Your first challenge is, without any written constitution, you are subject to the whims and popular trends without consideration of long-term consequences. This is how a "right" codified in the 1689 Bill of Rights was summarily stripped away from your subjects by the tyranny of the majority. Ironically, the same right continues to be protected in the US by our 2nd Amendment, which originated from your 1689 law. Your second challenge, as far as I can tell as an outside observer, is the UK government has no checks on the majority, no balance to their power. How else can you explain your government signing a treaty in secret to cede sovereign territory without even a vote? If any checks and balances exist, I don't see them working. Finally, I caution you to look at the damage done to the US system by the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). The whole idea of our senate was as a check on and balance for the House subjected to passing fads and trends. Senators represented their states, the only leverage states had over the federal behemoth. Now, elections cost over $100M per candidate, and senators are beholden to mega rich donors who fund the mass marketing campaigns required to win elections. The 17th amendment was an unmitigated disaster that fatally undermined federalism. While the UK is not a federal system, a change to popular vote for Lords will effectively sell government influence and strip non-urban areas of their last vestige of input.
So many that care about this by the numbers in the house
vaccine injury debates would kill for numbers like these
Your first challenge is, without any written constitution, you are subject to the whims and popular trends without consideration of long-term consequences. This is how a "right" codified in the 1689 Bill of Rights was summarily stripped away from your subjects by the tyranny of the majority. Ironically, the same right continues to be protected in the US by our 2nd Amendment, which originated from your 1689 law.
Your second challenge, as far as I can tell as an outside observer, is the UK government has no checks on the majority, no balance to their power. How else can you explain your government signing a treaty in secret to cede sovereign territory without even a vote? If any checks and balances exist, I don't see them working.
Finally, I caution you to look at the damage done to the US system by the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). The whole idea of our senate was as a check on and balance for the House subjected to passing fads and trends. Senators represented their states, the only leverage states had over the federal behemoth. Now, elections cost over $100M per candidate, and senators are beholden to mega rich donors who fund the mass marketing campaigns required to win elections. The 17th amendment was an unmitigated disaster that fatally undermined federalism.
While the UK is not a federal system, a change to popular vote for Lords will effectively sell government influence and strip non-urban areas of their last vestige of input.