Should The Lords Be ‘Axed’

[sp1814]

I’m not sure whether the term ‘axed’ is appropriate - like the removal of a British institution should be treated like a reality TV programme on Channel Five:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/956950/Brexit-news-House-Lords-peers-abolish-scrap-petition-politics-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-referendum

But do you think that the Lords should now be axed because it is so out of step with what the British public want (with regards to Brexit)?

Is it no longer fit for purpose?

[steg]

Aye , right across the neck line

[kvalidir]

No they shouldn't, they are doing what they are supposed to do which is acting as a brake when the government of the days rushes headlong into foolish or self serving decisions.

[sunny-dave]

A useless retirement home for placemen (and women) - scrap it and have an elected Senate - with no-one from The Commons (or the existing Lords) ever allowed to be elected.

[jim360]

If only there had been some legislation proposed for dealing with this earlier.

[steg]

There is too many lords, cut it to between 50 -100. I don’t think an elected house is what’s needed either it would just be the same as commons and folk seem fed up with all the elections etc that we have already

[Old_Geezer]

It should be replaced. It's never been fully fit for purpose as it consists of appointed elites not representatives selected by the public. Most of the time it works, but this anti-democracy stance highlights it's flaws.

[sp1814]

sunny-dave

I can see the argument for an elected Senate, but...is there any guarantee that they wouldn’t have a make up which is exactly like the House of Lords?

[Old_Geezer]

It isn acting as a brake for foolhardy legislation; it is acting as a barrier to democratically arrived at decisions.

[dannyk13]

Should be replaced by an elected assembly.

[Old_Geezer]

It would have the make-up chosen by the people and be answerable to them.

[Voltage]

should take their seats out and put beds in be more comfy for a proper snooze

[steg]

//It would have the make-up chosen by the people and be answerable to them.//

We already have that, what’s the point in another. would be just aswell not have a second house

[dannyk13]

As a certain Lord once confided in me this is the reason most Lords attend:-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-allowances/

[mushroom25]

the government can always invoke the parliament act. although with the number of remainers from all parties in the house, what's the possibility of government defeat on the matter?

[bhg481]

The idea of a second house is that it acts to make the first house think again about certain aspects of a law-change and also to prevent them passing outrageous laws - the Chinese passed a law to allow the current president to be a lifetime holder of the post. These are essential functions but the composition of such a house needs careful thought and selection.

[sunny-dave]

Funny how one's view of the Lords is coloured by whatever they've just done ...

Agree with Recent Decision :

"A valuable and necessary check and balance for the HoC"

Disagree with Recent Decision :

"An anti-democratic anachronism which should be axed"

I have a long enough memory (although not the time/inclination to find chapter and verse) to have seen some AB members expressing both of the above opinions, depending on the context.

[Ellipsis]

> it is acting as a barrier to democratically arrived at decisions.

No it isn't. The decision was to leave, not how to leave.

A question I might ask is, what difference is the closeness of the victory (52:48) and the size of the turnout (72%) making to the Brexit "decisions" (ha-ha) that are taken? Or would we see the same decisions even if the victory had been 98:2 on a 100% turnout? I think the Lords would kick less back if that had been the outcome.

To me, it seems that that the Lords are trying to get a Brexit that fairly represents the different opinions that exist, rather than see an extreme Brexit forced through by fervent loons like JRM. They are looking for a Brexit that represents all of the people, not just a segment of the victors.

[cassa333]

Sunny Dave is right. It depends if you agree with what they have just done.

What are the Lords asking parliament to look at again? Remaining in the EU in all but name or fully in.

Well no. That question has already been asked and answered.

Can all this silly ping pong carry on until the 29th March 2019 and we just leave because they have wasted so much time on nothing?

Anyway I think whenever they stand up and talk about Brexit they should declare if they are paid (in any way, shape or form) by the EU and state the edict that require some them to positively promote the EU or they lose their trough.

[New Judge]

Leaving aside the Brexit issues, there are far too many Lords and far too many of them affiliated to political parties.
The chamber should be of a fixed size (around 100 should do it) and, as has been mentioned, there should be no former members of the Commons amongst them. They should be selected for their skills and experience in particular fields and they should bring those skills to the chamber to help modify and moderate (but not propose or obstruct) legislation. They should serve a fixed term (say five years, the same length as a normal Parliament) and their appointments should be made midway through a Parliament so as to overlap two administrations. Their appointment should not be made by Ministers. In fact, the government of the day should have no say whatsoever in their appointment. The Lords Spiritual (the Bishops and Archbishops) should be evicted and all members should be cross-benchers. They should be salaried with minimal expenses (none of this £300 for signing in and disappearing malarky) and required to attend for every session.

That should do for starters. I'll work on the details once my proposal has been accepted. :-)

[New Judge]

And the Ermine robes should be dispensed with. They portray a sense of superiority which is very much ubjustified. They're supposed to be helping to run the country, not taking part in a pantomime.