Time to call time on the Lords?

Bad apples in every institution. The problem with the HOL is the democratic gap, similar to the EU commission.

It's not necessarily the quality of the apples, but the cost of keeping them and the value for money, paid by the tax payer.

X

It all comes down to what the HOL would be replaced by.In any case, one bad apple, or even a few bad apples, doesn't mean that the whole barrel full has to be thrown out.

The titles of Lord, Lady, Baroness etc could be done away with instantly, within the house of ex-lords.
There should definitely be a review of how useful its members are, and a cutting of spending on them.
In their defence, they have recently voted that EVEL should be properly thought out instead of rushed through, although Cameron can still ignore them if he wants, can't he.

J52 No they wouldn't.

rosesarered, I did mean the president plus the democract party not one man , I am aware America is a democratic country not a country run by a unelected despot

I mostly agree that we should have a second House but not full of knobs who I wouldn't cross the street to shake hands with. Members should not be entitled 'Lord' or 'Lady', and only be there by hard work and public service, after a comprehensive search of criminal records and sex crimes register. No convicted person (as was Jeffrey Archer) allowed back in. I still can't believe that happened.

However, you don't go far enough, Gransnetters. The silly hereditary title of 'Lord' should be abolished by allowing it to grow out naturally, no new ones. Mr or Mrs should be enough. Do it organically and allow the existing ones to die off and the their heirs would grow up knowing they would remain 'Mr or Miss or Mrs.

It won't happen, I've never heard of a turkey voting for Christmas.

I really feel an elected Senate is needed to replace the House of Lords. Here in Australia we elect them usually by simply selecting the party, and the party puts up candidates. You can number your senate election sheet, but it is just easier to select the party, and then your vote follows the party line - number one on their ticket always gets a seat, number 2 might etc etc.

Often the Senate has a very different balance from the lower house - people like to hedge their bets, and parties like the Greens can do well there.

The Senate is a State house really - each State has a certain number of Senators, and they often fight for state issues, as well as federal ones.

England would need a different system, but gender balance and voter choice must be part of it. That creature proves they system is bent.

I think you are right!

I think the house of Lords should be set up so its more reflective on society today

I'd rather like to a second chamber which is elected. But elected very differently from all other elections.

That is 50/50 gender equality, representatives from each ethnic minority depending on their numbers in the census and finally, those representatives should reflect the age demographic of the country. Or at least of those eligible to vote.

Not quite sure how a system like this would be set up. But it might stop so many people feeling that their vote doesn't count and that politicians are pretty much middle class or posh white men with a few token women and ethnic minorities.

House of Lords.......not needed.......get rid of them!

J52- couldn't have said it better. I once worked in a school with a Lady- very down to earth and who agreed. Her brother according to a famous documentary was the true future inheritor of the Crown. He had emigrated to Australia and become a sheep farmer, and a staunch Republican, against such privileges.

They get away with it by claiming so called expertise in particular subjects what a lot if nonsense! How do other countries manage I wonder.

Of course a second house should be voted in how is it democratic otherwise? We are taken as mugs and are expected to cough up and be grateful for any twit who can get off his ass long enough to sign in and trouser a coup!e of hundred plus any "expenses". Nice little earner, paid for by the meek taxpayer.

The American system does work, it just works differently to the UK .Why should one man , even the President be able to change the gun laws?If he could do that, he could do anything, not always a good thing.
We do need the upper house, or at least another body of people to reflect on the laws passed from the Commons to them.It need not be a House Of Lords of course, but there was talk of how to replace it a few years ago and nothing came of it.
Yes, this particular man, what a scandal, he should go straight away for bringing the HOL into disrepute if for no other reason.

An interesting question: if the SNP had won the independence vote, would Scotland have made an upper house of the Scottish peers?
I doubt it.

x

Gracegran We will have to spends ££££s to make the HoP safe to enter. It needs serious updating to stop it collapsing.
They could make the restoration work a charged visitor attraction. The National Trust does. #0nlyslightlytongueincheek.

Like Teetime I think we need an upper house of some sort, but no hereditary peers. Maybe sucessfull professionals of different sorts who have contributed to society. In ways still to be defined.

America has two elected houses, it doesn't work there, they have a president who can't even change the gun laws . Two elected houses could be two Tory or two labour controlled

I agree the House of Lords should go. I think we do need a second house but believe it should be an elected one. Having people in positions of influence for life (and being paid), when they have not been elected is an outdated anachronism.

I feel it should go whatever silly old men get up to. It is an anachronism. Get rid of the Lords, create an English Parliament (not in London) and make the current Parliament the UK one - but much, much smaller. Get them out of the HoP and London except for formal occasions. Raise huge amounts of revenue by using the HoP for tourism.

Couldn't agree more! Why are we paying for people to have influence on our lives, whom we have not elected?

Some peers are there by political appointment, others are there by hereditary, so that entitles them to what?

I seriously object to paying for expenses that are not essential.

Like many 'hard working families ' we pay for our own tea, coffee, lunch etc!

x

My feeling is that there needs to be some kind of upper house to balance and check the lower house so it should be where senior politicians and other public figures who are still contributing but at a higher and more experienced level. Its not just the men though is it there are any number of Baronesses and I'm not sure what they all do. A significant number of Lords and Ladies sit on various quangos and enquiries from what I can see that seem to have no end point or outcome. I don't think tenure should be for life either - five year periods with a review to a further five years perhaps.

He'll be gone by the end of the week but I'd certainly like to see him prosecuted for illegal drug use, fraud and anything else they can get him for. Nasty old sleaze bucket.

Definitely time for it to go; or at the very least be pruned to within an inch of its life. It is perfectly ridiculous that we expend all this money on what is little more than a drinking club for a vast group of cronies.

I know that some peers take their role very seriously - perhaps there should be a trawl through them all to see who has been doing a good job, then sack the rest.