What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

[MarshaBradyo]

I don’t follow them much but I remember the very emotive and excellent speeches re the word mother in the maternity act.

Some of us followed it on here, and I was grateful enough to the four key players to email them.

My concern is that without those speeches we would have gone in a direction many didn’t want

With proposals to remove it - do you agree?

I don't agree. I know there are a number of people in there who do not deserve to be there, but there are many active, clever, responsible people without whom we would be a lot worse off. Just look at the absolute shower we have ended up with in the HOC as a result of the election process. Baroness Nicholson, Baroness Casey, Lord Winston, for example.

A few years ago I would have been all for it, now I feel fiercely protective of it. Because it became clear watching the gender ideology debacle play out that MPs weren't prepared to say what they thought because they were bound by party loyalty or because they were scared of being removed by the TRAs in their constituency parties. Members of the HoL, who are there for life and don't have to toe party lines, were able to say things that desperately needed saying and they really kicked the debate off. It made me realise how incredibly important it is for democracy that there's a second chamber that brings experience and can speak freely without fear of losing their job.

What do Wales, Scotland and New Zealand have in common? They are unicameral — they don't have a second chamber — and gender ideology has been able to take hold unchecked. I'm in Wales and Mark Drakeford and his government have dealt with resistance by snippy refusing, time and time again, to meet anyone who is gender critical. Women, teachers, doctors: they just refuse. This is not democracy and it's very serious. Here in Wales we've had a one-party state for more than 20 years now and it can just do what it likes, unchecked, because it doesn't have to listen to anyone it doesn't want to.

I would rather reform it rather than remove it completely I think. I don't know what the Labour party are proposing in detail?

Oh goodness. I meant that the three members of the HOL I mentioned are the good guys! Nothing to do with the HOC. That will teach me to try to pay attention to DH and type at the same time.

I want it to stay. The in built Tory bias concerns me. But overall, I value the sense check it brings.

Heck no! Who would keep an eye on this goverment without them and the civil service? Imagine the laws they would come up with without the House of Lords.
It needs a change of name and a written constitution to work with though.

I'm in favour of the HoL. I'd like to see the bar raised to make sure that appointments really are extremely experienced people in the full range of industries and backgrounds, and not just mates of PMs.

Well you know what they say about views changing as you get older - I used to be rabidly anti-Lords and anti-monarchy. And very left wing.
Now I'm old I'm more moderate, like the Lords and this year following the Queen's death now have a grudging admiration for aspects of the monarchy.
I'd still rather poke my own eyes out than vote Tory though, I'm happy to say!

I think we need a second chamber but people should be appointed for legitimate reasons, eg experience/knowledge/community links. Not birth or political patronage.

Apparently Starmer thinks this will restore trust in politicians.

It's obviously problematic to allow outgoing PMs to appoint their mates as life peers. It's also an issue having hereditary peers, and having the 21 archbishops as the lords spiritual. I would definitely support reforms to address these issues. Having a totally elected second chamber risks generating the same issues that exist in the HoC, where party politics and career ambitions drive people rather than honesty, integrity, decency etc.

Having a totally elected second chamber risks generating the same issues that exist in the HoC, where party politics and career ambitions drive people rather than honesty, integrity, decency etc.

this absolutely sums it up for me, everytime that man opens his mouth my opinion of him goes down

its such a shame i was really looking forward to him becoming leader, really thought he’d make a difference…and politics degree studying 19 year old ds2 is just as disappointed before any fucker tries any agist shit

We certainly need a reviewing chamber.

Ideally I'd get rid of the titles, the bishops, the hereditary peers and the failed politicians.

The problem has always been how to keep a chamber of people with independence and expertise but not allow the ruling party to pack it.

I think the HOLdo a good job overall of moderation (for want of a better term). What would replace them, because I do think their function is important...

its such a shame i was really looking forward to him becoming leader, really thought he’d make a difference

Why did you think that, he was spineless before becoming leader and is now?

i would like to retain a second chamber - but radical reform is required. I’m a big fan of the lottery system recommended by some very sensible people!

Without the House of Lords to act as a reality check, we could end up becoming the shit show that the Scottish Parliament has become. A populist chamber of incompetence, just rubber-stamping any old rubbish Sturgeon puts out, in hock to activists.

No, Thank you.

Let me just say Doreen Lawrence

No, I think having only an elected chamber is a terrible idea.

I'm less attached to any specific version of how the people in the HoL are chosen, but I am somewhat skeptical that another method would result in a significantly better outcome. And I am not inclined to make changes without some real reason to think the outcome would be significantly better, because they would almost surely be some unexpected downside to whatever was chosen to replace it.

I have come to a place though where, when I see political parties or MPs etc who are pushing for things like this, it really makes me think they don't understand the political system, or haven't watched how it functions in reality. Because you just get these claims about how much more democratic it will be, without any real sense that they understand what it does, or have any idea to replicate that function in some other way.

And it's notable to me how often those who talk about it seem to be attempting to draw on something like class resentment in the public, rather than formulating a sound political argument.

I'm not sure Starmer would be able to get rid, would he? Because any "get rid of the HoL" legislation would presumably have to go through.......the House of Lords?

Maybe there's a loophole or something.

we absolutely need The House of Lords, they are the check and balance to the Commons

Exactly what I was trying to work out how to say.

A chamber with the likes of e.g. Robert Winston and Tanni Grey-Thompson (to pick the first two names that come to mind) is a jolly good thing. Get rid of the dead weight of automatic places etc and find a way of truly getting a cross section of 'the great and the good'.

That'll be a nope from me. Reform maybe but not remove.

A bicameral system is so much more sensible than unicameral. HoL needs to stay, but I do agree with reforming who sits in it. I think it should be leaders across the different spheres of life - industry, emergency services, education, arts & culture, and religion - and those people should be elected by their spheres, perhaps.

Im an optimist…thats it, thats all i got

No, they are an essential balance. They are free to say as they wish, don't get whipped, don't need to be elected.

They have little need to be there, so are motivated by responsibility and a desire to see change.

We need more Robert Winston's, not less.