House of Lords
 

Should the House of Lords be abolished?

Boris today has given peerages to his brother, his former boss, a billionaire Tory donor and a cricketer for his ‘brexit loyalty’ these people now have a lifetime position and will have a say in our laws and our government decisions, for nothing more than being friends with the Prime Minister and giving his party money.

Seeing as we’re leaving the EU to get away from such unelected bureaucrats, Is it about time we abolish this out of date and corrupt establishment?

Don't forget the russian ex KGB officer, which of course, is perfectly normal.

labour did exactly the same when they were in power. I think it should be an elected body, the current system is ridiculous

I know they all do it, I find it equally nonsensical across all parties.

And people like Alan Sugar who don’t even live here but get to fly back just to vote on things that don’t affect them

All parties have rewarded their cronies.
For me, the Lord's is a discredited level of power because of the people appointed to it.
Because too of the people who put them forward to be there.

However, I'm not yet convinced there should be an elected second chamber.

By all means scrap the Lords.
Appoint no more and let it fizzle out naturally.


Have perhaps an English elected assembly in its place, I could maybe go with that one.

However I can only see issues with another paid elected chamber as to UK wide government.
When to elect it, for instance?
At the same time as a general election?
What's the point.
Whoever wins would win in that chamber likely too.

Have it elected mid term.
Again likely problems.
The opposition wins the second chamber then hampers the government's work of the original election.

Of course they could ask the Nation to by their votes, approve any appointments to the Lords.
I can think of likely hundreds, I'd never have said or would say yes to.

It's kind of like this country's version of the US Supreme Court, where the judges are appointed and serve life terms or until they retire - and have the final say on every law that is passed in that country.

I'd say the House of Lords has less power because they can only delay laws, not overturn them.

Nah don't want another chamber of career politicians all towing party lines who have never done anything outside of politics. Prefer the wealth of different backgrounds and experiences that the Lords provides and ultimately they are there as a check on power and primarily to scrutinise what happens in the Commons which is often much needed

Here's a rare one, except on perhaps football and West Ham.

However, yes, this was where I was in the past on the Lords.
So despite what I posted earlier.

You've convinced me to just in effect leave things as they are.
So I agree.

Actually it is really petty for him not to have been given a peerage.
It shows petty spite and childishness.

However it's time they were looked at anyway.
Also decided by more independent means too.
If we're going to keep the Lords.

This shows really childish spite on the part of the government however, really childish spite.
Not a good qualifying feature of leadership.

BBC News Text :
[The House of Lords Speaker who is calling for more
independent, expert peers in Parliament's
second chamber. John McFall tells the Guardian
the upper house is in danger of becoming
"out of sync" with its balance of legislators.]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...n1-nc.png.webp

Yes at least appoint lords based on merit of their experience and qualifications, that would be far more useful.

Labour Starmer
wants them Gone.................

This ^