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?

We already have an elected House of Commons. There should not be an elected HoL - the measure of independence and ability to hold the government to account is a hugely valuable asset - should not revolve into cronyism or reliance on election

I want to keep the Lords but reform how Peers are appointed. I really don't like that outgoing PMs use it as a place to "thank" their cronies.

I would like to see a system whereby Peers are in the HoL for life, selected by a committee rather than PM appointment, and that there is a maximum number of them so no government can stack the deck by appointing loads. And in my dream world, the committee for appointing Peers would be proportionally representative too.

Agree.

This seems quite sensible.

@LlynTegid I agree you can't eliminate party politics entirely - people will always have private allegiances. But eliminating any 'formal' party status - nobody stands for a party, parties don't sit together on particular benches - would, I think, reduce the tribalism.

Re evidence base in pp I couldn’t agree more, it’s based so far on an ex unelected PM Brown who couldn’t get in on blander policies let alone this. Not a good idea for an unelected PM to play out dreams

A Labour Party desperate to win after 12 years out of power using all the gimmicks to get votes. Except they’ll be seismic and damaging.

Next you have Starmer a lawyer at heart quite comfortable with tying himself up in constitutional reform for years. Have we learned nothing from Brexit re how much time and energy this takes away from every day issues.

He’s bland but dangerous as pp said

Good to see other Labour people coming out against it.

Plenty of arguments here against democracy. And in favour of having 850 people who will govern without fear or favour because they don't need to be elected - and are rich beyond avarice , presumably.

You could also reduce - or simply abolish - MPs salaries. Get more ' talented amateurs' in the Commons. Chaps with a bit of hinterland who will just do the job out of love of country. Far removed from this gross material plane. Like JRM.

And why elect the Commons, since the Lords are doing such a grand job. Elections are so divisive , aren't they ?

You need both of course

But it’s easy to see the gridlock the US system which would be adopted brings about

I too used to be opposed to the HoL when young, but have now seen how valuable it can be. How about renaming it the House of Lived, for those who've lived in a range of UK settings? And the reforms re numbers and selection as suggested by other posters all sound sensible.

God, middle age. Maybe my Nan was right all along about not going out with wet hair....

Plenty of arguments here against democracy.

Perhaps, but the UK isn't a straight forward democracy. Every vote isn't worth the same, and once elected your MP is there for years and there's nothing you can do about it. If you live in a safe seat there may be nothing you can do about it for decades. Party politics also makes the situation complicated, as representatives are serving their parties ahead of their constituents.

And, of course, democracy without checks and balances is also the rule of the majority. You need things in place to protect the rights of minorities too. Which is why many countries have proper written constitutions in place.

The HoL, by the way, cannot stop legislation which comes directly from the government's manifesto. It can only stop legislation which has not been voted for by the general public.

Hol supports democracy imo and good governance overall.

We have an elected hoc, unelected HoL, heredity monarchy and a free press.
All are checks on each other to guard against any getting too big for their boots. Media need taking down a peg or two now and again e.g Murdoch and news of world saga. Even “the people” shouldn’t be all powerful as what people do they mean? the loudest?
all helps prevent the rise of any authoritarian or dictatorship.
yes not perfect but no system is and our one works on balance imo

And, of course, an unelected judiciary and trial by jury.

There were some interesting discussions about "perverse" verdicts when the Coulston Four were acquitted. Arguably the very last defence against an unjust law.

Daniel finklestein on times radio ( bear in mind he is a lord but arguably can see the faults/ benefits better than most) says an elected HoL will either just pass all the legislation of the day or oppose it all causing chaos and gridlock and labours proposal sounds unthought through and if it goes ahead we will regret it in 20 years.

Most votes are worthless under FPTP. But lots of people are wary of PR because you would get coalitions- instead of an elective dictatorship being rubberstamped every 5 years. Go figure.

Anyway fear not : reading these posts I have realised old Steer Calmer won't actually do anything about their Lordships. ' England is ours by right of conquest ' one of them shouted as they tried to vote down Old Age Pensions in 1910.

And so it is.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-63515299

@Abhannmor Our newest "Lord" is not hereditary, nor wealthy, nor white.

Or elected.

Would you prefer the US system? Can you see any negatives to it

Sashas post is good agree on the balances between all those elements

Fantastic!

As an unelected chamber the HoLcan never ultimately overrule the HoC. They can bounce things around for a while but ultimately the HoC has its say. This would be an issue with an elected HoL - they would have the same legitimacy as the HoC so should no be overruled leading to potential stalemate.

I have grown to appreciate the HoL and the fact that they are lifelong and elected as that means no short termism or populism. But there have been some very poor appointments - on BOTH sides (labour get to propose them too even in opposition). I think the body that assesses the appointments has had concerns too. I am not sure what would be better way of appointing them though, perhaps some minimum standards might be a start

I totally agree the elected dictatorship that is the Scottish Parliament shows the dangers of a unicameral system.

There should be a purge of civil servants too as currently they seem to be partway to a coup ignoring government rulings and pursuing their own agenda. And for all the justified criticism of Boris and the Covid parties, many of those partying were civil servants who should have been fired by their civil service bosses.

PR means you are electing parties not constituency representatives. The party manipulates the lists so unless no one votes for them it is impossible to keep someone out if the party sticks them at the top of the list. Loyalties are always to the party. Again look at Scotland. PR gave us the greens, who hardly anyone voted for, in coalition with the SNP who sign a pledge to never rebel.

One thing I like about the Tories is the willingness of their MPs to rebel. I consider the SNP block voting to be profoundly undemocratic.

When Mrs Thatcher tried to stop striking miners getting benefits it was the House of Lords that stopped her in her tracks. They really are a protection against looney governance. As has already been pointed out, look at the hellish situation in Scotland where there is no protection against lunatic ideas.

Lords reform is important, but in the absence of even a vague consensus on how to do it the issue seems a crazy one for Labour to be promising ahead of the general election, not least when there are so many much more immediate problems that need fixing right now.

Hmm, the country has a massive financial crisus on its hands, brexit issues are still not resolved, the nhs is failing, social care is - actually what social care, and what does Starmer want to prioritise? Reform of the House of Lords. You can't afford to heat and eat? Don't worry because we're going to get another tier of government for you to elect. The walk to the election booth will keep you warm. The man's an idiot.

Nonsense. There is no list with PR if you use Single Transferable Vote. I vote for candidates in order of preference. Regardless of party - although of course that will be a consideration.

They are all people who live in the constituency. The largest party here ( Fianna Fáil) have twice held Referendums to adopt the crazily corrupt FPTP instead. But this a very sophisticated electorate. They failed.

A Women's Party candidate would have a decent chance of getting a member elected here in Ireland actually.