Vocal Voices

The calls for reform of the HoL have been getting louder in recent years, so were the two defeats for the government over Brexit the straws to break the Camel's back?

There will be at least 52% of the electorate who would now love to see big changes and when you add in Remainers, like myself, that percentage just grows and grows.

I am hoping their Lordships have shot themselves in their feet and stabbed themselves in their own backs.

Any party that promises to reduce, change and even abolish the HoL will get fistfuls of votes.

We can all live in hope

Manxie xx

I am surprised how resilient Theresa May is. Hopefully we will get a better deal with her at the helm, than the one we got (or rather didn't get) when David Cameron was PM.

That is so true, Meds, she wasted no time at all in getting rid of Heseltine. It was swift and done without fuss.

..... as indeed was getting rid of Osborne earlier.

I am inclined to agree that we should get rid of the House Of Lords.

I do wonder, though, whether it might be better to simply considerably reduce the number of 'lords',
and to introduce some sort of necessary qualification. Recently, some of our stupid politicians have
made a complete farce of the appointing of new 'Lords', and should be ashamed of themselves.

While we're at it, I think it would be a good idea to reduce the number of MPs too. I'm beginning to
think that this thing called democracy is getting to be a bit of a farce, and we would be much better
off with a Dictator, given the right person. But I am hopeful that our present P.M. will be much better
at the job than some of the male leaders we have suffered in past years, some of whom should, in my
opinion should now be either in prison or in a lunatic asylum.

I am with Aggers; I feel that the size of the political class needs to be reduced. They keep on expanding, bit by bit. PCC's in charge of the police, elected Mayors, proposed regional assemblies etc.

The need of the House of Lords was originally to represent the power of the aristocracy and the Church. The aristoctrats have been eased out and now the Lords is full of extremely un-Lordly people, so it's a contradiction in terms.

We don't need an elected second chamber. Why and up voting for a B-team when we are supposed to have an A-team? What is the need for a second and worse House of Commons?

Just give the Lords the bullet and move on.

I am in partial agreement with both Aggers and Cromwell in that the political classes need dramatically reducing.

However, I still think that democracy needs a second chamber. It might only be there to 'suggest' amendments, but it in doing so it can prick the consciences of MPs and sometimes help them to think again.

How it is constiuted and what its work will be is the hard part, but it's becoming increasinly obvious the the present HoL system is as unfit for purpose as many of its members are.

Workingman wrote:it's becoming increasinly obvious the the present HoL system is as unfit
for purpose as many of its members are.

That's a polite way of saying it.

The HOL is supposed to be a brake on parliament if it is really needed. However it's not supposed to stand between the will of the people and the ability of Parliament to execute it.

This time round one hopes that parliament will disregard the HOL amendments, send it back to the HOL unlamented and that the HOL passes it. Should it go a third round and then bypass the HOL, then the HOL will have done themselves no good at all and have fallen into the hands of those who want change in the unelected house.

Time will tell.