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?

The HoL acts as a sense check - because they are not elected they don’t have to worry about pandering to the public/lobbying groups. It should be composed of the retired great and good though -a sort of uber village elders. They need to reform the system where grubby politicians nominate people who pay for their holidays in Martinique, but should retain the HoL generally imo, it does a lot of good work.

I like the HoL. I would reduce the number of overtly political appointments and have it as an expert reviewing chamber. You want people with expert knowledge who are free to ignore the party line and ask awkward questions.

We need a slimmed down HoL, remove all the inherited titled individuals, appoint people based on their contribution to society, not political, financial or inheritance patronage & insist on a level of active commitment to debate and discussion about legislation. Too many of the current intake are not fit for purpose. BUT, recent experiences of the HoL being prepared to openly debate issues that captured labour politicians are scared of raising, shows how much a second chamber is needed.

It should be composed of the retired great and good though -a sort of uber village elders.

Yes - although it should have younger people too, although that would be harder both in terms of assessing their 'worthiness' and also their time. Maybe it would need a rolling set of younger people available for sabbatical years?

@pattihews nails it. The reason we've held the line so long, is the second chamber.

I think the reason Keir Starmer is talking about getting rid of them, is because he's worried that if there's an absolute overload of Tories in the House of Lords, he won't be able to get anything passed.

I didn't used to be in favour of the HOL because they were unelected, but politics has changed. Now the HOL seems to be the last bastion against extremism, which seems ironic.

Keep it! Just rename it as the House of Lords and Ladies and let the hereditary peers be firstborn child not first born son.

I have grown to appreciate our antiquated system and the stability it provides but most of all the freedom from commercial and societal pressures which Peers of the Realm seem to by virtue of not needing to seek election.

I also appreciate the variety of people with have there now due to recognition of their achievements in various fields.

Great posts, I agree with all you say. It’s concerning imo that this is his direction

I don’t agree with removing it, though I do feel concern about ‘crony’ appointments.

The idea of a voted for HoL does not appeal to me either though because it means more politician types.

I'm worried about losing it. There are some good eggs in there.

I can’t sum up my views any better than this.

I think an unelected lords is a very precious thing and we lose it at our peril. Unelected people have freedom of thought and can think long term in a way that elected politicians just don’t.
a good example is the maternity policy debate. I have no doubt some are lazy buggers but I suspect the vast majority take their roles seriously.
they also tend to be older people that have life, business, social experience and that’s a good thing. We need a mix of course , diversity of perspectives etc.

I don’t even mind a small number of hereditary peers. We all inherit things from our parents and they bring a longevity historical perspective plus these days probably do work or are in business rather than idle layabouts. They bring something to the table too but I agree should be first born child not son.

Sashagabadan Today 20:36
Unelected people have freedom of thought and can think long term in a way that elected politicians just don’t.

I agree with this.

I was devastated to hear this from Starmer.

The HoLs is good as is. All that needs to be reformed is to stop PMs packing it with nominated cronies. If it became an elected house, it would get all partisan as the political parties would have candidates and seats. Then we’d have the shit show you see in the US Congress.

Me too.

He lacks vision so turns to wrecking institutions that work in place of inspired optimism.

Turgid and stale before he starts. So depressing to see, and that’s before he gets to taking away our sex based rights.

When I was younger at law school, I had to write a paper on the HoL, my original premise (and personal opinion) was against having them, by the time I finished writing I had completely changed my mind and have been very pro HoL ever since. Especially since the removal of inherited titles.

I was ambivalent about the HoLs until they sponsored the upskirting bill. I also kept a lazy eye on the Brexit shenanigans and the HoLs seemed to be only people with sense fighting against a hard Brexit. They do seem to care more than the Commons do about the people and our country’s welfare. The Commons is a school playground compared to them. The PMQs are all about bullying and making snarky one ups. Showboating, grandstanding. It’s so disheartening.

Even my 18yo is sick of it. They said our government is ‘a revolving clown show’

Completely agree. It was on listening to the HoL re the maternity act I realised how excellent and valuable the speaking was

Compared to the PMQs jeering and playground tactics etc

Same here. My view has changed completely. We've had far more sense and rationality (and compassion) come out of the HOL than from government.

I completely agree Keir is utterly vision less.
Covid taught me that when he completely jumped on the lockdown bandwagon and seemed in capable of alternative perspectives. He said Boris was a danger to the world and it was a dangerous experiment re. Freedom day on 19th July 2021. He gets so much wrong imo and is a weather vane. He looks the part but that’s as far as it goes for me.
He is not a deep thinker imo and although I dislike ideologues in politics and prefer pragmatism, I think Keir is neither but I can’t quite figure out his motives for wanting to be PM.

If we had an elected hol they would quickly become partisan and the jeering would start immediately. That it is not elected and lords can speak their minds and not worry about elections is why they can have good wide ranging discussions in the first place. That keir doesn’t understand the benefits of that and speaks up for its merits is bewildering.

The HOL has a long perspective not shared by the HOC. We need that.

Coming back to this as more information coming in

It seems there will be an upper house elected on different electoral cycle - much like US system

So we enter that arrangement where gridlock is more likely.

Sounds very disappointing imo. I’m not sure generally if people will pick up on this type of reform but it’s concerning