House of Lords to be Abolished?

I have just finished reading about Sir kier Starmer's plans to Abolish the House of Lords if elected at the next general election. Labour's plan's would replace it with an Elected Upper Chamber , I am all for it as i was ,way back in 1997 when i recall a certain Tony Blair's election manifesto was to guess what?? " To Abolish the House of Lords" and we know what the lying toe -rag did with that pledge don't we ? I was also appalled at the number of sittingLords we have today in that House some 784 ,yes a whopping figure of them falling asleep and all claiming £ 323 .00 a time just for turning up ,and getting a slap up Lunch for peanuts . So W.Worlder's have we any views on this latest tit-bit news ?
This is interesting bit for you :
A PEER CAN CLAIM £323 .OO A DAY FOR JUST SIGNING IN.
A PERSON ON UNIVERSAL CREDIT GETS £334.00 PER MONTH .
FOR A PEER WHO DOES OTHER DUTIE'S AWAY FROM THE LORDS CAN GET A "REDUCED ALLOWANCE " OF JUST £162 .00 PER DAY .
I NOW BEG THE QUESTION IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYONE'S POLITICAL PERSUASION IS IT NOT TIME THAT THEY GO FROM THIS PLACE ????
G.B.

How will it benefit the Uk and improve your quality of life improve if the house of lords is abolished GB?

It will take a lot of upper class out of touch buffoons out of the decision making and one or two Russian security risks out As well ,get rid of the royal family at the same time save a fortune

I see Handsomeminer , We share similar views especially with regards the Royals , but one had better brace oneselve for the usual barage of quote :
" They bring a lot of money into the country"
I usually respond by saying the cost of "KEEPING THEM IN LUXURY " outways the cost! G.B

Reform needed, yes!

But people will disagree over the form which the replacement should take.

So, maybe a good idea to get the options debated in the public arena well in advance of party lines on the issue becoming established.

Ena

Is it a case of 'If it ain't broken, then do not fix it'

We need to get rid of the Peers who do not do anything in the House of Lords but keep the best ones who keep the House of Commons in check.

Mortarmillbill your make a very good point

Our bicameral model's feature of the upper house serving as a revising chamber is highly desirable. However PMs have sought to stuff the house with political yes-men and cronies, which does undermine its ability to perform this task well.

Elevation in exchange for money or political support: well difficult to see that as anything more than corruption in full view.

example

Whilst all this was going on, a major regular supplier of PPE to UK government (ARCO) could not get them to take their stock. Their HQ is near to me. One of their main distribution warehouses also is close. The directors were delivering PPE in their cars for free to local hospitals and care homes!

It is now months since I watched on TV as senior ARCO managers presented this in evidence to parliaments public audit hearing on the matter.

Do you think anything resulted from the hearing?

It will never happen as the House of Lords is deep rooted in the Establishment, the Freemasons, Church of England and the Monarchy and is just another false promise to attract votes from the masses at the next election.

Been hearing the same promise from Labour for years

And Labour politicians at both national and local level have not been averse to being a Lord or Lady in an unelected upper chamber.

Remember Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and Lord Smith of Leigh

Or Lord Codger of Wigan

or Lord Tommy Two Stoke of Wigan World Topic Stirrer

Still waiting for you to confirm if you get paid to keep daily pots on the boil!

John Prescott appeared on TV to tell the world he was not accepting a peerage.

The following day he accepted a peerage.

I make no secret to my disgust at the house of lords ,in it's present form . Yes i do strongly believe in a second chamber, one run on the lines of the American style , but not necessarily like theirs. Since the conception of televised debates in both houses ,what has really got me upset about the Lords , is obviously the hereditary election of the peers. Especially when one sees the age of some of them and they are caught fast asleep, now i know we all used to get a bit tired at sometimes when we were at work, But come on the actual time they are there isn't that taxing is it? Then we have to no, must bring up the payment for their time whilst at work so to speak, £323.00 a day .plus a very good subsidised canteen (lunch) ,SO for my plan the second house should be by elected votes , nothing whatsoever about a person just because they happen to have had a relative from 500 years ago no way.
But we shall have see what Keir Starmer does if and when he becomes P.M. ( A certain Blair come's to mind) HE RENAGED !!!!
G.B.

Posted by: Owd Codger (1475)
or Lord Tommy Two Stoke of Wigan World Topic Stirrer

Still waiting for you to confirm if you get paid to keep daily pots on the boil!

Meanwhile.........we are still waiting for Todge to confirm...................just about everything he has have ever said and/or claimed!!!

Getting rid of the House of Lords would result in even less control of the government

Its the new vote winner!!

Make a promise to that section of the public (who in the main don't know their arses from their elbows) that you will abolish something contentious that they don't understand (without making clear to them what the consequences will be) and then afterwards when it all turns into sh** say ....."Suck it up loosers! it's what you voted for so it's your fault".

......it will be like brexit all over again.

There are 92 hereditary peers in the Lords. The total number of peers is around 800.

That probably equates to about 750 total wastes of space