The House of Lords.

[AliasAggers]

How much longer are we going to tolerate the bunch of un-elected members of the House of Lords ?

We are supposed to be a democracy, so why do we have to tolerate this collection of nobodies and has-beens, and what right have
they to interfere with legislation passed by our elected parliament? I say, let's get rid of them. The money we pay them could be
better-used in many ways.

What do you think?

[TheOstrich]

Aggers, my reaction to both Houses is such that Mrs O has, sine die, banned me from travelling inside the M25 perimeter.

I don't regard the UK as being a democracy for any number of reasons, Parliament being just one of them. To be honest - and I'm quite serious here - as someone firmly in the older generation bracket, I doubt I'll bother voting again. The younger generations of Snowflakes and Momentumists can choose their own poison.

[Workingman]

I have always been for the abolition of the HoL in its present state and in favour of a "party free" second chamber, i.e. all crossbenchers, but it will never happen - the politicians will see to that.

It is in a strange place, though. When it does its job and its actions chime with our personal point of view it is the finest institution ever invented and must be defended at all costs. However, when it does its job, as it has in the past two days, and we do not like it we have to tear it down and turn the rubble into powder.

[cromwell]

I think the original idea was for a division of power between politicians, the aristocracy / Church and monarchy.

As all the real power is now in the hands of politicians I can't really see the point of the Lords, or the point of having an elected second chamber.

In general I'm with Os. I'm in a seat that has always voted for one party so as far as general elections go my vote has never really counted. I think you're probably a happier person if you don't get involved with politics and don't watch the tv news.

[Suff]

I'm pretty sure that the original idea of the HOL was that the Aristocracy was not going to give up control of the country without a veto on what the politicians were doing.

Over the Centuries that has been watered down, including with the help of the King. The change in the balance of the HOL, created by Blair by removing the hereditary Lords, has completely upended the Lords. Now, instead of being inhabited mainly by those who stand to gain most by a stable and prosperous UK, it is inhabited by a large chunk of money grubbing self servers who couldn't care about the country so long as they get what they want today. Just like the lower chamber.

In that situation there is little benefit in the HOL. However they do, sometimes, actually work as a brake on the greater excesses of Parliament. In this case, however, that is not true. They have decided to frustrate the will of the people for their own selfish aims.

For that, I would certainly hold the gun of abolishment to their head. At least until they get the message.