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.

my theory is that she’s his daughter. So hopefully he doesn’t fancy her!!

I can't see Sir Keir Starmer going for it.

More experts, fewer political peers are needed. Not sure how we ensure that though.

Definitely not hereditary peers. Families who have kept wealth and power To themselves for centuries aren’t the type of people we need.

or random lottery that invited you to take a generous salary for 10 years and sit in the lords.

Nobody is criticising the function of a second chamber.

So no problem with how it functions. Got it. Maybe let's not waste too much time trying to fix something that isn't broken.

Sonali Campion, Sean Kippin and the Democratic Audit team: "In 2018 there were 793 peers – the only other countries in the world with second chambers larger than the first are the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso – none of them liberal democracies".

There's a pdf online by the above authors, with a great SWOT analysis of the HoL.

The UK's system just does not meet the criteria for a democratic legislature.

Why are the British people so convinced they live in a democracy?

[Quoted from the-uks-changing-democracy-13-chapter-44-how-undemocratic-is-the-house-of-lords: What does democracy require for second chambers in legislatures? All legislators with a capacity to approve, amend or reject legislation should: • either (and preferably) be directly elected by voters, or • be elected/appointed indirectly by the elected chamber, or by a government fully accountable to the elected chamber. In a liberal democracy no legislator should sit in a second chamber (or upper house) simply by virtue of their birth, wealth or as a result of donating money or services to party politicians. Serving in the second chamber may confer distinction, but no part of the legislature should form an integral part of an aristocratic or societal honours system. Any appointment of legislators to a second chamber should be vetted by a genuinely independent regulatory body. Mechanisms should be in place to remove legislators who breach legal or ethical standards and to ensure the social and partisan representativeness of all groups].

so even a couple of really zealous bloggers can't come up with any real issues with what the HoL actually does. Like all those PR bores with myopic obsession with process, and not a care in the world for end product.

I think what you mean is, you don't want to read about the 5 or 6 glaring issues raised by political scientists because you refuse to accept they exist and you have no solution to those issues.

Myopic is the word for the Establishment bores who need to pretend It's All Fine. It's really not.

I think the HOL should be smaller but not elected. They provide a vital function and if they were up for election would be as tribal as the HOC.
They should be appointed because of their knowledge, skills and expertise.

It’s interesting the number of posters citing its size as an issue and suggesting large = undemocratic. I haven’t seen any explanation as to why that would be so?

I’m not a political scientist and I’m totally open to being educated on this, but since numbers were increased the government have suffered many more defeats (broadly numbers appear to have doubled) - to me that suggests that they are doing their job effectively.

Im also not convinced that election of reps results in democracy - you end up with people making the popular vote to retain their position rather than the right vote.

the argument about size is usually more about cost, but the cost of running the HoL is dominated by fixed costs. halving the number of peers would only save peanuts really.

I read all I could before almost falling asleep.

What I was going to say. He was awarded that for his work. It’s merit based. Nothing like (most of) the HoL.

The US has an elected upper house. Doesn't make their system flawless ....

If we can only tweak and not burn down and rebuild, I would want to ensure that slimy fuckers like "Lord" Cameron and Frosty the no-man can never leave and try to be an MP again. Otherwise it starts to look like a rather seedy bus shelter for failed politicians to wait in.

If you were serious about increasing public engagement with politics, you'd make entry to the upper chamber like X-factor, and have people put forward nominations to try and get enough votes to enter. You could get some pretty interesting people and ideas that way. And Lord Blobby McBlobbyface would be a small price to pay.

This. 100%.

I'd start by banning prime ministerial resignation honours from being able to award peerages at all. That would stop a lot of the worst appointments.

I'd like to see a much smaller upper chamber, maybe 300 to 350 members. Each party would have a list of potential candidates. This could include scientific, religious or political appointees, whatever. The number of people appointed would be in proportion to the actual share of the of the vote. For example if a party was elected with a vote share of 35% they could appoint 105 (for a 300 person chamber) from their list. This would give a voice to smaller parties, who got a lots of votes across the country but not enough in a single constituency to elect an MP. No one could serve more than 2 terms.

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

I doubt that many political obligations or say affiliations actually change with generations. This system is just archaic and we should be living in a meritocracy by now.

If we have a second chamber, there should be some laudable point to the appointee. Otherwise we'll just get a 20 something year old who's only had very limited experience of the workplace appointed.....oh wait.....

Having visited the HoL on several occasions, the amount of fawning and forelock tugging by flunkies is anachronistic in the extreme. ‘My Lord’ this and ‘My Lady’ that. I love the history and the architecture but this has to be modernised.A system where parties can nominate generous donors, those who they want out or enable failed politicians to take office without election (I’m looking at you DC) must be wrong. Peers collect around £350 every time they ‘clock in’ even if they just retire to doze in the very cosy and subsidised lounges and restaurant.