Hereditary peers' last hurrah as 700-year-old system abolished

[-]

ModernirsmEnjoyer@reddit

This means other than the spiritual lords, everybody else are life peers who are appointed by the prime minister's patronage power.

The irony was the only elected members of the upper chamber were the remaining 92 hereditary peers, as they would vote amongst themselves to elect a replacement to a vacant seat.

Otherwise the House of Lords needs a serious reform. Whether it will be just a chamber of local councils, or some form that can preserve unique character of the House of Lords that contributes meaningfuly to governance even in spite of hostile media coverage, remains to be seen

[-]

bobrobor@reddit

So its a power grab from the old boys network to the new boy network. Let us welcome the new, more PR skilled, overlords. You will toil just as hard under the new leadership but the music will be gayer, mate. “Dance, dance, dance, dance, dance to the radio…”

[-]

RollinThundaga@reddit

Yeah, this just smacks of similar problems to those that we're having on the other side with the US Supreme Court.

Theough strategically timed appointments, a driven minority can gradually sieze control of the body. Watch out for when someone starts refusing to seat nominees because 'it's too close to the election'.

[-]

ModernirsmEnjoyer@reddit

It has been this way since the 19th century, the Prime Minister just lost power to make hereditary peers, but life peers are still around (in fact, the first bill that limited the power of the House of Lords to reject the bill of the Commons was passed with a threat of flooding the House with liberal lords who will then vote to pass it).

The House of Lords has also resisted the Cabinet on mulitple occasions, particularly on bills that don't get covered much in media, and the quality of average lord is probably larger than an MP. Lords are often recruited from barristers, judges, civil servants, civil society leaders, and career diplomats, while an average MP has spent their political life politicking, which means they don't really understand the substance of governance and think more about the bad party on the other side of the aisle

[-]

Squashyhex@reddit

There's an increasingly large cadre of lords who are just career politicians though, as pms hand out lordships as rewards to retiring MPs

[-]

ModernirsmEnjoyer@reddit

Yes, and that's why the house reform is necessary and urgent, to preserve a valuable institution from the negative influence of patronage. A weak and illegitimate but to technically competent upper house will play a better role than an unspecified second chamber that has mandate but not powers to act on it against the Commons

[-]

bobrobor@reddit

Indeed

[-]

decidedlyindecisive@reddit

The spiritual lords need to fucking GO.

[-]

Silver_Middle_7240@reddit

The British aristocracy needs to join the SCA amd have some real fun.

[-]

WiseBelt8935@reddit

what is SCA?

[-]

Silver_Middle_7240@reddit

Historical reactors and roleplayers group, mostly Medieval

[-]

WiseBelt8935@reddit

It’s quite a shame, because hereditary peers were best parts of the House of Lords. They tend to have long standing ties to the country and aren’t aligned with political parties, so they can be less prone to partisanship. They’re also more likely to treat the role as a duty rather than a career move.

By contrast, life peers are often individuals who, by one route or another, have secured a prime minister’s approval for what is effectively a position for life. We’ve even seen very young appointees, which raises questions about experience and merit.

I know people argue that the Lords isn’t democratic and that’s true but not every part of the system needs to be directly elected. The Lords is meant to act as a revising chamber, a check on the Commons. While the Commons is sovereign, the Lords and the monarch exist in part to provide balance and scrutiny

[-]

Muff_in_the_Mule@reddit

My family has just as long standing ties to the country as far as I am aware yet no representation in the House of Lords. Hereditary peers need to go, it's a relic of a class system (that still exists) but which must go if we aspire to be a democratic society.

Life long peers (or long term say 25 years?) non directly elected peers I do actually think can serve a purpose for the reason you describe, freedom to make choices for the country rather than political favour. Does the current system of the PM choosing some of their mates to give peerages need to be reviewed, almost certainly yes, but we can have a non directly elected upper house without also having hereditary peers.

If I were king for a day I would also get rid of the monarchy but that's a rant for another day.

[-]

ModernirsmEnjoyer@reddit

I have talked to two conservative parliamentarians, one MP, and one lord. Guess who left a better impression with thoughtfulness, nuance, and rhetoric.

[-]

dontcallmewinter@reddit

There's simply no excuse to keep such an undemocratic and frankly mediaeval system, especially when the Irish and Australian systems provide such easy blueprints for an actually functional upper house/chamber of review.

Fire every "lord" and make them stand to represent their country, shire or city. But it won't happen because it's the least of the issues with the UK's voting system.

The UK doesn't even have compulsory voting, meaning governments can win power without getting an actual majority of support.

Additionally the UK still uses the least democratic system of voting, first part the post where votes get wasted rather than giving voters the ability to number candidates by preference so their vote is never exhausted. I hope that one day the UK will actually modernise it's voting system and bring it into the 21st century.

[-]

ModernirsmEnjoyer@reddit

The main problem of the UK is that it's not Australia