just read these comments on FB Do YOU think the H O L'S is a justifiable expense in a cash strapped society

One rule for the rich... It's becoming more and more obvious, isn't it?

Our society isn't 'cash strapped'. The way that the government spends money or cuts spending is a political choice.

Rather than getting indignant about spending on the Lords you should be getting indignant about the government cutting spending and contracting the economy for the sake of their political ideology of shrinking the 'state'.

We need an upper house but I think it should be elected and the numbers set and limited.

What is going to happen to the MEPs when they are redundant - will they all be given peerages and crammed into any available space in the HOL?

Paddyann the daily stipend is only paid on days Parliament is sitting and only to those present in the house. One Lord was caught signing in then dipping out but that was stopped a few years ago.

I think the existence of the House of Lords is essential. SAlmost every legislature has a second revising chamber. Many of the Lords are people who are experts in their fields and can bring to discussions the expertise now so lacking in the lower house.

I think these deliberately emotive comparisons with the homeless, children etc etc are juvenile. It isn't a case of either or. We could spend all the government finances to give us a perfect welfare system, but what would happen to all the other services we need, including dustmen and diplomats, running the tax system etc etc.

Like any company the government must decide how to distribute taxes they collect, we could of course dispense with all the money used to run ministries, build and repair roads. Sell the Houses of Parliament for conversion into flats, stop running elections. How much would that make available for nurses doctors, the homeless, foodbanks etc?

I think it's possible to feel pretty miffed about both.

I'm not a great expert with regard to political structures but I believe one of the the arguments for a second house is that it allows examination of proposed legislation from a supposedly more politically neutral perspective. In reality, I think it is probably the case that a good number of the members are nominated because of their political leanings, which in turn are often dictated by their own socio-economic status.

I'm not quite sure what the answer is but I believe the present system needs radical reform as its number increases year on year (I think currently it's over 800) and it appears to grant all sorts of ridiculously expensive and unmonitored privileges to its members.

To most people £300 a day, with, as I understand it, very little regulation as to how much time should be spent in the House, is a lot of money. On top of that are the subsidised facilities. This linked article of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for those who are interested, is quite revealing. www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-06-20/ermine-and-expenses-an-insight-into-house-of-lords

You are right Jalima1108 the upper house should be more regulated and have elected members.
Don't get me started on the MEPs and their gravy train.

I think an Upper House is essential, but not an ever-burgeoning House of Lords with each party vying to increase their influence over decision-making.

If looked at dispassionately, this system of unelected cronyism could even be considered to be corrupt although I am sure the Lords themselves are not.

Whatever the solution I don't think an elected second house is a particularly good idea. The Lords is a fairly politically neutral house at the moment and does a reasonable job of scrutiny. I'd hate it to end up as a 2 party monolith.

Lots of stupid speculation about what will happen to MEPs. They'll have their very often undeserved, think UKIP MEPs severance payments and pensions. I can't see any need for them to go the the Lords.

I think a second chamber is essential, but not an unelected chamber. The problem is that no-one is prepared to go the whole hog and abolish them (power and influence at work?) so people tinker with it, like Tony Blair did and make it a bigger mess than ever.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_hereditary_peers_under_the_House_of_Lords_Act_1999
As for the number of women in HOL- well it's ridiculous and they weren't even entitled to sit until 1958.

Can't agree with you about an elected chamber, trisher. We need less tribal party politics, not more.

The idea of a 'citizens' assembly', chosen at random, looks interesting

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly

Perhaps a PR system of electing members of an Upper Chamber, without the same constituency boundaries too?

As long as the citizens in question are intelligent and expert in some field or other that would be useful, otherwise no.
It has become common now to say that something shouldn’t happen in our cash strapped society.
If you apply that logic to everything, you would have no support for art or public buildings or anything else that is worthwhile.

Had noticed this post but didn’t know what it was about because of the abbreviation H O L’s. in title. Thought someone was referring to holidays?. Had a quick look and realised my mistake. I don’t live in UK so maybe that explains my ignorance.

The use of CAPITALS is the sign that Paddyann is posting!
I'm not entirely sure of the value of the House of Lords but could see its potential if the 'Lords' could be fairly elected.

I think there should be a limit on the number of Lords , say 500, and every year they should expel a number who have not contributed to their work.

The present number is too high, although it is good to have a revising chamber with expertise in many fields which may be lacking in the lower house . We should get rid of those Lord Fowler describes as "passengers".

We definitely do not need so many. Surely an Upper Chamber should be smaller?

Ultimately the HOL should be replace by an elected second chamber, and certainly not elected by the dreadful FPTP system which we still use to elect the HOC..

I agree.

I think that we should be the ones to decide, not other politicians.

I'm proud to have personally known this officer and gentleman.

Democracy: abolish unelected bodies.

I think these deliberately emotive comparisons with the homeless, children etc etc are juvenile. It isn't a case of either or.

I agree M0nica. It's brought up by some posters in most discussions.

I agree that the perks and privileges of being in the HOL are dreadfully excessive given the times in which we live. I do not feel they are earned or deserved, nor do I think many who are honoured merit their seat in the chamber.

An open and thorough review of this rather anachronistic part of our political system is long overdue.

It seems odd, in these Brexit days, that those who wanted to " take back control" from what they percieve as non - democratically elected representatives in Brussels are not more vocal about the HoL.

what they perceive as non - democratically elected representatives in Brussels

SOME of us Brexiteers ARE quite vocal about BOTH the HOL and the European Central Bank, European Commission, and the European Council (and a host of others in the EU) not being elected and therefore not being democratically representative.

Apart from the European Parliament, ALL EEC bodies are unelected. Never mind being perceived as non - democratically elected! They aren't elected to at all!