I want a seat in the House of Lords please

No, @vampirequeen, they do not get paid. They are entitled to claim an allowance on days on which they attend the House of Lords and partake in the business of that House. Those who are ministers get paid a ministerial salary and are ineligible for the allowance. Some partake in the business, most of which occurs outside of the debating chamber, and do not claim at all.

It is outrageous that is true and sends out a very bad message. BUT, wouldn't an elected chamber just reflect the government of the day which wouldn't solve anything at all!

It is not true though...explained on a previous post. It is a newspaper headline that nobody gets beyond.

Why is an unelected House better than an elected one?

Why are people chosen either by an accident of birth or by a political party better at forming a second House than people chosen by the electorate?

MaizieD in feudal times perhaps.

Oh, come on, trisher. Right up to the 20th century.

You might get the odd middle class moneyed family managing to get a member into Parliament, but for the most part it was the aristocracy and landowners. Even after the 1832 Reform Act the make up of the HoC didn't change that markedly. And it was always men with money..

Add into that an unaccountable deference among the voters which we still see today when a thoroughly worthless mendacious charlatan is basically elected on his poshness factor, and note their utter distaste for middle class politicians...

Why are people chosen either by an accident of birth or by a political party

Not sure that you can see the flaw in that, Bluecat. Any candidate for election to the HoL would be chosen by their political party. We'd just get another adversarial chamber like the HoC.

VQ don't you have to be 103 at least?

MaizieD by "in feudal times perhaps" I meant that actually there has been some choice for some time and quite why the landed gentry and the rich still weild power is hard to fathom. The first miner appointed to Parliament was Thomas Burt in 1874 so it should have been possible in 150 years to change the system and yet the system remains virtually unchanged. Perhaps it is something in the British character that still needs aristocracy or perhaps it is the retaining of the H of L as a second chamber that has prevented real reform in the H of C.

Having read a lot of the comments can I point out there is a petition the government petitions page to abolish the HofL. I think we need a second chamber to act as a sounding block for new laws but the upper house is completely out of step with the modern world. The link is here: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300395.
Frankly, I think they are a greedy shower. Most of them are independently rich and don't need a tax free salary. Wouldn't it be nice the Government gave essential workers tax free pay for the duration of the pandemic especially the lowest paid.

Wouldn't this have been a great opportunity for the peers not to claim their £323 a day for simply logging in during lockdown, especially as many of them are quite comfortably well off for money? Thinking of people struggling to make ends meet and making a donation to those in need would have held them more worthy of esteem!

It was reportedly raised in February that their pay increase revealed they could earn in a day more than some Universal Credit applicants get in one month.

After 30yrs in the Police Force my DH became a black cab driver. He took a peer to the House of Lords , who asked him to wait whilst he signed in , then asked to be taken straight home again! What a cheek!

We've all heard that story before, Nanna58. It does the rounds all over social media. It is not a particularly strong argument for abolishing the Lords as we know it.

For all those who want to abolish the HoL first of all there has to be a better alternative. For all those who object to the finance then what rules/payments would be paid to any members of a replacement body.

That then brings us to the need for a second chamber. Without one, the politicians in the HoC would have complete freedom to make changes, introduce new laws and there would be more mistakes, more bad law, more unnecessary legislation and more dissatisfaction among us voters and non-voters.

Many people have never had any understanding of just what the Lords do. Firstly there is no two party position. There are seats for both main parties plus the LibDems and a large section of crossbenchers togther with some smaller parties. It is never guaranteed that either government or opposition will get the votes they want.

There is a lot of information to be read in Wikipedia as well as elsewhere, together with reasons for removing Lords.

The HoL is the second busiest legislative chamber in the world! Second only to the HoC. There are committees, debates, formal and informal meetings as well as working with the Commons.

It could be useful to read about the history but the main point to make is that this all started when there was little if any education of the general populace. Those "in charge" of our country needed to be educated. The system has continued with little change apart from the 1999 Act.

The fact that it has taken so long and continues to remain a difficult matter for change is some indication of how important it is to get it right...

CardiffJaguar

Agree with you completely. I'd just add that there are 786 seats in the H of L and only 92 hereditary peers left. The remainder will have been appointed by the various governments since the 1999 Act so they're not all "entitled" and not all very wealthy.

As someone else has said, you only need to look to America to see the workings of a second chamber. If the majority are members of a party opposed to the President then that President doesn't have a chance of getting much legislation through.