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?

Missed this. I agree entirely

I think atm he’s patched together by all Labour past and other - Brown, Blair and even Aus Labor

His policies are coming out but I’m not seeing much vision

Hear hear

Labour is wanting to bring more power to the regions - in this region you cannot speak to a planner - can’t phone so should you have a problem you can email and wait weeks/ months til someone gets back to you. NO don’t give these idle twats MORE power.

But there are thousand of Lords largely thanks to Blair and ensuing PMs.

The members of the second house could be nominated for their value and competence in their areas of expertise. We have reason to be quite grateful for the interventions of some of the Lords and Ladies. (No not you Cashman or Hunt)

This about sums it up for me. I like the fact there are lots of people in the upper chamber who aren't party political, or at any rate not there primarily because they're politicians.

Some kind of second chamber is good.
expertise and long term thinking is good
lottery system (like jury selection) to get a variety of voices could be interesting
packing the lord with political appointees and lazy people is bad
bias towards the church / hereditary peers etc is not great
replicating the shouty electoral politics of the HoC would not be great

some kind of reform that can improve on the existing system without destroying it would be good. And I think that is likely to be what Starmer could do. completely abolishing or radical change is very hard to implement. But minor tweaks could improve things.

I would prioritise expertise and standing over a lottery like jury system. I’ve been on jury service it’s good for that but not this imo

However even experts have political bias so if you do it that way you’d want balance

Removing things without proper thought to replacing them creates power vacuums. Power vacuums are bad things. They are unregulated voids in which power grabs occur without accountability and oversight.

Regardless of the problems the HoL has (and there are many) if you have not learnt from politics over the last 6 years, that the 'burn the house down and then try and figure it out' approach doesn't work, you need shooting. To be blunt.

I'm very much in favour of the HoL, for the reasons stated above.
None of them have to appease parties or public and court votes, they are mature people with a wealth of expertise and experience, and enough time to scrutinise things thoroughly. Even the hereditary peers have the tradition of serving and noblesse oblige.
Heaven only knows what the HoC would inflict on us without the checks and balances of a second (yes and unelected) chamber.

I read this with dismay. I have always thought that the House of Lords is an example of something that shouldn't - but does - work.
Scottish legislation on devolved matters - even on uncontroversial topics - is often poorly and very widely drafted to maximise prosecutorial discretion and shows clear evidence of oversights and inaccuracies that proper scrutiny would pick up. The Scottish committee system doesn't really work- completely party political and dominated by the SNP. Not what was originally intended.
At Westminster, what would replace the cooler heads of a slightly less political second chamber?

Agree

I’m watching a bland politician neither a pragmatist nor ideologue propose seismic changes to our structures

He could turn out more of a liability than any others

The US system - damn it no thanks

Absolutely agreed. I think having an American style upper house of politically motivated individuals would be horrendous. Currently there are about 25% cross benchers, I would actually like them all to be independent of political parties. I would also like there to be no religious appointments either, but that's probably just me.

Maybe Keir's looking at the situation here in Wales, where Labour have ruled for 20+ years and there's no second chamber to hold them to account. Scotland too. Whereas more and more people in Wales and Scotland are waking up to the fact that their runaway governments are unaccountable.

I would be very much against an elected second house. The HOL has the ability to take the longer view without looking over their shoulder at electorate.

Some reform needed obviously. Remove hereditory peerages, appoint for expertise and experience.

I really like the idea of having a second house composed of experts from all walks of life, not career politicians bound by the need to be popular or toe the party line. There should be a way to achieve that and make it elected. Totally agree with everyone else that it plays a vital role in scrutinising legislation and providing checks and balances and shouldn’t just be removed.

I think we need some sort of unelected body to prevent mob rule.

the job for life aspect of the lords means members are not cowed by fear of their political party members or baying Twitter mobs.

I’d like to phase out/minimise the hereditary peers aspect, or at least modernise it so first born daughters get it, not just sons.

And there should be some sort of oversight making sure nominations are actually useful to the people and some sort of minimum attendance expectation set.

Way more Lords than MPs now. Unelected , unaccountable and mostly unknown. The US upper house has 100 members. Surely that would suffice?

Elected by Proportional Representation , needless to say. You'd get fair few Greens , liberals and the odd screwball along with the big parties. But there are some wacky people in the HoL already ....

As others have said I think the HoL needs to be reformed but we do need a second chamber. There needs to be some way of keeping the HoC in check. Surely the last few years of batshittery have shown that.

I'd like it to be reduced in size substantially and to ban Prime Ministers from being able to appoint people to it. Ideally, reducing the numbers to get rid of anyone who hasn't turned up in the last 2 years would be a start.

However, I think having an elected second chamber is a really bad idea. Many of the problems we have now are from badly drafted and badly thought through legislation which was pushed through as a matter of party loyalty - there needs to remain a proper reviewing chamber which isn't trying to appease an electorate.

I am in favour of the HoL. It seems to be a good debating chamber and is a break on the Commons. I'd support return of the Law Lords and have no objection to the bishops who at least have a moral/spiritual view. Daft to have a second elected chamber - it will challenge the Commons - but absolutely necessary to have the Lords. I would return the Lord Chancellor here - being Justic Minister and an MP suggests he/she is no longer independent, but subject to the rule of the Commons.

Imagine a football pitch with a goal that extends the entire length of the pitch, no goalkeeper and the the other team is so divided that they're on their third captain early into the second half.
Reform of essential services, restructuring the NHS so it works, more GPs, better schools, a tax code that works (after Kwarteng eliminated the OTS), reforming the criminal justice system, getting the police to chase criminals? Nah, lets give the people what they want and get rid of the House of Lords.
It's depressing that these politicians don't seem to have friends, family, servants, anyone who will tell them what's going on in the country.

The HoL is ridiculous - only the Chinese National People's Congress is larger, and the only other governmental chamber that has seats reserved for religious clerics is in Iran.

The problem, as always, is what to replace it with - in the past the Lords (and Ladies!) has been a very necessary check to ill -thought through legislation from the Commons.

I'm keen to get rid of it tbh. I used to think that the HOL shouldn't work but does, but now feel it is incredibly bloated. 800 Lords?? Ridiculous. If anything I think it saps energy and political engagement from the HoC.

For the ceremonial bit, I would like to see the Honours system reformed generally - something like the Legion D'Honneur in France.

Constitutionally I think the Supreme Court may have replaced some of The Lords' previous functions. Could also take something like the Privy Council and turn it into a legislative reviewing body.

No. This sort of thing feels me with dread for a Labour government. As said, the pandemic along with this ridiculous, stark raving illogical adherence to self id, showed me that left wing parties in the main are happy to dissolve our rights. Citizen rights, human rights, women's rights. It's funny when I was younger I very much saw left wing as anarchist, forward thinking.

Not now, I see them as conformist, conformist to whatever is deemed 'right think' and happy to force you to conform too. Watching female MP's (some actual mothers) unable to say women have a cervix has blown my mind. Blown it.

Now, I am all for the HoL. And I never ever thought I'd say it, but I'm now VERY pro lifetime and inherited peerages. I don't even care that they get paid just for turning up. Give them more if need be. They are a bulwark against political ideological excess. A balance.

Yes the nonsense of the last few years has also made this woman of Carribbean heritage incredibly pro-monarchy too (not that I was particularly against it, just very ambivalent). Now the thought of an elected Head of State, corruptible, open to flattery, with an eye on retirement roles, schmoozing with big business, now sounds like madness. I only wish there was an upcoming female heir to the throne, but alas no.