Bad enough for a country to have a completely undemocratic 2nd chamber but it was reported the other day after the latest adherant was announced, Sue Gray, that the PM gave as the reason to rebalance the chamber after the Tory years.
We all know the con that it is, but to actually say that you give someone the honour merely to maintain your voting advantage is beyond the Pale, surely.
I donât know, it sounds like an honest admission of the reality to me and quite essential given the nominations put forward by the likes of Johnson, with absolutely no justification.
Exactly correct,after years of people like Johnson dishing them out to his mates or anyone who was willing to back Brexit, like Ian Botham for example,there needs to be some levelling up.
Labourâs plan is to reform the Second Chamber but yes they do need to rebalance in the short term. Itâs one of the weaknesses of the House of Lords that its members are appointed by the current Government via the Honours system.
Perhaps Starmer could appoint some Chinese peers to counter Borisâs Russian ones. 
She was only one of many put forward by different parties. She was simply the newsworthy one who the British press knew they could use to their advantage.
Why does it still surprise that a rotten system stinks?
This has been going on for donkeys years,why it would suddenly be a surprise today to anyone is a complete mystery.
Meanwhile Bad-Enoch has nominated the complete waste of space that is Therèse Coffey, as well as the odious Toby Young 
That doesnât make it right, would you say that if you had been living under successive evil dictatorships for years? I was only surprised that he put a name to it. If he is that honest, why doesnât he take the opportunity of a massive majority to dump the gravy train completely and go a long way towards making the country a democracy at long last?
Reform of the House of Lords is definitely on Labourâs âto doâ list but sorting out the economy and many other more pressing issues come first.
Governments canât do everything at once, and reform of the HOL is not seen as urgent by most voters.
Itâs on everyones to do list, which is why it never gets done. I donât give a stuff anymore, I will almost certainly never even visit the place again, but I do get fed up with people banging on about âthe western democraciesâ when at least 2 of them are, quite definitely, not.
Sorry Chris but that doesnât wash. Its a can thatâs been kicked along the road for far too long. A government should be able to deal with crises without setting ânormalâ bisiness aside indefinitely. My goodness British governments should be adept at crisis management given we endlessly lurch from one crisis to another. The HoL is an expensive, overpopulated, undemocratic, national embarrassment. Its abolition should be a priority.
Not often I have agreed with @AIIy , but most definitely nail on head with that post. 
Praised with faint damn.
Your priority perhaps, and I agree it needs sorting, but not for most I would think. It doesnât appear on most UK voterâs radar. In the latest poll I could find (from 2012) just 7% said it should be a priority.
There is a Bill that has been introduced to remove hereditary peers from the HOL as a first step, so the Government are not ignoring the issue.
But there is always the question of how you reform the membership of the HOL, or what you replace it with if abolished. Thatâs not so easy. We do need a second chamber to scrutinise and amend legislation so that a deranged government like the last one canât just put through anything they like.
Some sort of elected Second Chamber seems the most likely possibility, but look at what the Senate gets up to in the USA.
Thatâs even worse, at least all those lot havenât been artificially chosen as representatives of a small group of politically inspired charlatans. They have to go of course, they will only vote to protect their stately sheds, but the first to go must be all the rest. Mandelson, Kinnock the Coffee woman. my goodness, the Truss horror will be there next when they realise that no-one will vote for the poor deluded soul any more. 
Some sort of elected Second Chamber seems the most likely possibility, but look at what the Senate gets up to in the USA.
What about the French system? As I understand it they are voted in by all the Maires, who are themselves voted for by councillors, who are themselves voted for by local people. Democracy. 
Sâwrong wi that?
One chamber with proportional representation and the Supreme Court. Job done. Or keep on kickin that can.
Hmm, and who desides who presides on the Supreme Court benches? 
I find it hard to believe that being selected for political reasons is a worse option than being chosen on the basis of which egg you were hatched from.