Time to abolish The House Of Lords?

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I beg to differ. It is not for the Lords to say what is good or bad law. It is there to make sure laws passed by the elected house will work not to try and chuck them out on a political whim because the HoL happens to have a particular majority.. To scrutinise and ensure practicality is the role of the Lords..

The idea of previous reforms was to rid the Lords of such politicisation and appoint people who were acknowledged as primary in their particular field. That was the principle behind the Blair reforms in 1999. In fact for many years after 1911 this scrutiny was precisely what the old hereditary house was very good at. It was right and proper to rid it of the hereditary principle but successive governments have since thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Many of the “experts” appointed have been no more than axe grinders and/or.friends of the ruling party. It does not always do what it should or what was intended.

We could become unicameral and just do such scrutiny in theory by parliamentary committees of the HoC but these would necessarily be party political and would end up using outside experts ad hoc like Sage or something as daft as that. Also the HoL usefully allows non-controversial bills to be started and debated there for the benefit of of the public and save time in the HoC.

The HoL may indeed reject this bill but it should not do it to make people like John Major or Michael Howard happy. Reasons should not be on such political postures but on issues of fact and legality within the U.K.