I’m just fed up with the House of Lords

£323 A DAY ,universal credit is less than that a month and people on UC have to pay bills out of it.The H of L get subsidised food and drink,weren't they complaining about the quality of the champagne recently AND they can claim huge expenses .Its all tax free.Someone who worked all their life and ended up on UC has to find travel expenses out of their meagre funds and doesn't get cheap food .The world has gone to hell in a handcart as my granny would have said.We're giving to people who dont need it and punishing others for poverty that is neither their fault nor their choice.

My friends uncle is in "the lords" he openly boasts about how many cruises they take a year if he only goes into the chamber 3 days a week .As a former union man I did expect him to feel ashamed about it but he insists he's not doing anything wrong .I suppose his idea of morally right or wrong is different from mine

It’s a travesty and they should all be booted out and replaced with elected officials.
Or they could clock in each day, 8 hours (minimum wage) each day. Only get paid for the hours they actually do some work (or sit or whatever they are supposed to be doing.)

It should be a privilege , not an excuse to rip us off.

I was sort of hoping for a discussion on how it should be changed.

Sorry Soozie just needed to vent.

X posts Oops agree they should all be elected. I would like it to be much smaller and people should be elected on a regional basis perhaps.What I worry about a bit is the loss of some of the talent/ expertise of the cross benchers who would be lost if it was all on party political lines.

But they could reapply for election. But I agree after this recent election, they might all be Tories, which wouldn’t be so good.

I think curtailing their expenses might be a good start though and to make them turn up and stay not just pop in and disappear again, having said that our politicians often don’t turn up do they.?

How would elections work, though? Many of the Lords are there because of expertise of one sort or another, and who would feel confident enough to vote for one expert over another in an area about which they (the voter) is non-expert?

In the end it would come down to a popularity contest, which is pointless. The HOC largely depends on members being charismatic, and look where that has got us.

I agree that something needs to be done about the expenses, and about the composition of the HOL, but I'm not sure that elections are the way forward, or what would work better.

Yes Doodle although I don’t think most of the Lords are there because of their expertise - many are there because of the depths of their pockets or who their father was. I think we should look at the models in other countries. If we wanted some changes to bring in quickly, I’d immediately get rid of all the hereditaries and the bishops and stop any new peers bring created.

Blimey - in the grand scheme of life this is what worries you ? Being fed up with the House of Lords - sad ....

This is a good read p14-21 for specific examples of what other countries do

Nico what a thoroughly stupid post. You didn’t have to click on. And clearly unlike your post suggests about you, I can be concerned about rather a lot of issues simultaneously. .

Forgot the link

www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/40.pdf

A completely undemocratic, expensive unaccountable bunch. While there may be some worthy individuals most of them are there because of cronyism. Maybe definitely some regional, elected by pr, representatives, with a modern building , not just a HoC in a different colour.

I have met one member of the House of Lords, an hereditary peer. While he has some land, he is not rich like those complained about. He lives in an ordinary house and relies on his work in the HoL for a living. I've heard reports of him from time to time and he seems to work hard at the job.

I accept that he might be an exception. But then again, he might not.

It’s the principle of having hereditary peers that is so wrong imo - it’s not about individuals

I think hereditary peers should be phased out. Let whoever is in now continue but no further. A certain percentage are from the Church are they not sooziewoozie? I suppose that bit ties in with the Queen as Head of the Church.

I think it all needs a shake up and a fresh coat of looking at. Boris will be the man to reshape it I think. Norman Fowler, aged 82y has been Lord Speaker since September 2016 and he is on record calling for a cull of the HoL. It’s overdue.

Sorry Urmstongran I wouldn't trust Johnson with the guest list for a child's tea party.

The idea of an elected House of Lords fills me with horror. Look at the US structure, which was supposed to be modelled on ours, but is all elected. The Republicans control the 'upper house' and are keeping a corrupt rogue president in office because he is 'one of them'. Do we really want 'party' to be more important than what is good for the country?

We would have to alter our voting system and think very hard about how to prevent both Houses of Parliament being controlled by a single party before I would feel happy about changing our current arrangements; however unsatisfactory they appear to be. The Lords are (is?) currently much more independent than the Commons.

I'd be careful what you wish for. Constitutional change is not easy or straightforward.

The hereditary peers are being phased out I think it is down to 92.

It is the leaving PM's chums that do my head in
what about Nicky Morgan?
How on earth did she earn that right?

I think they should be made to clock in and out as previous PP said.
Also cap their money back down to just £100 and tell them it is a vocational position.

No pink we went down to 92 in 1999 but that number stays at that - it’s not going down further.

Have you read my link Maizie there are many much better options than the US.

When the coalition govt were elected in 2010, Cameron created many, many more peerages; to partially undue the previous reforms.

The annual cost of the H of L is £100 million (yes £100 million).

A couple of years ago, we were taken on a private tour of the Houses of Parliament and the Palace of Westminster and then were given lunch afterwards, in the Members dining room. The food was lovely but the subsidies are enormous, the costs for main courses and puddings and some wine, were tiny.

In the course of my work, I have also seen members of the Lords (from both main parties) be offered and accept all sorts of ‘benefits’, which is inappropriate and wrong.

Major reform is needed in the 21st century to address this anachronous institution.

Reform is needed, not sure if I like the idea of an elected upper chamber.

The whole ethos has to change as clocking in and being able to claim for the day then disappearing after a matter of minutes is morally wrong.

I want them gone, I would like another elected chamber.

Also regarding their money, perhaps they could be filmed all day and if they go absent we get the money back!
The dishonesty is shameful.
Then any who "bunk off" could be dismissed for fraud.
Named, shamed and sacked.