Is there currently a petition to abolish the house of lords?

[philv]

Or would someone care to start one?

Reason - undemocratic.

[ikarl]

Go on....

[vonuber]

philv said:

Or would someone care to start one?

Reason - undemocratic.

What has suddenly made you think this I wonder?

[Sylvaforever]

Yes there is.

[chow pan toon]

vonuber said:

philv said:

Or would someone care to start one?

Reason - undemocratic.

What has suddenly made you think this I wonder?

Ive noticed that a lot of people who previously viewed it as a useful check on the government now see it as an anti-democratic anachronism.

[davepoth]

chow pan toon said:

Ive noticed that a lot of people who previously viewed it as a useful check on the Labour Party now see it as a block to Brexit.

EFA.

It does a useful job, but it's too political and too cronyish to do it properly.

[Eric Mc]

chow pan toon said:

vonuber said:

philv said:

Or would someone care to start one?

Reason - undemocratic.

What has suddenly made you think this I wonder?

Ive noticed that a lot of people who previously viewed it as a useful check on the government now see it as an anti-democratic anachronism.

Their views on how undemocratic their perceive the House of Lords to be usually depends on what topic the House of Lords is seen as obstructing.

[Troubleatmill]

The original idea of the House of Lords was a good one.

Now.. it is a retirement home for failed politicians and those willing to bribe the Government of the day for a title.

A second chamber is needed, but needs to be distant from the political parties.

If they attempt to derail Brexit - expect them to be abolished.

[Eric Mc]

On the other hand, if they stop Making Tax Digital, I would be delighted.

[CrutyRammers]

Troubleatmill said:

A second chamber is needed, but needs to be distant from the political parties.

Yeah.
That's the real trick though isn't it. Simply making it elected "because democratic" will just make it yet another political party stitch-up (which it almost is now). I actually think that making it elected would probably make it worse, until such time as parties can be eliminated from the proceedings. They have no place in a reviewing chamber IMO.

[so called]

I still prefer our system over the bull st of the American system.

[98elise]

davepoth said:

chow pan toon said:

Ive noticed that a lot of people who previously viewed it as a useful check on the Labour Party now see it as a block to Brexit.

EFA.

It does a useful job, but it's too political and too cronyish to do it properly.

Agreed. the principal is good, but it should be the for the long term good of the country and not politically biased. It should be full of technocrats, not politicians.

[Evanivitch]

The House of Lords is a tool of the commons when they're appointmenting lots of sympathetic peers, and an obstacle when they don't push everything through at the whim of the commons.

Abolish the hereditary peers. Remove the political appointment. Make it a real house of experts from all aspects of society.

[Derek Smith]

Troubleatmill said:

The original idea of the House of Lords was a good one.

Now.. it is a retirement home for failed politicians and those willing to bribe the Government of the day for a title.

A second chamber is needed, but needs to be distant from the political parties.

If they attempt to derail Brexit - expect them to be abolished.

I think the original idea of the Lords was to rule the country. Thankfully, they were virtually emasculated, but not until the early part of the 20th century, when they tried to block universal suffrage, and even then managed to delay it until 1928.

The problem is what to replace them with. Another voted-in chamber? Then they will probably be nothing more than a nodding chamber. The only reason this has come up is that they are challenging the provisions of an act of parliament. They can't stop it, only delay it. Further, it would appear to be the only bit of government that has any thought for the 48%.

Nobody has come up with an idea that has significant support. The only thing that should be certain is the elimination of the eternal peers. That's outrageous nowadays.

[anonymous-user]

Troubleatmill said:

The original idea of the House of Lords was a good one.

Now.. it is a retirement home for failed politicians and those willing to bribe the Government of the day for a title.

Says it all really, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

[Sylvaforever]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

[BlackLabel]

Not sure I understand the whole "if it's elected it will become too political" argument - even with the appointee system we end up with loads of politicians in there, just look at all the former MPs.

[XCP]

If you do away with hereditary peers, you might as well do away with the Monarchy at the same time. Pointless to have one without the other.

[philv]

I think it absurd that the lords might be able to force the goverment to give assurances on foreign nationals, before we have the same assurances for our expats
Quite rediculousl

As for am annendment that mps and then the lords should have basically a veto on tne deal........
Why exactly should tne lords have a veto on tne final brexit deal?

[Fittster]

philv said:

I think it absurd that the lords might be able to force the goverment to give assurances on foreign nationals, before we have the same assurances for our expats
Quite rediculousl

As for am annendment that mps and then the lords should have basically a veto on tne deal........
Why exactly should tne lords have a veto on tne final brexit deal?

Do you think that there should be a second chamber in any form and if so what should it purpose be?