I want a seat in the House of Lords please

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.

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...

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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

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!

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.

Sleeping in your armchair with the laptop turned on instead of sleeping on those uncomfortable Lords benches should definitely cost the tax payer less !!! It’s outrageous !

They still get paid £323 per day simply for turning up (in normal circumstances).

If you had read the report properly rather than a newspaper headline what it actually said was that an 'insider" had said someone had made a fuss about not getting paid. Hardly what the newspaper headline said.

It's not so much accident of birth - although that obviously contributes to status - but a question of who could punch hardest. Let's be honest - the House of Windsor would not be on the throne now if the Queen's ancestors, however remote and fragile the connection, had not had the winning army.

I am with MaizieD on this, just because a few abuse the system the HoL is far better than a second elected house.

The HoL is a very useful tool and has some very clever and knowledgeable member who contribute an awful lot, but I think there are too many entitled to sit who take advantage of the system and milk it. Just because they can take the money doesn’t mean they should.

MaizieD in feudal times perhaps. We have had a H of C elected by ordinary working people for over 100 years but still power is handed to some on the basis of birth. Why still?

I have never understood why an accident of birth should entitle someone to decide how laws are made,

Never studied any History, eh, trisher?

Those who owned the land ruled the land...

I still wouldn't want an elected 2nd House, though.

CardiffJaguar Have to agree with you. Yes there does seem to be an enormous amount of money involved and this could be reviewed just like all publicly funded systems are having to undergo. As to the 'napping' I was informed quite some time ago that to hear what is being said people often gave to lean down to the little speakers we see inserted in the back of the seats hence the look of nodding off.

I have never understood how the H of L has manged to survive as it has. Well actually I do- lots of MPs who look on it as somewhere to progress to and a way to make nice little gifts to their friends and supporters. I have never understood why an accident of birth should entitle someone to decide how laws are made, or why that right should be handed to someone for some aspect of success in their life. And yes the chamber has occasionally managed to delay or pass back to the Hof C legislation for further consultation. But if we looked at the cost of each of those occasions it is huge and certainly not value for money. The fact that they now consider they should be paid for working from home shows how out of touch they are. Replace them asap.

I agree totally that the Lords shouldn't be paid just for turning up and then being able to go home straight after. Any employee going straight home would be sacked very quickly. There definitely needs to be a re-think on what they actually do, and if they haven't got a specific need to be there, then they don't get a 'wage'.