Let's Get Rid Of The Lot Of Them.

[gulliver1]

Liz Truss, to ramp up the cost of keeping unelected Peers in the House of Lords .
Truss is preparing a list to hand out honours to her aides and political allies after only 44 days in office. These peers claim £323 for every day they attend the H.O.L. And each one costs the tax payer £30,000 p.a. On top of this Boris has prepared a list of 13 new Conservative Peerages to reward his close friends All this unnecessary expense to the tax payer . ... Sovereignty Eh !

[gulliver1]

09.41 She went missing for 6 days. me old china.

[davebro]

//FPTP has been the preferred method of voting for over '70' years now. Why change?//

Preferred by whom? The Labs and Cons so that no one else gets a look in!

[gulliver1]

29 Dukes. including five Royal Dukes
34 Marquesses.
191 Earls.
111 Viscounts.
443 Barons.
And a partridge in pear tree .

Have to be kept in the lap of luxury and Privilege by the tax payer

[davebro]

If we are going to keep the whole shitshow new appointments to the HoL shouldn't be in the gift of a single person.

[gulliver1]

On top of the £323 Daily allowance members of the HOL can claim travel expenses to "sign on".

[gulliver1]

They only have to sign the register to get paid.
Some peers have been seen leaving the taxi running while popping in to sign, then pop back in the taxi.... thank you very much tax payers

[ToraToraTora]

zebu: "// I agree with abolishing the HOL //

Then how do you propose to hold the HOC to account? " - with an elected upper chamber as I suggested at 08:51

[drmorgans]

The objection seems to be based on payment and the appointment process. If "lords" were elected then the major political parties would continue to dominate with former MPs, MEPs etc. Most countries have some sort of "upper house" to scrutinise legislation. Is the US system of a politicised elected House of Reps any better?

[davebro]

the Senate is the upper chamber in the USA - also elected

[Old_Geezer]

One really needs an appropriate 2nd chamber to get fresh views and ensure knee jerk nonsense legislation is reexamined by the HoC. So it's not abolition that's required, but extensive reform.

IMO party groupings should be barred, no whips, only a percentage on the totally elected chamber should be up for reelection at any time to give hysteresis to changes of view. I suspect, for decent debate/representation the numbers should reflect that seen in the HoC.

[ZebuSanctuary]

// with an elected upper chamber //

Certainly an 'elected' upper chamber would have eliminated all that nonsense back then, when peerages were being bestowed through the 'cash for honours' debacle.

The consensus on this board seems to be in favour of a two tier system of government. Understandably the cost implication of an unelected upper chamber is of concern to many. However its role is a vital part of our democracy.

One wonders if Scottish voters are concerned by the fact that Holyrood operates under a unicameral system?

[ZebuSanctuary]

// Preferred by whom? The Labs and Cons so that no one else gets a look in! //

Preferred by 2/3 of those that turned out to vote in the 2011 referendum.

No one is saying FPTP is perfect. One advantage is though, notwithstanding the 2010 election result, it tends to avoid the awkwardness of an outcome being a coalition government.

[davebro]

//it tends to avoid the awkwardness of an outcome being a coalition government.//

The 2 main parties are so internally divided that we virtually have coalition government anyway. Be better if they could openly declare their principles & form coalitions with like-minded partners.

[ZebuSanctuary]

// 2 main parties are so internally divided //

Agreed!

The need to cater for all forms of social diversity seems to be the order of the day. Parties now boast they're broad church.

One hopes the common theme that unites MPs of any one party, is the pledges which are made in that particular party's manifesto. At least then, the ordinary voter knows what that party stands for.