No more unelected peers: Scrap and replace the House of Lords now!

[mercalia]

This is a change.org petition that might interest a few here?

Several ex-MPs including Zac Goldsmith and Jo Swinson are among a group of politicians who lost their seats in the election – but now look likely to be made legislators for life in the unelected House of Lords.

Another - Nicky Morgan - stood down before the election, so is also no longer an MP. She was then handed a seat in the House of Lords, which means she gets to continue as a Minister - despite no longer having a democratic mandate.

Let’s be clear what this means. The Government has given these people the power to decide on our laws for life – even though they've lost the confidence of their electorate. And they get to claim £305 a day tax free for the privilege.

Nice to get a job for life and a daily pay of £305? That I think is about the basic Universal Credit per month?

https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-no-more-unelected-peers-scrap-and-replace-the-house-of-lords-now-8a773851-b785-4652-9dc5-79b07a0de8d4/sign?cs_tk=AvtIT-A-Z-S9ErFS_l0AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvGFcLOOI6hDrQE-2THwU3tk%3D&utm_campaign=f3f5f1f78b094a3588cf73ce19632865&utm_content=initial_v0_0_2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=aa_sign_ask&utm_term=cs

[Spinners]

I studied British Constitution whilst at school and came away with the idea that it's a good thing in so much that it's independent from the HoC but actually compliments it whilst also checking/challenging the Government of the day. I still think that's a good idea but would agree that the cost needs reigning in.

[mjr]

This is a change.org petition that might interest a few here?

Not really. Put it on the Parliament UK site where it can force them to listen and reply (but not necessarily to act).

Another - Nicky Morgan - stood down before the election, so is also no longer an MP. She was then handed a seat in the House of Lords, which means she gets to continue as a Minister - despite no longer having a democratic mandate.

That's based on a misunderstanding. The PM can appoint whoever s/he likes as a minister. It's only convention that they should be able to be questioned in a House (rather than only by committees) that means all of them these days are either already MPs or Lords, or get ennobled swiftly.

The UK is bizarre and outdated in that the upper house is appointed by the PM without much formal control, which means the majority of Parliament is unelected: currently something like 820 Lords compared to 650 MPs.

[reohn2]

I studied British Constitution whilst at school and came away with the idea that it's a good thing in so much that it's independent from the HoC but actually compliments it whilst also checking/challenging the Government of the day. I still think that's a good idea but would agree that the cost needs reigning in.

A second house is a good idea,that way the govenment of the day with a majority doesn't get all it's own way.The problem with the Hof L is that it's unelected and each Lord has a guaranteed income of £80k for just turning up! .

[Spinners]

It would be good to get cross-party agreement on allowing the number of HoL members to slowly reduce down by not having new ones...

and/or having a cull

[reohn2]

At best it's a rein on government extremism,at worst a free living for signing your name.A totally undemocratic club for the few to rule over the many,riven with backscratchers and old school ties,with no place in a modern democratic system of government.As the FPTP system isn't in the HofC.

[drossall]

I studied British Constitution whilst at school and came away with the idea that it's a good thing in so much that it's independent from the HoC but actually compliments it whilst also checking/challenging the Government of the day. I still think that's a good idea but would agree that the cost needs reigning in.

I'm with this too. We're in danger of trying to make our constitution so rational that we are utterly and unalterably bland.

Although I can see the specific objection that lots of former elected politicians get elevated to the Lords, and we could usefully cast the net a lot wider.

[Mike Sales]

I think it is grotesque that there are people involved in our government by virtue of their birth as a member of a hereditary ruling caste.
It is a nonsense in a country which claims to be a democracy.
Not to mention representatives of a Christian sect which does not represent a majority of the population.

The question will be asked whether five hundred men, ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed, should override the judgment of millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes the wealth of the country. david lloyd george — On the House of Lords, speech in Newcastle (9 October 1909)

Though things have changed a little since the Welsh Wizard said this, it is time the H of L was properly reformed.

[Oldjohnw]

I totally get the idea to abolish the Upper House. I should want that, too.

But I have admired the Lord's since Blair was PM. The H of C opposition was useless and the people who really had sympathy with the views of the people were, oddly, the Lords.

There are more than former MPs there. The Cross Benchers are generally quite a brilliant lot, having been hugely successful in real life.

Very few are now hereditary. And they can't overturn the commons

[Tangled Metal]

House of lords is a revising house which modifies laws to improve them, wording or more. It's populated less by hereditary peers. Iirc they limited it to 100 hereditary peers with a "beauty contest".

It is populated more by life peers enobled by government and opposition. Not all ex politicians, civil servants or other advisers of politicians. There's many with a long career in other sectors. With experience, knowledge and skills that more than likely make them highly qualified to carry out the activities of a revising house.

If you change this system, what would replace it? Fully elected people? A big issue often claimed with that is it could usurp the power and authority of the house of commons. If not elected then how to appoint them without patronage?

Is any system really better? American systems result in partisan houses. One election controlled by one party the next another. The two houses can be controlled by one party or divided in the control of opposing parties. Stalemate is common too.

[windmiller]

The House of Lords main reason for being is to stall/block democracy. Any other medieval purpose it had is long defunct. I hear the words checks and balances used a lot, what they really mean is keep the people away from power.

[Oldjohnw]

The House of Lords main reason for being is to stall/block democracy. Any other medieval purpose it had is long defunct. I hear the words checks and balances used a lot, what they really mean is keep the people away from power.

At times like this with a huge majority in the Commoms, holding up legislation to make them think again is never more vital, as it was when Blair ruled. The peers are remarkably sensitive to and aware of what the man in the street thinks. Often much more than those who get to be elected. It is certainly the case in my own constituency and was my experience when I was working close to governments.

I fully recognise the anachronism of Bishops in the Lords. But they do hear from the ground up through their clergy, who are vastly more local than MPs and remarkably in touch.

[Tangled Metal]

Well, someone probably needs to learn about the HoL a bit I reckon. No matter what you think of who is in it and how they got there, the job they do is real and needed.

At the most practical level, without three HoL you'd end up with carp laws that would basically need rewriting by the court derived case law via appeals. That would often be needed because the HoC seems incapable of writing unambiguous laws and legal clauses. The HoL has the time to correct and improve.

The argument about who sits in the HoL, how they got there and how they're paid needs to be separated from what they do imho.

The other point I have is that the varied career paths to the HoL adds a lot of value. If you purely have elected upper chamber then you'll get self serving political types and none of those who were experts in their career. Less experienced judges to rewrite the dodgy wording in laws, less top scientists to advise and inform the others and basically less people capable of doing the job.

Then there's the expense system of paying them. That could become a genuine salary I reckon. If they're getting £80k by being there and getting the expenses then why not make it that total pay and expect standard hours for it? Or pro rata based on hours. Actually isn't that the same thing? Are you really going to say a top scientist and lord is going to visit and stay in London from their home elsewhere just to pop in for £300? They're likely doing it out if a sense of giving something back. A top entrepreneur who would effectively earn a lot more takes a day or more out every week to contribute to lawmaking. Wholly self serving? Possibly losing money doing it.

Obviously things can and should be changed or improved but that's a dangerous thing. Reacting with one's knee to another abuse story or claim could end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or more likely the highly experienced but not as mobile elderly, wise woman with the bathwater.

[mjr]

How do they get there? The inconvenient fact is all were appointed by a monarch or PM completely undemocratically.

A minimal reform would be an independent appointments/removals commission and a limit to the same size as the Commons.

[Oldjohnw]

How do they get there? The inconvenient fact is all were appointed by a monarch or PM completely undemocratically.

A minimal reform would be an independent appointments/removals commission and a limit to the same size as the Commons.

Wrong.
They are not appointed by a monarch.

All party leaders recommend to, guess what, an independent Appointments Commission. With the exception, wrongly imv, of the PM who rewards party donors.