Want to know what the TLDR Team think about this issue? We discuss it in the latest episode of our podcast The Big Rissue: ruclips.net/video/1Vp1SClVii4/видео.html
One notices in the report of the TLDR team how pathetically poorly educated these young people are, they have absolutely no idea what federalism means.
The biggest thing I think should be the removal of hereditary positions and include a minimum attendance. This large donor peerage is bad we should have an elected system maybe have categories so we can keep a diverse set of peers from different industries and professions. Potentially a Maximum term could be useful like 20/30 years but the point of peerage or in my opinion is because of a lifetime of excellence in the field or providing great service to society.
I think a council democratic system should work Like the French senate, a tiered system, but like Cuban municipal assemblies, with an imperative mandate and preferably non partisan I think this could be blended with local governments Basically constituents elect parish or county officials to a local assembly who elect to a regional assembly who elect to a national assembly, a 'House of People' as posited by Tony Benn. The way this isn't horribly bureacratic is the opportunity for recall (this is why it's somewhat decentralised, vertical accountability was tried in many countries where regional officials just couldn't get enough signatures to recall leaders because it was all national in scale) Like an employer firing employees, the constituents can tell their delegates to remove those the next level up or face removal themselves.
The House of Lairds and Ladies, then? It could raise billions in revenue, enough to pay for Zoom for the new, largest in the world legislative body. It becomes oddly democratic, then, almost in the style of Swiss referenda. Someone should suggest it on a petition website. :-)
Even if it doesn't work out, there are a number of reforms that would be much easier to implement. A maximum number of Lords, minimum attendance requirement, getting rid of the hereditary positions, stronger scrutiny on who gets peerage, etc. Not every version of reform has to completely demolish the existing system.
here's a concern i have: the House of Lords is able to scrutinise and criticise laws outside of party lines unlike MPs, as they can't be whipped like MPs can, and they scrutinise bills in greater detail and openness than the Commons Select Committees do. replacing the second house with an elected one would make them subject to whips and party obedience - less criticism and experienced scrutiny. also, in america, Congress is constantly in a loop of deadlock when the two houses are controlled by different parties - wouldnt an elected second house create potential for this same deadlock? are these concerns wrong or misguided? i genuinely wish to know, thanks
Ditching First Past the Post voting and adopting proportional representation would transform the Commons. Cooperation would be the path to success...not conflict. New Zealand moved to PR in 1996. Conservatives hate PR because they prefer to dictate rather than cooperate, but everyone else very much likes it. Labour actually passed PR in 1919, but the Lords blocked it. Don't let that happen again
If only the politicians had half the constitutional foresight you have. It's exactly what would happen. It's exactly what would happen. A second chamber exists as a counterweight to the populist excesses of the elected politicians. Even the fact that it is so big isn't that concerning, since it never sits in plenum; each debate is only attended by the lords, who think they might know something about the issue at hand (and they only get pay for the days they attend), so you get experts for almost every field a bill might concern. Here's a crazy idea: how about we don't scrap the Lords, but just change the appointment process. We limit the resignation honours to like 5, and establish several commissions (one for England, Scotland, Wales... etc) composed half of HoL members, and the other half of devolved parliaments members (proportional to the seats they have). And such commissions could then advise the King in appointing new lords. (I'd prefer if they could e.g. suggest 3 candidates and let the King pick one, but I know that's radical stuff for some people)
People should be careful with such a change, the House of Lords is largely powerless, if they were elected more power was expected, and that is a huge change to the political system, so Britain should be careful.
@@davidty2006 And that money can be used on NHS or simply pay back the UK's budget deficit. And come on do you really think nobles will get like, starving?
Lords blocked anti privacy laws. As in the laws were pushed through not enough people tried to protest it and then the house of lords blocked it. The Lord's have done some good.
@Mattimus Smatt Are you sure? In the United States, there have been numerous examples of bills that passed the House, but the Senate either stalled the bill or refused to pass it. The representation structure of the new upper chamber may need to be different if it were to really have much purpose, such as if each ceremonial county got one or two senators, again, much like how each state has two Senators in the United States.
@Mattimus Smatt And I’m saying that not using different schemes for representation like the US or Canada does would mean that the second chamber would serve no purpose. Also, razor-thin margins may have more to do with political polarization and could theoretically happen in any country. There is really no reform short of banning free speech that could get rid of that.
@@aycc-nbh7289 Yes because of the fillerbuster and because if the house is controlled by one party and the senate the other then of course the opposing party is going to block any radical legislation that's what causes gridlock which we are lucky not to have in the uk.
While the house of lords are undemocratic, ironically they seem to be following the will of the people more than the actual representatives in some instances.
I think it comes down to this day and age many people elected have to come off as an extreme. I am here for these policies and nothing else or they are viewed as weak to easy to give in. A member of the House of Lords doesn't need this because they aren't relying on a popularity contest.
The biggest issue with the house of lords for me is being able to buy your way in leading to obvious conflicts of interest. I don't want to see it dissolved I want it reformed.
I mean, after you throw out the people who bought their way in and the people whose great-great-grandparents bought their way in, there's probably not many left.
@@lexslate2476 I don't really care about those so much. A lottery is probably a better system these days but even if you remove all the lords, the house remains.
An independently appointed chamber of experts in all fields would be the best possible outcome imo. Elected politicians are ultimately self-serving and think in electoral cycles rather than long term. Their interests are party/self rather than national. We don't need more politicians. A chamber of experts who are able to scrutinise policy on the basis of the national interest and their own expertise would be far more valuable.
@DoubtingThomas right. We cannot create a system that is guaranteed to produce desired outcomes (or even moral ones), not only is this intractable because desired/morals change over time but virtually any changes can always be theoretically taken over by "bad actors". We can only choose how democratic a system is, and in what ways is it undemocratic
@DoubtingThomas You make a really good point that is worthwhile. My response to that is it would be elected governments on the strength of their manifesto that would continue to make policy. The role of the upper chamber would be to scrutinise on the basis of real experience rather than political ideology. And that there is the advantage of the blend. When political ideology blinds technical experience and competence, things go wrong (ie Truss economic policy). Too much technocracy is undemocratic (ie Brussels impositions on Greek economic policy). The intermix allows for the expression of democratic will interpreted in ways that are technoctatocally sensible
@Goya Kat A good question. It would need to be an independent body, not aligned to any political party or ideology. I expect it would be hard. It would need to be rigorous, but unquestionably far better than the current system of the party in power elevating its grandees
IDK, how I feel about this, in every recent Lords vs Commons debacle the Lords have been the reasonable ones. Its a stupid system. but it works. Id maybe change how lords are appointed, but it shouldnt be scrapped all together
An elected chamber that is also independently able to scrutinise legislation and conduct independent inquiry is essentially an oxymoron. You can't be independent if you have to be concerned about your own electorate, and electability. There's a lot to be said for having people who don't need to concern themselves with popularity make unpopular decisions.
@@Jay_Johnson I don't know, part of the point of actual aristocracy is that you know you're going to be required to study and pass judgement on legislation etc. I knew a hereditary Baron once, he was a great bloke; very thoughtful, open minded, down to earth . His son is in the Lord's now, ex army and very conscientious. The problem with the lords is it's been filled with self interested politicians and industry lick-spittles. I like the idea of a lottery, but sometimes legislation needs a lot of experience to properly review, something tells me a lottery would result in a lot of inexpert people getting into gridlock.
What if we change how they are selected and assign a time limit of a year or so? Perhaps people picked randomly to serve once only and for a set period of time. I like the idea of the politically unaligned second chamber which exists purely to scrutinise laws, but it's a huge indictment of our democracy to have it passed down via heredity
@@laurenceT141 It's interesting you think that this particular aristocrat is representative of them all enough to defend the aristocracy. Yet your view that some individuals may be inexperienced is enough to condemn the public. A lottery is the only way to get a politically independent body. I just prefer an actual lottery as opposed to the lottery of birth.
8 years ago I use to play a UK political RP. Our Labour Party did eventually reform the House of Lords. All Lords were divided up amongst the regions based on population. The 350 House of Lords would run for a single 15 year term by AV+. 1/3 of the Lords was elected every five years. We kept the Lords Spiritual & the Great Officers of State for constitutional reasons relating to the monarchy.
AV+? I haven't seen that term before. I've seen AV used to refer to Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as preferential voting here in Australia), but I haven't seen a '+' tacked on before. Is it another name for Single Transferable Vote (which we use for the Senate in Australia)?
I say scrap the religod Religion cannot be intertwined with politics lest it’s forced onto the populist thorough law and punishment Especially since religion is general has declined in popularity over the past few years
Glad you guys took a closer look at this - I found the topic interesting on the podcast, but the delivery was kind of underwhelming and the topic undersold. Got me looking into it independently, suppose I should be doing that anyhow though heheh. Cheers guys!
I think they should be elected, but not by the general public. They would continue to be specialists, elected by members of their own profession, industry or academic subject. There'd be economists voted for by economists, unions could vote for a member to represent their union, etc
@Merrick King I'd agree with appointment via various methods and voted by their own if the powers of the lords remains the same. We need to be careful if they gain powers. In Hong Kong they created a chunk of seats that are elected by industry and they've basically thwarted democracy as they have the same power to vote as openly elected lawmakers. That's basically stopped the will of the majority ever since Britain designed and left that system. The majority of the "experts" care about profit and side with China. It was basically designed to be a formal collusion of business and government.
I've thought this as well, but maybe they can be mix. Some of the chamber elected from regions, the others selected from professions via a charter or union membership vote. It's important that the Lords isn't replaced with an even more problematic second chamber akin to the US Senate.
The house of lords actually serves a decent function. They can't prevent Commons' decisions, but they *can* delay them. This is actually hugely useful when Commons tries to rush something through that may not have been properly analysed. Lords can bounce it back and actually criticise the decisions of Commons without being asked to resign. Although we elect MPs in Commons, do we really want to give them absolute power to run the country with no body to push back? How much faith do you truly have in Commons?
There are other democratic options. For example, a president of the Republic who is elected by the chamber(s), not by the people directly, who can make sure that what comes out of the chamber(s) is not just populist propaganda. Then again, people vote, so it's kinda their responsibility in the end.
Imo it does not really makes sense. If we don't have much faith about giving power to ppl who are ELECTED, then we should have even less faith in giving power to ppl who are NOT ELECTED.
@@ChristianIce But an elected president still uses his veto in a political way. Approving things he likes, and refusing to sign into law things he doesn't. That's no check at all
House of Lords reform or even abolition is one of those ideas that is both popular, and good in a vacuum, but tbh there will be so many higher priorities for an incoming Labour government that I'm just not sure they will have time to do things like this. Maybe if they win a second parliamentary term it might be more realistic.
@DoubtingThomas I think it's more a case of "this is difficult" rather than "we don't want to do this". Constitutional reform is a pain in the backside; the last time a government tried it, we essentially lost three whole years where parliament could do nothing else but squabble about it.
@DoubtingThomas Well yeah, you've got to be serious about it; but you've also got to be serious about inflation and interest rates and the health service and education and defence and... you can see why this is the sort of "important but not urgent" problem that never gets solved. The HoL is like the cupboards in my office full of old paperwork - I'd like to clear all that stuff out but there's always something that I need to do more promptly that stops me doing it.
@@alexpotts6520 exactly that also it’s not like the House of Lords is useless it could be argued that they just want to abolish it just for not to have it in their heads
A much better solution would be making the lords entirely appointed, and ensuring the independence of the selection committee. That way political appointments and hereditary peers could be removed, and more diverse regions included, without diminishing Commons authority.
@@avalanche816 Yes there are political appointments which are recommended to the committee, I am suggesting a better reform would be removing such nepotism.
Agreed, but I don't see why everyone hates the hereditary peers so much? They represent only ⅛ of the house, so they cannot do much harm, but they can be impartial in their reviews
I think the king should put the lords plus we are in middle of a crisis in all the world autocrats are rising left and right if we continue like this they won’t be a single democracy in the world in a 100 years or less
@@sempersuffragium9951 All lords are life appointed allowing them impartiality. The hereditary peers are an inbuilt , entirely feudal, 1/8 conservative bloc. They have no place in a modern democracy.
I don’t really know much on how the house or lords works but surely the part of being good at scrutinising legislation comes directly from not being elected. As they aren’t fearing for things being unpopular and them losing their jobs and can just focus of what would actually work.
You realise the solution is literally the opposite of having unaccountable and unelected legislators lol? Ensuring elected officials are recallable at the whim of the electors if they do things that they believe they were not elected to do…seems like a better reform, that is literally never talked about by any party
@@HahaDamn You can't be serious here. What you are proposing will result in a government where no one does anything since absolutely any bill has the potential to piss off some people and, therefore, get you recalled.
@@HahaDamn when that’s the case there isn’t much of a point of it. Which is why I’m massively in favour of a different electoral system so we can actually bring in new parties rather than being stuck with two equally awful ones.
Aren't they the only ones who've be holding the Conversatives to account? By stalling legislation that would be damaging to the UK. What are Labour planning?
They place checks and ensure the executive does not have total autocratic control of legislation. They also have specialisms and industry specific insight that the commons do not have. They are very important. I think there could be reform, however, especially with regard to the hereditary aspect. From the lords I’ve met, I have understood that from the 90s house of lords act, many hereditary peers wanted out but they were encouraged to stay by other peers that often chose others over themselves
@@ChristianIceI would argue that a careful balance is needed through a separation of powers within parliament, which is the current Houses system - without the lords, this would be stripped as it’ll be majority rule within commons, which is controlled h the party in power. But in my mostly uneducated opinion, I think people should earn their peerage by presenting a national interest through deed and excellence rather than through career ambition or ‘entitlement’. That’s a change I think would be welcome, albeit practically hard to implement. I don’t know much on the subject, but this is my viewpoint as it currently stands. Open to changing it of course
@@JulianCamu Check and balances are needed, indeed. Here's how it works in other democratic parliamentary republics: First, you have a written Constitution, which is a solid guideline and traces limits to what the Parliament can do. Then, the Parliament elects a President of the Republic, which needs a vast majority, whose role is to check whatever comes out of the Parliament, and rejects anything that doesn't conform with the Constitution. For example, once the COnstitution says that all people must have equal rights and you cannot treat them differently because of sex, gender, race, income, younameit, whenever a law doesn't abide to that principle, it is rejected.
@@ChristianIce You're just describing Italy at this point. And how exactly is a president elected by the parliament meant to represent any kind of check on that parliament. He is just one man, and a politician too, so anything he rejects is likely due to his political leanings. As far as compliance with the constitution is concerned, you have the constitutional court for that
@@sempersuffragium9951 Yes, that's how it works in Italy. That's also why Italy, who has a long experience in populist idiots being elected, was saved by its checks and balances. All Presidents of the Republic in Italy were good guards of the Constitution, none of them pushed for any "agenda". Now, where were the "Lords" during Brexit? Did they stop the suicidal populist agenda?
Someone once said that the advantage of hereditary peers is that the government of the day can't control who the heir will be. The Canadian Senate has a similar problem. 1 suggestion (and not just from me either) is to make appointments by lottery. It could be for a defined time - 3 years maybe - or for life until mandatory retirement.
Better idea that remove it, replace many within it with actual experts on a variety of fields that rotate out on a 4-5 year basis. Basically, if you have the right qualifications (Degrees, PhD's, equivalent years of experience, etc) you can be recommended to a position, with various positions for things like climate science, anthropology, economics, etc.
@DoubtingThomas Yeah, plus a lot of fields disagree with each other. If there were a bias in appointing economists, for example, this chamber of “fair experts” would constantly recommend to scrap business regulation and lower the minimum wage.
The problem with the House of Lords is that it has become a high class retirement home and is too large as has been well documented. At this stage and to get the ball rolling all members should retire at say 75. The UK needs a revising chamber to review the details of government legislation. The current chamber shows that the system is growing out of control Successive Prime Ministers fill the chamber with their mates in politics. All parties are guilty. Problem is will the politicians talk themselves out of a job. I am not holding my breath.
the funny thing is is that a law scrapping the lords would have to be approved by the house of lords, effectively meaning the house of lords would dissolve themselves 💀
@@maxdavis7722 You'll be asking yourself that twice when you read my top level comment on a glaring error in the thumbnail. I seem to be the only person to have remarked on it. (-:
I would suggest that the House of Commons continually requires scrutiny from 'The Other Place' I do however feel that hereditary placement and cronyism need to be removed. It's difficult because I don't trust the HoC to not manipulate the status of the HoL. Maybe the answer is the consider office from people who have served in the honest public interest. The NHS, Military and Teaching professions spring to mind here. Maybe if politics was a duty rather than a career choice?
Not being all democratic is not a synonym for wrong. When a chamber does not have the pressure of the general public, which does not always know or understand the actual policy to make an informed opinion, it can scrutinize, delay and reform legislation based on their professional opinion, not on popular sympathies or voter swings.
In your opinions: Who had the easiest term as Prime minister? By which I mean whose core issue was least impactful / had the fewest big issues to deal with? Boris Johnson had Covid, Theresa May had Brexit, Winston Churchill had World War II. I do not mean who dealt with their issue best, instead retrospectively whose time in office would a prime minster be able to make improvements rather than fix fires?
The problem with the UK system is that every PM is incentivised to stay as long as they have the confidence of the Commons. And they only really lose the confidence of the Commons after either a general election or a leadership election within their own party, and those only get the PM ousted after one or many significant crisis
A perhaps very dumb idea: countries have mandatory military service, what about mandatory parliamentary service as experts? I know, not everybody is a legal expert, but likewise nobody is a solider from the get go, training is part of the service. And, on the matter of law, people without prior knowledge of the law are already doing jury duties anyway, so...
I think this is a genuinely good idea. I would suggest that people who are members of a political party are banned from being selected though. The thing about jury duty is that you are explicitly not meant to consider the law. You are only meant to weigh the evidence. If there is a point of law that must be debated the judge can ask you to leave the court.
Not the Lords, - it's the Commons that needs reform. Should halve the number of MP's. ( Eg our Lower Chamber is roughly twice the size of US with one sixth of population). Reducing size would lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness through attracting high calibre people to get on with the job. Change electoral system to PR with, say, 50 - 60 multi member constituencies.
I started watching tldr right from the beginning, when you were just focusing on brexit. I live in the US. Have very little idea about how the UK system works. But even though I’ve been watching all the political news from this channel I still don’t know what the lords do…. I know you put out a video on it a long time ago, but I’ve forgotten
But the Australian Senate was supposed to be a states house, to represent the states that had given up some of their powers to the new federation. The equivalent for the UK would be to have lords/senators/whatever you want to call them, representing areas like Wales, Yorkshire, East Anglia, West Country, Scotland, etc. However the Australian Senate never worked as a states house, it has always been just another house of parliament, but elected by proportional representation. The UK House of Lords is a genuine house of review with experts in a variety of areas and that would be lost if was replaced by something similar to the Australian Senate.
I've heard suggestions that a reform model could be partially based on geography, as in members are elected by the public from certain areas to represent them ala American Senators, and partially expertise based ala how judges are selected.
I'm going to mention Australia because simply because it's a similar parliamentary sytem but Australia is ranked 9th on the democracy index and the UK is ranked 18th Australia has an elected senate as a second chamber (upper house)where each state gets 12 senators with proportional representation for each state so a minor party with 20% of the votes will still win a seat. This allows the states as entities to have equal representation even if the populations of the states wildly differ. While this isn't great for democracy in a way it does means Melbourne and Sydney can't rule the entire continent helping to keep the Vast continent in sync. It also allows minor parties who can't win a seat with Australians preferential voting system to still have their views expressed and leads to greater scrutiny of bills. So you need the majority of the people and the majority of the States to pass legislation. I don't really know much about the UK's system but I think i could see it helping to keep England Scotland northern Ireland and Wales more in sync, just an idea.
Australia, Canada, the U.S.A., Germany, India, and others are all federal. The U.K. is not. The second chambers of federal systems represent in various ways "states". The U.K. does not have states.
@@JdeBP as I said I don't really understand the UK's system, I wasn't really making a suggestion as more prompting discussion on what the use of a second chamber could be.
I think the problem with that in the UK is the huge population difference between England and the other nations. You couldn't give each one an equal number of Senators because then 14% of the population can outvote the other 86%. There's no way the English public would allow that. You could do it if England is split up into regions, and each one elects an equal number. But the problem with that is the regions are pretty arbitrary as they don't reflect meaningful political boundaries. Some people might not like the fact they get less representation because their county was arbitrarily placed in a region with a high population. And you also still have the problem that people in Scotland, Wales and NI may feel ignored because England as a whole has a significant majority.
@@Psyk60 This is the thing about Australia having two houses the lower house(house of representatives) having one representative per 100,000 voters that represents individuals and the upper house (senate) where each state gets 12 senators. This means Tasmania with 500,000 people and NSW with 8,000,000 both get 12 senators in the upper house. But in the lower house it means Tasmania gets about 5 seats and NSW gets 80 seats. You need a majority of votes in both houses to pass legislation. This helps the country stay in sync without having Tasmania want to break of into its own country. It really helps to slow things down and cause debate because it's extremely hard to gain a majority in both houses which leads to compromise and concessions.
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH Still, I don't think the population of England would accept the other nations effectively having a veto on laws that might be overwhelmingly popular in England, and therefore have clear majority support in the UK as a whole. It's different to Australia where there are states of various different sizes. In the UK there is one "state" which contains the vast majority of the population. There's also the fact that England lacks devolution. So unless that changes, there's no way you could have an upper house where the other nations can easily block legislation that only applies to England.
I feel like the House of Lords (even though the names of the houses imply the opposite) is kind of the voice of the unpoliticised public, since they are not bound by a party or in fear of the next election and therefore are able to speak freely, what is on their mind. It might need a reform, so it is more representative in regards of the regions, etc., but since they are not able to block any law, or have any hard power, it is fitting to their role, that they don't need to be elected.
As a foreigner, I have no clue why you would have a "House of Lords" in 2022 interfering with your democratic process. I'm open to learn though. I may be missing something.
It's just another layer of scrutiny. Just because someone is elected does not mean that their decisions are correct or performed with integrity, so the House of Lords serves as another checkpoint.
Why even a second House? Unicameralism is absolutely fine. Just get rid of the Lords altogether. And of course getting rid of FPTP for House of commons elections is absolutely necessary in this case
The idea is simply to make it resemble other lower chambers of Parliement in the other parliamentary republics ; for example, in France the Senate represents the territorial entities, and it's members are elected by the governing bodies of said entities, which puts an indirect democratic pressure on them, meaning the composition is always different from the National Assembly. They are also very skilled for scrutiny and do a lot of studies, and of course have a say on all legislation (but not the final say)
They are wholly addressing this incorrectly. The Lords should stay because it is a part of our history and works VERY well - the notes on not being geographically representative is stupid because that is not what it is serving to do... it is there to revise proposed legislation, prevent stupid legislation from passing, and be able to contribute according to what they sincerely believe without their positions being under threat 24/7 by their party and cock-sucking the public!!! (Did you know that the Commons tried to pass a bill to ban peaceful protests and the lords stopped it!!) The whole idea of the PM being able to recommend peerages to His Majesty is flawed and ought to be scrapped or drastically reduced in favour of a separate autonomous committee that appoints members according to their knowledge and expertise in their given field. Having the Lords being a meritocratic opposite to the Commons composed of distinguished and meritable individuals is FAR better than this nonsense.
"and be able to contribute according to what they sincerely believe" i mean what if they believe things that drastically go against the public? you could give this as a defense for returning to monarchical rule, the monarch wouldn't have to worry about electability when making choice but the whole problem with unelected governments, and the reason countries like the uk have moved away from them, is they can just ignore what the people want and do what benefits them.
@@Noschool100 Which is why you look at the history and nature of the individual before appointment... obviously. With Boris Johnson he had a history of bullying in school and incessantly lying in his previous jobs and guess what? He lied profusely in his position. Who would have guessed! And on the subject of your point of "they can just do what benefits them" do I really need to point toward the commons? It is no coincidence politicians come in with average wealth and suddenly become wealthy. It is indeed a disadvantage that life servers could simply push their agenda but that has not been the case (majority) since about the 1890's, beforehand being their right to do so for bearing their positions without choice expected to and did ride on the front lines alongside their men into battle. Responsibility and authority are directly linked, when the country is under threat and their heads are the first to be lopped off they have the right to say what is what. And yet the hereditary's are vastly misunderstood. The damn Iron Lady of all people complimented and praised the lords of her time for being insightful and upmost helpful after her time as Prime Minister, how could that be for someone born into power? Because you haven't spared it any thought. I strongly dislike the argument that Hereditary Peers should not be born into power because it wholly ignores the fact that these are people that are born into families that have ruled for generations, that socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, all of whom go through the highest education the UK has to offer whilst growing up surrounded by the finest things in life (making them near impervious to corruption, with money at least. Can't buy someone that has everything) and harbouring a greater sense of duty and purpose to crown and country. Not to mention the fact they are nobles. Nobles mind you simply being people with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature. Polite, reserved, well-mannered are only some of them. I would argue however that having the House of Lords be hereditary (based on automatic right) would be foolish. Having said chamber be meritocratic in its selection (which is practically already the case - think Lord Dan Hannan in politics, Lord Sugar as a businessman, Lord Lewis of Newham etc. Excluding the few instances of PM self-benefit and bias) including people and aristocrats alike if notably distinguished. Anyhow in summary: Don't think that because we preach "democracy this" and "democracy that" it is automatically the best system of government. Because it is flawed more than you or I can know which will be our undoing if we are not careful (China, America, North Korea, Germany WW2). So spare a damn thought and do not base your opinion on the unwitty writings of Hollywood fiction. The government does not need to be representative. It needs to WORK.
@@erica.5620 jesus, you don't need to write a novel, just say " I would support autocracies" and " i think Some people are just born to rule and others are born to serve"
Well consider it done. As also mentioned there are only 92 out of 800-something that are called hereditary. Though the so-called heredittary peers are no longer passed down form paretn to child so they don't have the oppurtunity to hold on to seat in many genrations anymore.
i hope starmer realizes that now is the time to go big & go bold with policy - all out, hammer incessantly & consistently, without tiring or cessation, hound the tories for all they've got. the circumstances for it have never been better, & i'm afraid if the opportunity passes it may not rear its head again for a long, long while.
Think of Lord Chilcott's report - 2.6 millions words, five times as long as war & peace, three times as long as the complete works of Shakespeare. These are dedicated public servants, with more money than they'll ever need, all the top titles and positions in the land... yet, they're motivated by something that i don't possess or understand. An elected member would not have the same level of commitment to the role, and even if they did, their priorities would be re-election
Having a two-chamber system isn’t a dumb idea. Having one of those chambers made up of heriditary nobles and the PM’s personal picks, however, is. Abolish it and replace it with something like the German Bundesraat if you must have two chambers.
Keep it as a chamber of review with maybe some oversight of the commons. The German system is a chamber to represent their states and appointed by the state governments.
In my coutry, Czechia, we have one chamber elected by proportional system (something like the popular vote - each party gets percent of seats proportional to percent of votes) and one by majority system (single seat for each district, it is gained by the person who gets more than 50% votes in the district, in first round everybody compete, in second round only the two with most votes from the first round compete, someting like Senate election in Georgia or president election in France). This system give potential for multiple political parties to exist and they can form various alliances and coalitions.
But how would parties be recognized by the state and how would write-in votes for unknown parties work? And would people rather vote for names or for parties?
I don't want a second, upper chamber full of elected career politicians. I've seen how that goes down in other countries, most notably the US. What I do want is a second, upper chamber of unelected Lords who are capable of scrutinising and criticizing laws without worrying about politics. That being said, I want far fewer of them, around 100-200 for example, and I think they should be appointed by an independent committee of MPs and civil servants and that each member of the lords should be an independent, rather than a party member and they should be salaried, expected to turn up to work everyday and not allowed to have second jobs etc. There are issues with this method, sure, but I don't want another bunch of career politicians. So either get rid of the chamber completely, or do something as I suggested.
I agree, but the issue is the MP's electing them. That brings too much of an opportunity for backhand deals. Civil servants would be better, but the MP's are still their bosses - and so could effectively interfere. I don't have an answer, but for the time being, the monarch remains neutral.
I think having an unelected chamber is quite useful, and there are ways to fix the democratic deficit without making it elected. Reduce the number to 270 peers. Then ask an independent commission to maintain a list of about a 1000 prominent experts in different areas and every time there is a vacancy pick one of them at random for life (or until retirement or impeachment). I’m also against the geographic idea, in the 21st century, geography is not the only way people define themselves. I would say the list should include community leaders, academics, business people, trade unionists, etc. Since appointment is a random process, you won’t be able to guarantee a spot and just by chance you’re probably going to get a pretty good representation. You can even keep the name.
They should be banning all second jobs for MPs and the upper half of local councils. Take a look at Japan where it is illegal for everyone that works for the government or government agencies to have a second job
It needs reforming, in its current form is ridiculous. But it requires debate, we need a 2nd house. Starmer deciding to destroy a 1000 year old institution with out any debate as soon as he comes to power because he thinks he knows better is quite honestly disturbing.
my 2024 vote's definitely going to the Lib Dems cause of Starmer's house of lords reform BS. The tories are too shitty, but labour are massive self righteous hypocrites who haven't remotely convinced me that they'd do a better job...
-"Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others" - Winston Churchill. --- An unelected office prevents people that are power-hungry from simply spouting the biggest whatever the public wants to hear in order to get into it --- Life serving prevents the above, but for remaining. --- Life serving allows for knowledge and wisdom within the office to accumulate, to learn and grow from their experiences as opposed to random newbies coming and going every few years to preach their whatever --- There is a reason that Margaret Thatcher profusely complimented the Lord's when she retired from the Common's on it's wisdom and insight (when it was nearly entirely hereditary). --- Having a position above the PM that does not involve itself in governance, of which the individual occupying said position having trained and garnered knowledge for it their whole life, which has the ability to appoint/remove the Head of Government (the PM always having been an advisor or "helper" in some regard to the monarch, now taking the reigns as the monarch oversees) whom meets and debates with the appointed PM on a weekly based (by the way, might you have heard of EVERY PM not merely complimenting the chats for being 'pleasant', but utmost insightful; offering alternate perspectives. Queen Elisabeth II) whose views and opinions are not tainted by the lust for power, bias of a party, cock-sucking of the public etc. is SUPREMELY BETTER than any alternative. I strongly dislike the argument that Hereditary Peers should not be born into power because it wholly ignores the fact that these are people that are born into families that have ruled for generations, that socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, all of whom go through the highest education the UK has to offer whilst growing up surrounded by the finest things in life (making them near impervious to corruption, with money at least. Can't buy someone that has everything) and harbouring a greater sense of duty and purpose to crown and country. Not to mention the fact they are nobles. Nobles mind you simply being people with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature. Polite, reserved, well-mannered are only some of them. I would argue however that having the House of Lords be hereditary (based on automatic right) would be foolish. Having said chamber be meritocratic in its selection (which is practically already the case - think Lord Dan Hannan in politics, Lord Sugar as a businessman, Lord Lewis of Newham etc. Excluding the few instances of PM self-benefit and bias) including people and aristocrats alike if notably distinguished. Anyhow in summary: Don't think that because we preach "democracy this" and "democracy that" it is automatically the best system of government. Because it is flawed more than you or I can know which will be our undoing if we are not careful (China, America, North Korea, Germany WW2). So spare a damn thought and do not base your opinion on the unwitty writings of Hollywood fiction. The government does not need to be representative. It needs to WORK. If you have any questions or would like clarification I would be happy to entertain you.
If the good scrutiny is coming from no populist pressure, then a reform that makes each member of lord elected and have a life-long term might be a good idea.
Having a chamber with unelected members is obviously an undemocratic remnant of previous political systems, of course it needs to go. But why have two chambers at all? Lots of countries don't.
having the commons as the soul single chamber won't work. Simply because it doesn't represent scotland, wales or ireland that well since the seats are mainly england.
@@davidty2006 Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are small and England is big. They have devolved parliaments for their autonomy, that's not what the House of Lords is for.
@@davidty2006 Well many countries have unevennly dtirtibuted population. So then certain regions will just get fewer seats because less peopel live there. And so many countries would have that flaw with the more urban popolous region are get distributed their share. I don't see an easy fix out of that.
Though I prefer unicameralism, I'd be ok with a second chamber if: 1. They were fully elected. No appointments by the government, no appointments by the church, certainly no hereditary titles. Though experts in advisor roles would be acceptable (as in, they'd be able to join debates but would have no voting power). 2. The elections were spaced out so they wouldn't be in line with commons' elections. This is a bit like the US system where there's elections for various different positions going on every 1-2 years (meaning that the parties wouldn't be able to just pander to the electorate a year before the most important election and proceed to go back on all their promises without huge pushback). Those are just the 2 ideas I can think of right now. Open to discussion, more points and criticism. Edit: You could even make the upper house have a 1 term limit but a longer term than the commons to keep the positives of representatives not having to care about electability without you know... making it a house of _lords_ Athens and Venice used a lottery system (called sortition) from a pool of competent candidates. I'm not sure how popular that would be but it's an interesting thought.
As a person from a country with two elected chambers: There's a real risk of politicising the institution. I would suggest having very long terms (8 years), and relying on partial elections (voting for a quarter of the seats) every two years to provide continuity instead of re-elections. Your house of commons is good at regional representation but lacks proportionality, so make this chamber proportional with poor regional representation. Or if you want a more stable government, flip that around and have the commons provide proportional representation and make the lords into a regional representation body. Consider what the ideal electorate for a more contemplative elective body is - perhaps the people voting should be restricted to those who are local and regional representatives themselves.
I don't like either idea. I want to retain it as a chamber of review. I do want it reformed so it isn't stacked with political and donor appointees. Let them have an extended membership that doesn't get to vote etc but just gets the title and attend functions. But for the actual membership have people that are qualified in various fields. For the transition period they could elect a bunch of the experienced lords so there is institutional memory and experience. I don't really want another co-equal branch of parliament. All that will do is create gridlock. Making it 1/4 each cycle means it could take 32 years to get sufficient majorities in both chambers to change something. That fills me with despair. Most things will get punted on like in the US and left to fester.
I hate false equivalences. No, appointing donors is not an issue for both parties. When Labour does it, it's a scandal. When the Conservatives do it, it's a Wednesday. Labour has a shitton of issues, but this is not one of them.
@@theimperialcactus2359 I don’t think we should abolish the House of Lords. They’re a very important check on our government system, and I fear that having a second elected chambre would just become a second House of Commons. The video brings up some good points against abolishing the House of Lords.
@@veryblocky You can have checks and balances without "lords", like in any other democratic country. The President of the Republic, for example. Also, a second chamber is also usefull to take care about regions instead of the country as a whole, but if becomes redundant, the solution is even easier. Remove it altogether.
If I recall the Irish Senate has "professional constituencies" maybe have a mix of geographical/regional AND professional constituencies. It deals with the democratic deficit AND keeps the expertise for better detailed scrutiny.
One thing that could mitigate the democratic pressure problem is making the chamber single-term, that is, member could serve only one term. Then, no need to worry about reelection. Also, that would renew the chamber often.
You will be glad to learn that there have been people in the U.K. thinking that since before Australia was ... well ... Australia. It was not just a random manifesto pledge in 1910. It was a long standing gripe even then.
@@andrewabel3927 democracy is dying in the world even if the lords are undemocratic it helps to keep what democracy there is they what it’s going democracy will be non existent in 100 years maybe less
It should be reformed but not scrapped. Holy bananas can you imagine the crackpot laws we'd get without the Lords. Like this new one designed to make staring at people a crime punishable with jail time.
Yup ,I agree.The fact that the entire argument about not removing the lords is comically similar to a Yes,Minister episode w the yes and no bs makes it a very dumb defense. When youve got a leech you remove it fast and then you deal w the wounds and patches later.
So that's a technocratic review. Of fine print. Not any higher level. We have lawyers etc review wording technically before it even gets to the commons already.
They are all good policies for a modern democracy. Who the lords are and whether they contribute to society is moot. The mere fact that the house of lord exists creates a hierarchy in society. It's the same reason why the monarchy should be ended. It's a thorn in society for little tourist money.
We have an elected house of lords (eerste kamer) in the netherlands. Members are elected by the provincial parlement members. this indirect election (people vote for provincial parlements) assures the political pressure part as they do not have to run for office themselves by direct election. Off course this works because we have a multi party system, and cities / provinces have a lot of local parties that are not aligned to a national party. this creates some additional seperation
Why not just change it so the Monarch appoints the Lords independently? Give the monarch the power to appoint with the unwritten rule that they only appoint people based of merit and excellence. Then actual experts in education. immigration, government, economics, business and health will scrutinize the legislation made by the peoples representatives to make sure it is actually sensible. There would still be smaller amount of hereditary lords and Lords Temporal and Spiritual. The chamber would largely be a Meritocracy within Parliament without the politics of requiring reelection or government support for higher roles.
Would prefer not abolishing it, but reforming how temporal appointments work. The Lords being unconcerned with their own supposed elections is an advantage, that they don’t have to spew rhetoric like they do in the US. Let the rhetorics stay in the Commons. The Lords do have good reports over the years as well. Though, membership should be brought down and capped.
From an American POV, it seems like the UK government has changed over time by eliminating independent checks against the House of Commons and adding in new checks that are ultimately subservient to the HoC. Replacing the HoL with an elected body would ultimately continue this since the political power emanates from the HoC at all levels of this proposed institution. Regardless, this trend is worrying to me. It seems like the UK is slowly becoming an elected oligarchy, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy it claims to be. In my opinion, the UK needs other sovereign branches of government with teeth to replace what the monarchy once was. Otherwise the HoC will be harder and harder to challenge by the public, which is counter to the spirit of democracy.
The Lords should be split into two: half a nobel style system, with an independent committee appointing members of the public who bring great contributions to society OUTSIDE of politics, and half hereditary (I mean most people don't mind that in the monarchy, am I right).
I’d prefer major reform as opposed to abolition, and for it to remain unelected though under a different system. I’ve drawn up a hypothetical system which would transform the lords both into a body to equally represent the 4 nations of the UK, while also retaining it’s excellent role as a revisory chamber independent of party politics, while removing the cronyism. My hypothetical structure: * 400 total members, appointed for life (enforced retirement age of 80). * 100 appointed by a UK-wide independent commission * 75 appointed by an English independent commission * 75 appointed by a Scottish independent commission * 75 appointed by a Welsh independent commission * 75 appointed by a Northern Irish independent commission * The PM, Leader of the Opposition, devolved First Ministers and opposition leaders, local councils etc. would be able to present lists of recommendations for appointment to their respective commissions, but it would be up to the independent commissions to decide.
How about if the new upper house represented counties and/or constituent countries, similarly to what happens in the U.S. with its senate? North Yorkshire and Greater London, for example, could both have the same number of senators regardless of what happens to either of their populations.
No believe it or not they've blocked a few things over the years which have stopped the government doing stuff they want to do. As a rule that tends to be better for us, the more blockers and technicalities that prohibit the government from doing what they want the better. We want them paralysed as much as possible.
Want to know what the TLDR Team think about this issue? We discuss it in the latest episode of our podcast The Big Rissue: ruclips.net/video/1Vp1SClVii4/видео.html
One notices in the report of the TLDR team how pathetically poorly educated these young people are, they have absolutely no idea what federalism means.
The biggest thing I think should be the removal of hereditary positions and include a minimum attendance. This large donor peerage is bad we should have an elected system maybe have categories so we can keep a diverse set of peers from different industries and professions. Potentially a Maximum term could be useful like 20/30 years but the point of peerage or in my opinion is because of a lifetime of excellence in the field or providing great service to society.
I think a council democratic system should work
Like the French senate, a tiered system, but like Cuban municipal assemblies, with an imperative mandate and preferably non partisan
I think this could be blended with local governments
Basically constituents elect parish or county officials to a local assembly who elect to a regional assembly who elect to a national assembly, a 'House of People' as posited by Tony Benn.
The way this isn't horribly bureacratic is the opportunity for recall (this is why it's somewhat decentralised, vertical accountability was tried in many countries where regional officials just couldn't get enough signatures to recall leaders because it was all national in scale)
Like an employer firing employees, the constituents can tell their delegates to remove those the next level up or face removal themselves.
I think lords should be determined based off whether they payed $50 to an online website for a piece of paper
🤣🤣 good one👍👍
Which isn’t even real😂😂😂
And have to pay extra £20 for a printed copy mailed to you😂
@@shubs463 true! that first $50 doesn't even get you the paper!
The House of Lairds and Ladies, then? It could raise billions in revenue, enough to pay for Zoom for the new, largest in the world legislative body. It becomes oddly democratic, then, almost in the style of Swiss referenda. Someone should suggest it on a petition website. :-)
You are talking about the House of Lairds, though.
Even if it doesn't work out, there are a number of reforms that would be much easier to implement. A maximum number of Lords, minimum attendance requirement, getting rid of the hereditary positions, stronger scrutiny on who gets peerage, etc. Not every version of reform has to completely demolish the existing system.
Also getting rid of the Bishops. Especially now the census reveals most people don't follow their religion.
@Jay Johnson
Are they a material number? Or < dozen out of hundreds plural?
Quite a large minority in the census though.
Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch than fixing a mess
There's already scrutiny. But sometimes the PM (Johnson) just boxes them through. Lebedev Jr. being a good example.
@@nestrior7733 Dunno what planet you live on, but Boris isn't in charge anymore lol. That falls to Rishi
here's a concern i have:
the House of Lords is able to scrutinise and criticise laws outside of party lines unlike MPs, as they can't be whipped like MPs can, and they scrutinise bills in greater detail and openness than the Commons Select Committees do. replacing the second house with an elected one would make them subject to whips and party obedience - less criticism and experienced scrutiny. also, in america, Congress is constantly in a loop of deadlock when the two houses are controlled by different parties - wouldnt an elected second house create potential for this same deadlock?
are these concerns wrong or misguided? i genuinely wish to know, thanks
oh right and they'd likely have to put this to a referendum before they actually do it - god help us
I genuinely don’t think that abolishing the lords is a good idea. Even if labour win, it probably won’t happen
Ditching First Past the Post voting and adopting proportional representation would transform the Commons. Cooperation would be the path to success...not conflict.
New Zealand moved to PR in 1996. Conservatives hate PR because they prefer to dictate rather than cooperate, but everyone else very much likes it.
Labour actually passed PR in 1919, but the Lords blocked it. Don't let that happen again
@SteveWithers But then who would you directly contact if you have any concerns or need help.
If only the politicians had half the constitutional foresight you have. It's exactly what would happen. It's exactly what would happen. A second chamber exists as a counterweight to the populist excesses of the elected politicians. Even the fact that it is so big isn't that concerning, since it never sits in plenum; each debate is only attended by the lords, who think they might know something about the issue at hand (and they only get pay for the days they attend), so you get experts for almost every field a bill might concern.
Here's a crazy idea: how about we don't scrap the Lords, but just change the appointment process. We limit the resignation honours to like 5, and establish several commissions (one for England, Scotland, Wales... etc) composed half of HoL members, and the other half of devolved parliaments members (proportional to the seats they have). And such commissions could then advise the King in appointing new lords. (I'd prefer if they could e.g. suggest 3 candidates and let the King pick one, but I know that's radical stuff for some people)
Even if it isn't massively overhauled, you could still cut the number of lords from 800 to around 100. Would save millions of pounds a year.
People should be careful with such a change, the House of Lords is largely powerless, if they were elected more power was expected, and that is a huge change to the political system, so Britain should be careful.
Hmm thats 700 less people getting expenses,subsidized meals and stable income FOR LIFE.
@@davidty2006 And that money can be used on NHS or simply pay back the UK's budget deficit. And come on do you really think nobles will get like, starving?
Why not just elect them indirectly like India or France's parliament do?
@@davidty2006 yeah… good 😂😂is that supposed to be a bad thing? 😂
Lords blocked anti privacy laws. As in the laws were pushed through not enough people tried to protest it and then the house of lords blocked it. The Lord's have done some good.
But would an elected senate do the same thing?
@Mattimus Smatt Are you sure? In the United States, there have been numerous examples of bills that passed the House, but the Senate either stalled the bill or refused to pass it. The representation structure of the new upper chamber may need to be different if it were to really have much purpose, such as if each ceremonial county got one or two senators, again, much like how each state has two Senators in the United States.
@Mattimus Smatt Each state is also allocated the same number of senators in the United States.
@Mattimus Smatt And I’m saying that not using different schemes for representation like the US or Canada does would mean that the second chamber would serve no purpose.
Also, razor-thin margins may have more to do with political polarization and could theoretically happen in any country. There is really no reform short of banning free speech that could get rid of that.
@@aycc-nbh7289 Yes because of the fillerbuster and because if the house is controlled by one party and the senate the other then of course the opposing party is going to block any radical legislation that's what causes gridlock which we are lucky not to have in the uk.
While the house of lords are undemocratic, ironically they seem to be following the will of the people more than the actual representatives in some instances.
Yeah even the Royals should be brought back into power, because ironically they seem to be following the will of the people more..
@@ameyas7726 The real solution is of course to make Corbyn Lord Protector and let him handle the situation.
Explain
I think it comes down to this day and age many people elected have to come off as an extreme. I am here for these policies and nothing else or they are viewed as weak to easy to give in.
A member of the House of Lords doesn't need this because they aren't relying on a popularity contest.
@@DarkApostleNoek If people had to come off as extreme, Labour wouldn't have axed and sabotage their only radical front figure.
The biggest issue with the house of lords for me is being able to buy your way in leading to obvious conflicts of interest. I don't want to see it dissolved I want it reformed.
I mean, after you throw out the people who bought their way in and the people whose great-great-grandparents bought their way in, there's probably not many left.
@@lexslate2476 I don't really care about those so much. A lottery is probably a better system these days but even if you remove all the lords, the house remains.
thats what labour wants. a lord of your region
How about you pay 5mil to get in the lottery to be in the House of Lords
So this can be random and can make money off of it
@@dogemining8837 ... genius
An independently appointed chamber of experts in all fields would be the best possible outcome imo. Elected politicians are ultimately self-serving and think in electoral cycles rather than long term. Their interests are party/self rather than national. We don't need more politicians. A chamber of experts who are able to scrutinise policy on the basis of the national interest and their own expertise would be far more valuable.
@DoubtingThomas right. We cannot create a system that is guaranteed to produce desired outcomes (or even moral ones), not only is this intractable because desired/morals change over time but virtually any changes can always be theoretically taken over by "bad actors". We can only choose how democratic a system is, and in what ways is it undemocratic
Who will appoint them?
@DoubtingThomas You make a really good point that is worthwhile. My response to that is it would be elected governments on the strength of their manifesto that would continue to make policy. The role of the upper chamber would be to scrutinise on the basis of real experience rather than political ideology.
And that there is the advantage of the blend. When political ideology blinds technical experience and competence, things go wrong (ie Truss economic policy). Too much technocracy is undemocratic (ie Brussels impositions on Greek economic policy). The intermix allows for the expression of democratic will interpreted in ways that are technoctatocally sensible
@Goya Kat A good question. It would need to be an independent body, not aligned to any political party or ideology. I expect it would be hard. It would need to be rigorous, but unquestionably far better than the current system of the party in power elevating its grandees
@@samg7430 and who will appoimt the independent body?
IDK, how I feel about this, in every recent Lords vs Commons debacle the Lords have been the reasonable ones. Its a stupid system. but it works.
Id maybe change how lords are appointed, but it shouldnt be scrapped all together
An elected chamber that is also independently able to scrutinise legislation and conduct independent inquiry is essentially an oxymoron. You can't be independent if you have to be concerned about your own electorate, and electability. There's a lot to be said for having people who don't need to concern themselves with popularity make unpopular decisions.
Yeah but to be fair the current system where it contains theocrats and aristocracy isn't great either. I'd take a lottery to be honest.
@@Jay_Johnson I don't know, part of the point of actual aristocracy is that you know you're going to be required to study and pass judgement on legislation etc. I knew a hereditary Baron once, he was a great bloke; very thoughtful, open minded, down to earth . His son is in the Lord's now, ex army and very conscientious. The problem with the lords is it's been filled with self interested politicians and industry lick-spittles. I like the idea of a lottery, but sometimes legislation needs a lot of experience to properly review, something tells me a lottery would result in a lot of inexpert people getting into gridlock.
What if we change how they are selected and assign a time limit of a year or so? Perhaps people picked randomly to serve once only and for a set period of time.
I like the idea of the politically unaligned second chamber which exists purely to scrutinise laws, but it's a huge indictment of our democracy to have it passed down via heredity
The House of Lords is not independant either. Thats a complete fantasy.
@@laurenceT141 It's interesting you think that this particular aristocrat is representative of them all enough to defend the aristocracy. Yet your view that some individuals may be inexperienced is enough to condemn the public. A lottery is the only way to get a politically independent body. I just prefer an actual lottery as opposed to the lottery of birth.
8 years ago I use to play a UK political RP. Our Labour Party did eventually reform the House of Lords. All Lords were divided up amongst the regions based on population. The 350 House of Lords would run for a single 15 year term by AV+. 1/3 of the Lords was elected every five years. We kept the Lords Spiritual & the Great Officers of State for constitutional reasons relating to the monarchy.
AV+? I haven't seen that term before. I've seen AV used to refer to Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as preferential voting here in Australia), but I haven't seen a '+' tacked on before. Is it another name for Single Transferable Vote (which we use for the Senate in Australia)?
I say scrap the religod
Religion cannot be intertwined with politics lest it’s forced onto the populist thorough law and punishment
Especially since religion is general has declined in popularity over the past few years
Are you as dull now as you were 8 years ago?
Glad you guys took a closer look at this - I found the topic interesting on the podcast, but the delivery was kind of underwhelming and the topic undersold. Got me looking into it independently, suppose I should be doing that anyhow though heheh. Cheers guys!
Got a bit.. the jack show on the podcast, stifled some good breakdown
Starmer is not actually wanting to abolish the House of Lords he wants to restructure it to what he wants it to be
top tier thumbnail
XD ikr
I think they should be elected, but not by the general public. They would continue to be specialists, elected by members of their own profession, industry or academic subject. There'd be economists voted for by economists, unions could vote for a member to represent their union, etc
how about having it be an elected council of representatives of devolved governments.
And turn the commons into the devolved parliament of england.
@@davidty2006 I actually really like that idea, although it would be better if the commons just represented south east.
The idea of the Ancient Greek Democracy where voting isn't based on blood but on intellect
@Merrick King
I'd agree with appointment via various methods and voted by their own if the powers of the lords remains the same. We need to be careful if they gain powers.
In Hong Kong they created a chunk of seats that are elected by industry and they've basically thwarted democracy as they have the same power to vote as openly elected lawmakers. That's basically stopped the will of the majority ever since Britain designed and left that system. The majority of the "experts" care about profit and side with China.
It was basically designed to be a formal collusion of business and government.
I've thought this as well, but maybe they can be mix. Some of the chamber elected from regions, the others selected from professions via a charter or union membership vote. It's important that the Lords isn't replaced with an even more problematic second chamber akin to the US Senate.
The house of lords actually serves a decent function. They can't prevent Commons' decisions, but they *can* delay them. This is actually hugely useful when Commons tries to rush something through that may not have been properly analysed. Lords can bounce it back and actually criticise the decisions of Commons without being asked to resign.
Although we elect MPs in Commons, do we really want to give them absolute power to run the country with no body to push back? How much faith do you truly have in Commons?
There are other democratic options.
For example, a president of the Republic who is elected by the chamber(s), not by the people directly, who can make sure that what comes out of the chamber(s) is not just populist propaganda.
Then again, people vote, so it's kinda their responsibility in the end.
Exactly right. The Lords can make a big deal out of something when parliament tries to sneak things through
Imo it does not really makes sense. If we don't have much faith about giving power to ppl who are ELECTED, then we should have even less faith in giving power to ppl who are NOT ELECTED.
@@seijasukuna3978 Sooo, abolish supreme court?
@@ChristianIce But an elected president still uses his veto in a political way. Approving things he likes, and refusing to sign into law things he doesn't. That's no check at all
House of Lords reform or even abolition is one of those ideas that is both popular, and good in a vacuum, but tbh there will be so many higher priorities for an incoming Labour government that I'm just not sure they will have time to do things like this. Maybe if they win a second parliamentary term it might be more realistic.
We don’t know if they win and even if they do it’s not like they can do much to help the economy they will probably lose the next election
@DoubtingThomas I think it's more a case of "this is difficult" rather than "we don't want to do this". Constitutional reform is a pain in the backside; the last time a government tried it, we essentially lost three whole years where parliament could do nothing else but squabble about it.
@DoubtingThomas Well yeah, you've got to be serious about it; but you've also got to be serious about inflation and interest rates and the health service and education and defence and... you can see why this is the sort of "important but not urgent" problem that never gets solved.
The HoL is like the cupboards in my office full of old paperwork - I'd like to clear all that stuff out but there's always something that I need to do more promptly that stops me doing it.
@@alexpotts6520 exactly that also it’s not like the House of Lords is useless it could be argued that they just want to abolish it just for not to have it in their heads
A much better solution would be making the lords entirely appointed, and ensuring the independence of the selection committee. That way political appointments and hereditary peers could be removed, and more diverse regions included, without diminishing Commons authority.
Michelle Mone was politically appointed. It depends upon who does the appointing.
@@avalanche816 Yes there are political appointments which are recommended to the committee, I am suggesting a better reform would be removing such nepotism.
Agreed, but I don't see why everyone hates the hereditary peers so much? They represent only ⅛ of the house, so they cannot do much harm, but they can be impartial in their reviews
I think the king should put the lords plus we are in middle of a crisis in all the world autocrats are rising left and right if we continue like this they won’t be a single democracy in the world in a 100 years or less
@@sempersuffragium9951 All lords are life appointed allowing them impartiality. The hereditary peers are an inbuilt , entirely feudal, 1/8 conservative bloc. They have no place in a modern democracy.
I don’t really know much on how the house or lords works but surely the part of being good at scrutinising legislation comes directly from not being elected. As they aren’t fearing for things being unpopular and them losing their jobs and can just focus of what would actually work.
You realise the solution is literally the opposite of having unaccountable and unelected legislators lol?
Ensuring elected officials are recallable at the whim of the electors if they do things that they believe they were not elected to do…seems like a better reform, that is literally never talked about by any party
@@HahaDamn You can't be serious here. What you are proposing will result in a government where no one does anything since absolutely any bill has the potential to piss off some people and, therefore, get you recalled.
@@HahaDamn that just sounds like a recipe for people being too scared to do anything unpopular but necessary as they’d immediately get sacked for it.
@@dalorasinum386 lol what is the point of democracy if elected officials are acting against the interests of their constituents?
@@HahaDamn when that’s the case there isn’t much of a point of it. Which is why I’m massively in favour of a different electoral system so we can actually bring in new parties rather than being stuck with two equally awful ones.
Aren't they the only ones who've be holding the Conversatives to account? By stalling legislation that would be damaging to the UK. What are Labour planning?
It might be in the video. Edit: I think I found it at 2:54
They place checks and ensure the executive does not have total autocratic control of legislation. They also have specialisms and industry specific insight that the commons do not have. They are very important. I think there could be reform, however, especially with regard to the hereditary aspect. From the lords I’ve met, I have understood that from the 90s house of lords act, many hereditary peers wanted out but they were encouraged to stay by other peers that often chose others over themselves
Which is an elegant way to say "people are idiots, they vote for idiots, we need an elite of unelected people because they are better than idiots".
@@ChristianIceI would argue that a careful balance is needed through a separation of powers within parliament, which is the current Houses system - without the lords, this would be stripped as it’ll be majority rule within commons, which is controlled h the party in power. But in my mostly uneducated opinion, I think people should earn their peerage by presenting a national interest through deed and excellence rather than through career ambition or ‘entitlement’. That’s a change I think would be welcome, albeit practically hard to implement. I don’t know much on the subject, but this is my viewpoint as it currently stands. Open to changing it of course
@@JulianCamu
Check and balances are needed, indeed.
Here's how it works in other democratic parliamentary republics:
First, you have a written Constitution, which is a solid guideline and traces limits to what the Parliament can do.
Then, the Parliament elects a President of the Republic, which needs a vast majority, whose role is to check whatever comes out of the Parliament, and rejects anything that doesn't conform with the Constitution.
For example, once the COnstitution says that all people must have equal rights and you cannot treat them differently because of sex, gender, race, income, younameit, whenever a law doesn't abide to that principle, it is rejected.
@@ChristianIce You're just describing Italy at this point. And how exactly is a president elected by the parliament meant to represent any kind of check on that parliament. He is just one man, and a politician too, so anything he rejects is likely due to his political leanings. As far as compliance with the constitution is concerned, you have the constitutional court for that
@@sempersuffragium9951
Yes, that's how it works in Italy.
That's also why Italy, who has a long experience in populist idiots being elected, was saved by its checks and balances.
All Presidents of the Republic in Italy were good guards of the Constitution, none of them pushed for any "agenda".
Now, where were the "Lords" during Brexit?
Did they stop the suicidal populist agenda?
Someone once said that the advantage of hereditary peers is that the government of the day can't control who the heir will be. The Canadian Senate has a similar problem. 1 suggestion (and not just from me either) is to make appointments by lottery. It could be for a defined time - 3 years maybe - or for life until mandatory retirement.
Better idea that remove it, replace many within it with actual experts on a variety of fields that rotate out on a 4-5 year basis. Basically, if you have the right qualifications (Degrees, PhD's, equivalent years of experience, etc) you can be recommended to a position, with various positions for things like climate science, anthropology, economics, etc.
@DoubtingThomas Yeah, plus a lot of fields disagree with each other. If there were a bias in appointing economists, for example, this chamber of “fair experts” would constantly recommend to scrap business regulation and lower the minimum wage.
also, this can be exploited depending on who are the people in the committee or body that chooses the ones who go into the house of experts.
Nah , that will be like Functional Constituency in Hong Kong Legco...
And you can see how they fucked up Hong Kong for the past 2 decades.
@@onlineriku7007 So can the current appointment of peerage
@@techyn8502 Ooooh this is so true. It's like the entire "miners vs. environmentalists" argument.
The problem with the House of Lords is that it has become a high class retirement home and is too large as has been well documented. At this stage and to get the ball rolling all members should retire at say 75.
The UK needs a revising chamber to review the details of government legislation. The current chamber shows that the system is growing out of control Successive Prime Ministers fill the chamber with their mates in politics. All parties are guilty.
Problem is will the politicians talk themselves out of a job. I am not holding my breath.
They can make into elected representatives but without party candidates, allowing only independents to become peers
"He dreamt of his reward, a seat in the House of Lords."
the funny thing is is that a law scrapping the lords would have to be approved by the house of lords, effectively meaning the house of lords would dissolve themselves 💀
They could use the Parliament Act
The US senate was suppose to be appointed by the governors or state governments. It was a check on demagoguism and run away spending
"We're neutral, but Big Ben will literally explode if we get rid of the lords"
What?
@@maxdavis7722 He was talking about the Thumbnail.
@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 how did I miss that lol.
@@maxdavis7722 Idk.
I miss stuff Sometimes aswell! :P
@@maxdavis7722 You'll be asking yourself that twice when you read my top level comment on a glaring error in the thumbnail. I seem to be the only person to have remarked on it. (-:
I would suggest that the House of Commons continually requires scrutiny from 'The Other Place' I do however feel that hereditary placement and cronyism need to be removed. It's difficult because I don't trust the HoC to not manipulate the status of the HoL. Maybe the answer is the consider office from people who have served in the honest public interest. The NHS, Military and Teaching professions spring to mind here. Maybe if politics was a duty rather than a career choice?
Have a lottery.
Why are public sector jobs morally superior?
Maybe a bit off topic, but I just saw a kingfisher sitting on the fence of my girlfriends little garden at the canal in the Center of Amsterdam!!!
Not being all democratic is not a synonym for wrong. When a chamber does not have the pressure of the general public, which does not always know or understand the actual policy to make an informed opinion, it can scrutinize, delay and reform legislation based on their professional opinion, not on popular sympathies or voter swings.
In your opinions: Who had the easiest term as Prime minister? By which I mean whose core issue was least impactful / had the fewest big issues to deal with? Boris Johnson had Covid, Theresa May had Brexit, Winston Churchill had World War II. I do not mean who dealt with their issue best, instead retrospectively whose time in office would a prime minster be able to make improvements rather than fix fires?
Definitely Theresa May.
Harold Macmillan - his campaign slogan was "you've never had it so good"
The problem with the UK system is that every PM is incentivised to stay as long as they have the confidence of the Commons. And they only really lose the confidence of the Commons after either a general election or a leadership election within their own party, and those only get the PM ousted after one or many significant crisis
A perhaps very dumb idea: countries have mandatory military service, what about mandatory parliamentary service as experts? I know, not everybody is a legal expert, but likewise nobody is a solider from the get go, training is part of the service. And, on the matter of law, people without prior knowledge of the law are already doing jury duties anyway, so...
An absolute or true Democracy. That's what you're talking about.
I think this is a genuinely good idea. I would suggest that people who are members of a political party are banned from being selected though.
The thing about jury duty is that you are explicitly not meant to consider the law. You are only meant to weigh the evidence. If there is a point of law that must be debated the judge can ask you to leave the court.
Not the Lords, - it's the Commons that needs reform. Should halve the number of MP's. ( Eg our Lower Chamber is roughly twice the size of US with one sixth of population). Reducing size would lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness through attracting high calibre people to get on with the job.
Change electoral system to PR with, say, 50 - 60 multi member constituencies.
I started watching tldr right from the beginning, when you were just focusing on brexit. I live in the US. Have very little idea about how the UK system works. But even though I’ve been watching all the political news from this channel I still don’t know what the lords do…. I know you put out a video on it a long time ago, but I’ve forgotten
but HoL is arguably the institution i trust most now
Look at Australia… we have 2 houses
Edit: we did try to remove it a few times
True, with regards to the states Queensland doesn’t have an upper house, neither does the NT or Canberra
But the Australian Senate was supposed to be a states house, to represent the states that had given up some of their powers to the new federation. The equivalent for the UK would be to have lords/senators/whatever you want to call them, representing areas like Wales, Yorkshire, East Anglia, West Country, Scotland, etc. However the Australian Senate never worked as a states house, it has always been just another house of parliament, but elected by proportional representation. The UK House of Lords is a genuine house of review with experts in a variety of areas and that would be lost if was replaced by something similar to the Australian Senate.
@@Dave_Sisson house of experts lol it is in the Name it is a house of Lords not experts of ex politicians and the Old nobility
@@mikeoxsmal8022 Some appointees are in fact experts in their fields.
They can make it illegal for parties to put through candidates. Only allowing independent candidates to be eligible to become peers
I've heard suggestions that a reform model could be partially based on geography, as in members are elected by the public from certain areas to represent them ala American Senators, and partially expertise based ala how judges are selected.
i never actually exspected to ever hear "throw the baby out with that bath water" i only just heard it resently from muse "will of the people" lol
I think it is weird how the video treated an elected upper house as a novel idea, not as something that exists in many countries already.
No!!! No no no no NO!!!. Some one's got to keep the house of common in check, 'cos they bloody aren't
I think Labour should focus on replacing the First Past the Post system and then look to the House of Lords.
I'm going to mention Australia because simply because it's a similar parliamentary sytem but Australia is ranked 9th on the democracy index and the UK is ranked 18th
Australia has an elected senate as a second chamber (upper house)where each state gets 12 senators with proportional representation for each state so a minor party with 20% of the votes will still win a seat.
This allows the states as entities to have equal representation even if the populations of the states wildly differ. While this isn't great for democracy in a way it does means Melbourne and Sydney can't rule the entire continent helping to keep the Vast continent in sync. It also allows minor parties who can't win a seat with Australians preferential voting system to still have their views expressed and leads to greater scrutiny of bills. So you need the majority of the people and the majority of the States to pass legislation.
I don't really know much about the UK's system but I think i could see it helping to keep England Scotland northern Ireland and Wales more in sync, just an idea.
Australia, Canada, the U.S.A., Germany, India, and others are all federal. The U.K. is not. The second chambers of federal systems represent in various ways "states". The U.K. does not have states.
@@JdeBP as I said I don't really understand the UK's system, I wasn't really making a suggestion as more prompting discussion on what the use of a second chamber could be.
I think the problem with that in the UK is the huge population difference between England and the other nations. You couldn't give each one an equal number of Senators because then 14% of the population can outvote the other 86%. There's no way the English public would allow that.
You could do it if England is split up into regions, and each one elects an equal number. But the problem with that is the regions are pretty arbitrary as they don't reflect meaningful political boundaries. Some people might not like the fact they get less representation because their county was arbitrarily placed in a region with a high population. And you also still have the problem that people in Scotland, Wales and NI may feel ignored because England as a whole has a significant majority.
@@Psyk60 This is the thing about Australia having two houses the lower house(house of representatives) having one representative per 100,000 voters that represents individuals and the upper house (senate) where each state gets 12 senators. This means Tasmania with 500,000 people and NSW with 8,000,000 both get 12 senators in the upper house. But in the lower house it means Tasmania gets about 5 seats and NSW gets 80 seats. You need a majority of votes in both houses to pass legislation. This helps the country stay in sync without having Tasmania want to break of into its own country.
It really helps to slow things down and cause debate because it's extremely hard to gain a majority in both houses which leads to compromise and concessions.
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH Still, I don't think the population of England would accept the other nations effectively having a veto on laws that might be overwhelmingly popular in England, and therefore have clear majority support in the UK as a whole.
It's different to Australia where there are states of various different sizes. In the UK there is one "state" which contains the vast majority of the population.
There's also the fact that England lacks devolution. So unless that changes, there's no way you could have an upper house where the other nations can easily block legislation that only applies to England.
I feel like the House of Lords (even though the names of the houses imply the opposite) is kind of the voice of the unpoliticised public, since they are not bound by a party or in fear of the next election and therefore are able to speak freely, what is on their mind.
It might need a reform, so it is more representative in regards of the regions, etc., but since they are not able to block any law, or have any hard power, it is fitting to their role, that they don't need to be elected.
The fact that one body of government has the power to modify or even eliminate another shows how relatively weak the latter is.
Lords reform without Commons reform is like changing the tyres when the car's on fire.
As a foreigner, I have no clue why you would have a "House of Lords" in 2022 interfering with your democratic process.
I'm open to learn though. I may be missing something.
You almost certainly have unelected figures interview with your country's democratic process as well. Just not with a fancy title.
It's just another layer of scrutiny. Just because someone is elected does not mean that their decisions are correct or performed with integrity, so the House of Lords serves as another checkpoint.
They have people who can cover a role because of their bloodline.
Lords, Queen, Kings, like in Game of Thrones, but in 2022.
Seems to have produced a pretty stable and successful country.
@@danielwebb8402 has it though? Has it really?
Why even a second House? Unicameralism is absolutely fine. Just get rid of the Lords altogether. And of course getting rid of FPTP for House of commons elections is absolutely necessary in this case
Sounds like a great way to carry on with tory policies by wasting time on something no one really cares about.
The idea is simply to make it resemble other lower chambers of Parliement in the other parliamentary republics ; for example, in France the Senate represents the territorial entities, and it's members are elected by the governing bodies of said entities, which puts an indirect democratic pressure on them, meaning the composition is always different from the National Assembly. They are also very skilled for scrutiny and do a lot of studies, and of course have a say on all legislation (but not the final say)
They are wholly addressing this incorrectly. The Lords should stay because it is a part of our history and works VERY well - the notes on not being geographically representative is stupid because that is not what it is serving to do... it is there to revise proposed legislation, prevent stupid legislation from passing, and be able to contribute according to what they sincerely believe without their positions being under threat 24/7 by their party and cock-sucking the public!!!
(Did you know that the Commons tried to pass a bill to ban peaceful protests and the lords stopped it!!)
The whole idea of the PM being able to recommend peerages to His Majesty is flawed and ought to be scrapped or drastically reduced in favour of a separate autonomous committee that appoints members according to their knowledge and expertise in their given field.
Having the Lords being a meritocratic opposite to the Commons composed of distinguished and meritable individuals is FAR better than this nonsense.
"and be able to contribute according to what they sincerely believe" i mean what if they believe things that drastically go against the public? you could give this as a defense for returning to monarchical rule, the monarch wouldn't have to worry about electability when making choice but the whole problem with unelected governments, and the reason countries like the uk have moved away from them, is they can just ignore what the people want and do what benefits them.
@@Noschool100 Which is why you look at the history and nature of the individual before appointment... obviously.
With Boris Johnson he had a history of bullying in school and incessantly lying in his previous jobs and guess what? He lied profusely in his position. Who would have guessed!
And on the subject of your point of "they can just do what benefits them" do I really need to point toward the commons? It is no coincidence politicians come in with average wealth and suddenly become wealthy.
It is indeed a disadvantage that life servers could simply push their agenda but that has not been the case (majority) since about the 1890's, beforehand being their right to do so for bearing their positions without choice expected to and did ride on the front lines alongside their men into battle.
Responsibility and authority are directly linked, when the country is under threat and their heads are the first to be lopped off they have the right to say what is what.
And yet the hereditary's are vastly misunderstood. The damn Iron Lady of all people complimented and praised the lords of her time for being insightful and upmost helpful after her time as Prime Minister, how could that be for someone born into power?
Because you haven't spared it any thought. I strongly dislike the argument that Hereditary Peers should not be born into power because it wholly ignores the fact that these are people that are born into families that have ruled for generations, that socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, all of whom go through the highest education the UK has to offer whilst growing up surrounded by the finest things in life (making them near impervious to corruption, with money at least. Can't buy someone that has everything) and harbouring a greater sense of duty and purpose to crown and country. Not to mention the fact they are nobles.
Nobles mind you simply being people with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature. Polite, reserved, well-mannered are only some of them.
I would argue however that having the House of Lords be hereditary (based on automatic right) would be foolish. Having said chamber be meritocratic in its selection (which is practically already the case - think Lord Dan Hannan in politics, Lord Sugar as a businessman, Lord Lewis of Newham etc. Excluding the few instances of PM self-benefit and bias) including people and aristocrats alike if notably distinguished.
Anyhow in summary: Don't think that because we preach "democracy this" and "democracy that" it is automatically the best system of government. Because it is flawed more than you or I can know which will be our undoing if we are not careful (China, America, North Korea, Germany WW2).
So spare a damn thought and do not base your opinion on the unwitty writings of Hollywood fiction.
The government does not need to be representative. It needs to WORK.
@@erica.5620 jesus, you don't need to write a novel, just say " I would support autocracies" and " i think Some people are just born to rule and others are born to serve"
You know never thought of it that way fair enough tbh
Dam
At least dropping the hereditary part would be a good start…
It went down to 92 back in 1999. Ironically the cronyism complaints are largely about life peers.
Well consider it done. As also mentioned there are only 92 out of 800-something that are called hereditary. Though the so-called heredittary peers are no longer passed down form paretn to child so they don't have the oppurtunity to hold on to seat in many genrations anymore.
i hope starmer realizes that now is the time to go big & go bold with policy - all out, hammer incessantly & consistently, without tiring or cessation, hound the tories for all they've got. the circumstances for it have never been better, & i'm afraid if the opportunity passes it may not rear its head again for a long, long while.
Think of Lord Chilcott's report - 2.6 millions words, five times as long as war & peace, three times as long as the complete works of Shakespeare. These are dedicated public servants, with more money than they'll ever need, all the top titles and positions in the land... yet, they're motivated by something that i don't possess or understand. An elected member would not have the same level of commitment to the role, and even if they did, their priorities would be re-election
What if they could only serve one term? Then they wouldn't care about re-election.
Having a two-chamber system isn’t a dumb idea. Having one of those chambers made up of heriditary nobles and the PM’s personal picks, however, is. Abolish it and replace it with something like the German Bundesraat if you must have two chambers.
Keep it as a chamber of review with maybe some oversight of the commons. The German system is a chamber to represent their states and appointed by the state governments.
The House of Lords is literally the house of reason with regards to new legislation.
In my coutry, Czechia, we have one chamber elected by proportional system (something like the popular vote - each party gets percent of seats proportional to percent of votes) and one by majority system (single seat for each district, it is gained by the person who gets more than 50% votes in the district, in first round everybody compete, in second round only the two with most votes from the first round compete, someting like Senate election in Georgia or president election in France). This system give potential for multiple political parties to exist and they can form various alliances and coalitions.
But how would parties be recognized by the state and how would write-in votes for unknown parties work? And would people rather vote for names or for parties?
Nobody was really sure if he was from the House Of Lords...
I don't want a second, upper chamber full of elected career politicians. I've seen how that goes down in other countries, most notably the US. What I do want is a second, upper chamber of unelected Lords who are capable of scrutinising and criticizing laws without worrying about politics. That being said, I want far fewer of them, around 100-200 for example, and I think they should be appointed by an independent committee of MPs and civil servants and that each member of the lords should be an independent, rather than a party member and they should be salaried, expected to turn up to work everyday and not allowed to have second jobs etc. There are issues with this method, sure, but I don't want another bunch of career politicians. So either get rid of the chamber completely, or do something as I suggested.
I agree, but the issue is the MP's electing them. That brings too much of an opportunity for backhand deals. Civil servants would be better, but the MP's are still their bosses - and so could effectively interfere.
I don't have an answer, but for the time being, the monarch remains neutral.
100-200 really concentrates power.
I think having an unelected chamber is quite useful, and there are ways to fix the democratic deficit without making it elected. Reduce the number to 270 peers. Then ask an independent commission to maintain a list of about a 1000 prominent experts in different areas and every time there is a vacancy pick one of them at random for life (or until retirement or impeachment). I’m also against the geographic idea, in the 21st century, geography is not the only way people define themselves. I would say the list should include community leaders, academics, business people, trade unionists, etc. Since appointment is a random process, you won’t be able to guarantee a spot and just by chance you’re probably going to get a pretty good representation. You can even keep the name.
They should be banning all second jobs for MPs and the upper half of local councils. Take a look at Japan where it is illegal for everyone that works for the government or government agencies to have a second job
And have a commensurate pay rise? Have you seen how the public can't mentally cope that MPs earn more than they personally do.
It’s a brain dump session… they threw spaghetti at the wall to see if there were new ideas to move forward with
It needs reforming, in its current form is ridiculous. But it requires debate, we need a 2nd house. Starmer deciding to destroy a 1000 year old institution with out any debate as soon as he comes to power because he thinks he knows better is quite honestly disturbing.
my 2024 vote's definitely going to the Lib Dems cause of Starmer's house of lords reform BS. The tories are too shitty, but labour are massive self righteous hypocrites who haven't remotely convinced me that they'd do a better job...
-"Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others" - Winston Churchill.
--- An unelected office prevents people that are power-hungry from simply spouting the biggest whatever the public wants to hear in order to get into it
--- Life serving prevents the above, but for remaining.
--- Life serving allows for knowledge and wisdom within the office to accumulate, to learn and grow from their experiences as opposed to random newbies coming and going every few years to preach their whatever
--- There is a reason that Margaret Thatcher profusely complimented the Lord's when she retired from the Common's on it's wisdom and insight (when it was nearly entirely hereditary).
--- Having a position above the PM that does not involve itself in governance, of which the individual occupying said position having trained and garnered knowledge for it their whole life, which has the ability to appoint/remove the Head of Government (the PM always having been an advisor or "helper" in some regard to the monarch, now taking the reigns as the monarch oversees) whom meets and debates with the appointed PM on a weekly based (by the way, might you have heard of EVERY PM not merely complimenting the chats for being 'pleasant', but utmost insightful; offering alternate perspectives. Queen Elisabeth II) whose views and opinions are not tainted by the lust for power, bias of a party, cock-sucking of the public etc. is SUPREMELY BETTER than any alternative.
I strongly dislike the argument that Hereditary Peers should not be born into power because it wholly ignores the fact that these are people that are born into families that have ruled for generations, that socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, all of whom go through the highest education the UK has to offer whilst growing up surrounded by the finest things in life (making them near impervious to corruption, with money at least. Can't buy someone that has everything) and harbouring a greater sense of duty and purpose to crown and country. Not to mention the fact they are nobles.
Nobles mind you simply being people with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature. Polite, reserved, well-mannered are only some of them.
I would argue however that having the House of Lords be hereditary (based on automatic right) would be foolish. Having said chamber be meritocratic in its selection (which is practically already the case - think Lord Dan Hannan in politics, Lord Sugar as a businessman, Lord Lewis of Newham etc. Excluding the few instances of PM self-benefit and bias) including people and aristocrats alike if notably distinguished.
Anyhow in summary: Don't think that because we preach "democracy this" and "democracy that" it is automatically the best system of government. Because it is flawed more than you or I can know which will be our undoing if we are not careful (China, America, North Korea, Germany WW2).
So spare a damn thought and do not base your opinion on the unwitty writings of Hollywood fiction.
The government does not need to be representative. It needs to WORK.
If you have any questions or would like clarification I would be happy to entertain you.
Agree
If the good scrutiny is coming from no populist pressure, then a reform that makes each member of lord elected and have a life-long term might be a good idea.
Or have selection by lottery
Having a chamber with unelected members is obviously an undemocratic remnant of previous political systems, of course it needs to go. But why have two chambers at all? Lots of countries don't.
having the commons as the soul single chamber won't work.
Simply because it doesn't represent scotland, wales or ireland that well since the seats are mainly england.
@@davidty2006
How many more times should Jane in Swansea vote count than Jane in Ipswich?
@@davidty2006 Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are small and England is big. They have devolved parliaments for their autonomy, that's not what the House of Lords is for.
@@davidty2006 Well many countries have unevennly dtirtibuted population. So then certain regions will just get fewer seats because less peopel live there. And so many countries would have that flaw with the more urban popolous region are get distributed their share. I don't see an easy fix out of that.
Though I prefer unicameralism, I'd be ok with a second chamber if:
1. They were fully elected. No appointments by the government, no appointments by the church, certainly no hereditary titles. Though experts in advisor roles would be acceptable (as in, they'd be able to join debates but would have no voting power).
2. The elections were spaced out so they wouldn't be in line with commons' elections. This is a bit like the US system where there's elections for various different positions going on every 1-2 years (meaning that the parties wouldn't be able to just pander to the electorate a year before the most important election and proceed to go back on all their promises without huge pushback).
Those are just the 2 ideas I can think of right now. Open to discussion, more points and criticism.
Edit: You could even make the upper house have a 1 term limit but a longer term than the commons to keep the positives of representatives not having to care about electability without you know... making it a house of _lords_
Athens and Venice used a lottery system (called sortition) from a pool of competent candidates. I'm not sure how popular that would be but it's an interesting thought.
The House of Lords is 800 years old. To get rid of it would be a serious historical milestone
As a person from a country with two elected chambers:
There's a real risk of politicising the institution. I would suggest having very long terms (8 years), and relying on partial elections (voting for a quarter of the seats) every two years to provide continuity instead of re-elections. Your house of commons is good at regional representation but lacks proportionality, so make this chamber proportional with poor regional representation. Or if you want a more stable government, flip that around and have the commons provide proportional representation and make the lords into a regional representation body.
Consider what the ideal electorate for a more contemplative elective body is - perhaps the people voting should be restricted to those who are local and regional representatives themselves.
I don't like either idea. I want to retain it as a chamber of review. I do want it reformed so it isn't stacked with political and donor appointees. Let them have an extended membership that doesn't get to vote etc but just gets the title and attend functions. But for the actual membership have people that are qualified in various fields.
For the transition period they could elect a bunch of the experienced lords so there is institutional memory and experience.
I don't really want another co-equal branch of parliament. All that will do is create gridlock. Making it 1/4 each cycle means it could take 32 years to get sufficient majorities in both chambers to change something. That fills me with despair. Most things will get punted on like in the US and left to fester.
Good luck with your channel.
Don’t forget to add a little indent at Pondichéry and Gao since these were not part of the British Raj.
I hate false equivalences. No, appointing donors is not an issue for both parties. When Labour does it, it's a scandal. When the Conservatives do it, it's a Wednesday. Labour has a shitton of issues, but this is not one of them.
No
Wdym no?
Why?
@@theimperialcactus2359 I don’t think we should abolish the House of Lords. They’re a very important check on our government system, and I fear that having a second elected chambre would just become a second House of Commons.
The video brings up some good points against abolishing the House of Lords.
@@veryblocky
You can have checks and balances without "lords", like in any other democratic country.
The President of the Republic, for example.
Also, a second chamber is also usefull to take care about regions instead of the country as a whole, but if becomes redundant, the solution is even easier.
Remove it altogether.
@@veryblocky who said we needed a second house tho? In my opinion all we rlly need is one house by the ppl and for the ppl.
If I recall the Irish Senate has "professional constituencies" maybe have a mix of geographical/regional AND professional constituencies. It deals with the democratic deficit AND keeps the expertise for better detailed scrutiny.
One thing that could mitigate the democratic pressure problem is making the chamber single-term, that is, member could serve only one term. Then, no need to worry about reelection. Also, that would renew the chamber often.
As an Australian, I see the the house of lords as... well... stupid, and un- democratic
You will be glad to learn that there have been people in the U.K. thinking that since before Australia was ... well ... Australia. It was not just a random manifesto pledge in 1910. It was a long standing gripe even then.
Yes not a whole democracy as long as there is an unelected upper house
You do know that the democratically elected commons can simply ignore the lords whenever they want right?
@@xleplex7070 Yes I am aware of that. I do stand by my original statement.
@@andrewabel3927 democracy is dying in the world even if the lords are undemocratic it helps to keep what democracy there is they what it’s going democracy will be non existent in 100 years maybe less
It should be reformed but not scrapped. Holy bananas can you imagine the crackpot laws we'd get without the Lords. Like this new one designed to make staring at people a crime punishable with jail time.
Could you do another video of the rest of the content in the document??
Abolish it. You could easily hire a committee of lawyers and judges to review laws before they are passed.
Yup ,I agree.The fact that the entire argument about not removing the lords is comically similar to a Yes,Minister episode w the yes and no bs makes it a very dumb defense.
When youve got a leech you remove it fast and then you deal w the wounds and patches later.
So that's a technocratic review. Of fine print.
Not any higher level.
We have lawyers etc review wording technically before it even gets to the commons already.
@@TheSUGA1202
But if you've had the leach for centuries and you are still alive and well.
If you do repeal it, what happens to the Privy Council for countries that still use it?
sortition should be looked as either a way to choose members of an improved house of lords or for a new senate.
They are all good policies for a modern democracy. Who the lords are and whether they contribute to society is moot. The mere fact that the house of lord exists creates a hierarchy in society. It's the same reason why the monarchy should be ended. It's a thorn in society for little tourist money.
It’s one of the these things that sounds good on paper but will have to be implemented with a solid plan
What if Labour elected the 181 district councillor's? They wont have as much democratic pressure, they will be representative etc?
We have an elected house of lords (eerste kamer) in the netherlands.
Members are elected by the provincial parlement members. this indirect election (people vote for provincial parlements) assures the political pressure part as they do not have to run for office themselves by direct election.
Off course this works because we have a multi party system, and cities / provinces have a lot of local parties that are not aligned to a national party. this creates some additional seperation
Merry Christmas
Why not just change it so the Monarch appoints the Lords independently?
Give the monarch the power to appoint with the unwritten rule that they only appoint people based of merit and excellence.
Then actual experts in education. immigration, government, economics, business and health will scrutinize the legislation made by the peoples representatives to make sure it is actually sensible.
There would still be smaller amount of hereditary lords and Lords Temporal and Spiritual.
The chamber would largely be a Meritocracy within Parliament without the politics of requiring reelection or government support for higher roles.
Would prefer not abolishing it, but reforming how temporal appointments work. The Lords being unconcerned with their own supposed elections is an advantage, that they don’t have to spew rhetoric like they do in the US. Let the rhetorics stay in the Commons. The Lords do have good reports over the years as well. Though, membership should be brought down and capped.
From an American POV, it seems like the UK government has changed over time by eliminating independent checks against the House of Commons and adding in new checks that are ultimately subservient to the HoC. Replacing the HoL with an elected body would ultimately continue this since the political power emanates from the HoC at all levels of this proposed institution.
Regardless, this trend is worrying to me. It seems like the UK is slowly becoming an elected oligarchy, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy it claims to be. In my opinion, the UK needs other sovereign branches of government with teeth to replace what the monarchy once was. Otherwise the HoC will be harder and harder to challenge by the public, which is counter to the spirit of democracy.
The Lords should be split into two: half a nobel style system, with an independent committee appointing members of the public who bring great contributions to society OUTSIDE of politics, and half hereditary (I mean most people don't mind that in the monarchy, am I right).
I’d prefer major reform as opposed to abolition, and for it to remain unelected though under a different system. I’ve drawn up a hypothetical system which would transform the lords both into a body to equally represent the 4 nations of the UK, while also retaining it’s excellent role as a revisory chamber independent of party politics, while removing the cronyism.
My hypothetical structure:
* 400 total members, appointed for life (enforced retirement age of 80).
* 100 appointed by a UK-wide independent commission
* 75 appointed by an English independent commission
* 75 appointed by a Scottish independent commission
* 75 appointed by a Welsh independent commission
* 75 appointed by a Northern Irish independent commission
* The PM, Leader of the Opposition, devolved First Ministers and opposition leaders, local councils etc. would be able to present lists of recommendations for appointment to their respective commissions, but it would be up to the independent commissions to decide.
Wait a second.. Outside public scrutiny, high levels of expertise, the size of a Chinese house.. Is this accidentally a technocratic institution?
You should have ad Established Titles sponsor this! would have been funny xD
How about if the new upper house represented counties and/or constituent countries, similarly to what happens in the U.S. with its senate? North Yorkshire and Greater London, for example, could both have the same number of senators regardless of what happens to either of their populations.
No. A body to keep the Gov in check is needed more than ever. Revise it but don't scrap it.
Replace it with the Senate.
No believe it or not they've blocked a few things over the years which have stopped the government doing stuff they want to do. As a rule that tends to be better for us, the more blockers and technicalities that prohibit the government from doing what they want the better. We want them paralysed as much as possible.
There should be a buffer between government decisions and the people it affects. But not how it is now. Why not run it like jury duty.