality into parliament.

To think Paula Vennells was in the running for Bishop of London ...

Patrick Vallance has been made a Minister of State by Starmer so I’m sure he will.

why do we want politicians making all our laws?

They can't.

They don't know enough about anything. We need outside experts having an input, and this is how we get them.

the house of commons sends a rough first draft of new legislation to the Lords

The MPs in the house of commons know what they want ideologically, but not how anything actually works in practice.

The life peers in the Lords, of which there are thousands, will include many experts in the matter under discussion, whether it be tanning leather, generating electricity from tidal turbines, education of children with Down's - what ever it is, there will be people in the Lords who are experts.

They amend the bill and send it back to the Commons for further discussion.

They do this twice before anything becomes law.

Without them, there would be no expert scrutiny over any bill from the commons

Yabu for even asking.

Build them a special enclosure with benches to lie on. Maybe a space in the natural history museum with the other dinosaurs.

Kick out all the current life peers, restore the hereditary peers, restore the bishops, restore the Lords to what it used to be and where there are cases for bringing in outside talent to government that requires presence in Parliament, allow the limited appointment of peers that last the duration of Parliament so they're kicked out when Parliament is dissolved. That's what I want.

Popular criticism of the HoL usually focuses on who’s been appointed, by whom and even how much they might earn. Rarely is good criticism actually levelled at the function the HoL actually plays in our system, or the results it
delivers.

The HoL is an essential damper on the relatively volatile HoC, and a critical quality process on legislation.

The HoL is a joke. Boris Johnson elevated an unknown 29 year old blonde, with no profile and zero achievements to speak of, to the Lords. So that's her there for the next 60 years potentially. All because...well no one knows. Maybe purely because Johnson fancied her.

Nobody is criticising the function of a second chamber.

That the HoL is basically an unelected oligarchy and is allowed to "deliver results" at all, in what purports to be a democratic country, is where it becomes problematic.

When you look closer, the HoL becomes really problematic. Every other democracy in Europe has an upper house that is far smaller, usually about half the size, of the lower house.

David Cameron started turning the HoL into a free for all. It now has something like 770 members, including 26 Lords Spiritual from a single religion (and not a well supported one at that) in a multifaith country.

The UK's political system is an absolute joke.

Nobody is criticising the function of a second chamber

of course they are, no one is calling for it to be scrapped on the basis that it performs well.

can you give some examples of where the HoL has intervened in a “problematic” fashion? Or why size is “problematic”? What does that even mean in this context?

Yes! They create a kleptocracy. In many ways the old system, though antiquated, had the advantage of ensuring the government had no control over who was scrutinising their legislation in the upper house. Blair’s half baked reforms have made the House of Lords even worse than before. They were ill-thought through, rushed and lacking in vision.