@@visigoth3696 i wouldnt want it, too much attention, and responsibility Id rather stay in military And it's easier to act on things as normal person, if your a monarch you cant just say stuf or do stuff but being someone from common lineage you can volunteer to help others Ive seen my fair share of stupidity of those in power, so yeah, call me simple minded but id rather be in a place where i can actively help those around me Ahahaha
Our highest court isn't even elected...lol and that impacts everything perpetually. I would dare imagine that most Lords are conservatives though regardless of not having a political party although many lords are innately eccentric and liberal so its really a luck of the draw in that regard.
I was hoping to hear more a discussion on the House Of Lords role and how it impacts our lives, as opposed to just ‘it can be a hereditary role and some people have spent £200 on a chauffeur’
Also to say "most of the parliament is not elected" is just trying to be inflammatory. Its 750 Lords to 650 MPs. The Lords don't have much power to make or stop laws, they simply exist as a higher house to hold the democratic process to account and to insure a tyrannical majority party in the House of Commons doesn't make laws contrary to the core constitutional rights of the UK. The Lords don't spend their days just coming up with new laws on their own initiative - they safeguard the UK's most vital and core ideals.
Compare a Lords pay to a standard politicians from the commons, and you will care even less how much money they spend. They get sweet F all in comparison. A lord will get £66,000 if the attend ever session they only get payed on the days they attend, an back bench MP gets £82,000 even if they don't attend session. (Most hereditory Lords couldn't be bothered to attend) only bothering to attend for the most important Bills, however politically appointed Lords go to every session.
The House of Lords really shouldn't do much other than being a rubber stamp group that can only block a bill twice and give recommendations that can be completely ignored by the house of commons. If I am remembering correctly, the only bills they can block from the House of Commons is any plans to delay any elections by parties trying to move away from democracy using the democartic system.
When someone is not afraid of being replaced in 5 years, they can have the power to lookout for their country, take decisions that may not benefit soon. I think this is the picture this clip missed.
@@akhilsharma20 In ddition if those elites are sustained by the nation being independent and strong they should always vote in favour of the nation. If however the nation is weak and their positions are threatened they will invariably vote to protect themselves and align themselves with whatever power best does that even if it is foreign.
Firstly, the House of Lords really doesn't have the power to stop a law, they mainly act as an advisory board to the House of Commons. They can delay laws, but not the ones in the winning party's manifesto... So really, they don't have that much power as this video made it look like. However, what the House of Lords does very well is "balancing" against the problems that may occur with democratic systems. One of the biggest problems of every democracy is that the MPs are usually experts in politics, but aren't really experts in much else. They're not economists, lawyers, businessmen, sociologists or urban planners, they are usually just experts in making people vote for them, they're simply salesmen. Yet, they make the most important decisions that need the most advanced level of general knowledge. So do we really want another house of ignorant salespeople who mainly just think about getting voted? The idea of the House of Lords is to balance the democratic aspect, having its pros and cons, with a council of experts, not of elected salesmen, but people with senior experience in various fields. Now, I agree that your dad being a Baron doesn't really make you an expert. So rather than making the House of Lords elected, they should include more members appointed for their skills, the top people in each career, like they did with Andrew Lloyd Webber. That would make much more sense.
Historically, being a Baron would have made you an expert, you'd have had a higher quality education, be in charge of land and large amounts of wealth and business. Most likely would have seen military service and have experience commanding a sizable force or a fort. They'd have likely had a role in a colonial administration. Hereditary Lords were raised form birth for the role.
Wow. That geniunely sounds like the best solution* for politicians being closer to celebrities than well-informed, generally educated and respectable people. There's only 2 problems I see with this. First, the House of Lords (In this scenario) might become an even larger conservative party - in terms of sticking to what they know works, and not really caring about anything that might improve that. Secondly, the House of Commons can still just not care for the House of Lords, as they are a purely advisory institution (maybe giving them some power might help?). Nevertheless, being wholely an advisory body, their input would be really important.
Funny yes.As an Irishman,I ask why an English peer could have a seat in the English parliament when Limerick is a city in a foreign country,the Irish republic.There is no earl of Calais even though this French city was under English rule for centuries.
When I first saw it I blinked. Although it was impressively succinct. I thought it was a gimmick. Not from the Earl of Limerick. And now I quite like it I think.
@@jameskingston3058 In contrast to peers of Scotland, no person holding titles only in the peerage of Ireland has ever been allowed a seat in the UK House of Lords (unless he were specially selected as a representative peer, beginning in 1800, by his fellows in the Irish nobility). However, should a peer of Ireland also hold a title in the peerages of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom (and beginning in 1963, the peerage of Scotland), then that peer was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, until the 1999 reform revoked the automatic right of anyone to be seated as a Lord by virtue of any hereditary title. Hereditary peers remain eligible for the House if duly appointed by correct parliamentary procedure, and hereditary peers holding life peerages are guaranteed to be seated in the House (pending any retirement from that advisory body). As the Earl of Limerick also bears a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, that of Baron Foxford, he is eligible to be appointed to a seat in the House of Lords, hence the application that is briefly discussed in the clip.
Failed to mention that the House of Commons which is wholly elected can reject any motion that the House of Lords proposes. The House of Lords is simply advisory and has no power.
@@fil_britbunnyboi872 I don't *think* they can actually veto laws. AFAIK They can reject them and send them back to the House of Commons, but there's a limit to how many times they can do it.
@@fil_britbunnyboi872 The Lords can’t veto laws, they can make amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject. If neither House can agree, the commons has the final say.
It’s funny because the charges against the baroness were so silly when she actually broke it down that, while we can all agree the House of Lords is a bad concept, it made the video come off as a cheap political hit job.
As I have understood they don´t come up with laws or have the ability to stop something that the commons have voted on. They review the text and propose changes and/or send the bill back to the commons. They can delay something but not stop. Feels like people might watch this and going away with the belief they have more power than they actually have. It should be changed but it's not like it's a democratic disaster atm.
They can introduce legislation, but yes the commons always has the final say. Personally I like having an appointed upper chamber - I don't think the hereditaries or bishops should be in there (or rather, they shouldn't automatically get seats, although I have no problem with people who happen to be hereditary peers or bishops if they earn it, but its nice to have people involved in the parliamentary process who aren't obsessed with PR, many of whom actually have some expertise in fields other than politics.
@@monkeymox2544 pr...or the public...or who cares what the public think of their decisions....being accountable comes with almost every job in the world apart from the lord's.
@@monkeymox2544 the hereditaries & bishops _don't_ automatically get seats, 92 seats are _available_ for hereditaries & I think 26 _available_ for bishops. The hereditaries are _elected_ from a pool of 810 Peers of the Realm & bishops from however many thousands of the Church of England & if enough aren't elected the seats aren't filled (I don't think it's happened for long but it's theoretically possible). They're all there on merit.
@@alanhat5252 Yes I understand that the hereditaries are elected from a pool, I just don't think they should be. Bloodline shouldn't come into it at all, in the slightest. And to say they're there on merit is a bit of a stretch - they're elected by the other hereditary peers! If we're going to have an unelected chamber it should completely be appointed, with no seats reserved for hereditary peers at all. Again, I've no problem with people who have titles being in the house, as long as they get there by the same method as the other members.
The House Of Lords Act (1999) made it so that only 92 hereditary Peers were allowed to remain in the Lords on a temporary basis until "second stage" proposals were agreed. Therefore out of the 788 sitting members only 92 inherited their place. Other sitting members of The House Of Lords are specialists in their field so that they can give their expert opinion on bills (draft laws) that have been brought forward by The House Of Commons.
Many life peers were just simply chums with the PM of that time. Think there needs to be a reform in the Life Peerages Act 1958 as many of these 'experts' becoming a life peer is just blatant nepotism.
@@danielkrcmar5395 agreed, the Lords should be just that Lords. People who have a an excellent motivation in preserving the system because they benefit greatly from it. The house of Lords came about by convention because it just works, tacking "democracy" onto it only breaks it. Experts and political appointees are not Lords and are no better than the MPs that put them there.
I am from Venezuela, a country where politics is pretty much a chaos. I wish we had some people reviewing the public policies and laws regardless of their political identity.
Except they don't review the la s, they simply rubber stamp badly written, written in self-interest by lawyers for the benefit of rich lawyers - their friends/neighbours/colleagues mostly. None of them have a shred of integrity...most are pretty dim in the head imo
I'm not a big fan of the house of lords but this is so clearly bias it's repulsive, and they clearly entrapped that peer absolutely disgusting practice and I would have expected better from channel 4
Good journalism is when you soft ball questions that don't hold people accountable. Make sure you tell the interviewee all the questions in advance so they have a chance to say no or create spin in advance. I agree this is a one sided video, but to complain about "entrapping" this peer makes it clear you have your own bias about who deserves to be treated with unearned respect.
I don’t know where this obsession over total democracy comes from. The House of Lords is a great example of how much work can be done when you don’t have to focus on winning elections every four years. Total democracy would require each citizen to know exactly what’s best for themselves and the rest of society, which is simply not possible.
@@afgor1088 allowed to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days, halted the tax credit fiasco and came up with the dormant cash act to name a few. They are the unsung heroes in a lot of cases
@@zeroroninoh it works though, it has worked many times throughout history. One of the main arguments liberals used in the late 18th to early 20th century for implementing representative democracy that democracy endows the average man with an interest in political matters, and thus reduces the tendency for ignorance. However, by having representatives, people give away this endowment and remain relatively ignorant as they are not required to think through complex political and economic questions. Total, or direct, democracy ensures people have to take an interest in politics, and thus reduces ignorance, a pattern seen throughout history. Apply this to the workplace in abolishing capitalism, and suddenly we have a truly democratic society.
The fact that they arnt elected actually makes them more morally sound than regular members of parliament. The house of lords is an important regulantory body for the government that is now almost impossible to replace. In principle it doesn't make sense but in real life I am am glad it still exists.
For a program called “FactCheck”, this used some of the most weighted language and had some of the clearest bias I have seen from any Channel 4 content.
I think the lords are fine so long as they're picked based on merit, rather than by donations to political parties. They should be nominated based on a third party non-political body, picking the best economists, scientists, businessmen, environmentalists, etc.
there is a third-party body currently, but the PM has the ability to overrule and ignore it - and does. More generally, it's a nice idea but who decides which experts and what balance? Tories would push for more businessmen, Labour for more environmentalists, etc. Once elections are removed as a check on power and these decisions are made behind closed doors, corruption flourishes. I think each party should put forward their best selection of experts - in a party list, and people can vote on which list they like best. There could be a list for the current unaligned peers as well, and we could see how well they'd do, judged on their merits.
@@brunobarton-singer9622 you can't have experts on specific things making decisions about hundreds of diffrent topics. For example an expert on environmental living might vote to pass a law pass a law where every new house must have solar Panels then there is no affordable housing. And if there is a financial expert they may never agree with them. You need people who know bits about everything but have what is best for there constituents in mind, that way they can consult bodys of experts ( which also eliminates the individual biases one expert might have.)
@@inanis9801 so are you saying, abolish the lords entirely? I think that's also a reasonable position. My point is just that if you like the idea of a second house which is a bit more long-term and focused on expertise, the current system isn't that and I was suggesting an alternative. I think there's nothing wrong with experts in particular topics in the commons or the lords, I just think it should ultimately be up to voters
Not only that, it would actually make it harder for the Lords to do its job. They're supposed to be scrutinising legislation, which will sometimes entail doing something deeply unpopular. However their job isn't to be electable or even liked. They're job is to make sure legislation that ends up on the Queen's desk is robust and effective. That's not to say the Lords isn't due some reform. I'd like to see a few more Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, etc. People with decades of experience and are well-respected in their fields. There's far too many former politicians. But they shouldn't be elected.
@@sivaprasadv77 majority of the countries in the world already uses this system. Unitary or federal, it doesnt matter. It IS easy if they actually wanted to do it
The cut at 8:40 is classical example of media manipulation. While he is asking the question, they jumpcut to some other footage where she looks "scared" by the said question and jump back to original cut when she starts talking. Look at the top left of her head and notice the hair.
This cack-handled piece completely fails to address the fact the Lords have EXTREMELY limited powers. I’m a liberal, I believe in democracy, and I believe we need the House of Lords to act as a mature, conscientious second house. Hereditary peers are a minority- most are appointed for their specialism or excellent track records.
@@ince55ant Yup, it’s the illusion of democracy. Then again, democracy has always been easily manipulated and corrupted. It’s why many of the founding fathers despised a democracy and went with a constitutional republic.
You can run independent. But the only independents that seem to get elected are former party members that was booted by their local party council but successfully ran as an independent
The Lords exists for a very simple reason. Despite most of Britain (myself included) hating the idea of an unelected house The lords somehow seems to work out as a better representation of public will than the commons.
@@9grand as one of the lords said, they don't have to worry about elections, so they don't worry about pleasing a very select group of people, they are free to think of the big picture
@@9grand that would be the case, but the difference is the lords do not have the power to create or repeal laws on their own. They have to work through the house of commons
The whole issue is accountability. Doesn't matter how someone came into power, if they're unaccountable for anything that they do, then they're dangerous. Everyone knows that power corrupts.
@@Tattletale97 What are you a poet... People doesn't have true color they have character and it may differ depending on the environment they've grew up. There's no people walking around with a stable color inside and that's a racist😂😂
"balanced"?!? when the whole show was about one eighth of the Chamber & spent no more than seconds on what the Chamber actually does? No, this was about ratings not about facts
@@manuelolaya3194 yes, by the very definition they are not intended to be public servants - that would be a rePUBLIC. As Gt.Britain is a monarchy, it is obviously under the rule and in the possession of feudal lords.
£200 is lavish expenses for a politician. Hahahahahahahahaha, that is literally the most insignificant amount a politician has ever spent. Imagine being outed for £200 while you are most likely partly responsible for thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted.
The House of Lords cannot veto legislation. It can offer amendments and propose legislation that may be difficult for an elected member of Commons to offer.
seems like an interesting and perhaps effective concept to have a portion of the government not having to worry about elections which can actually enact long term ideas and changes instead of the more short term focused elected officials which every democracy are going to begin to crack under the pressure of, just for the fact that it seems like everyone in the world has decided at the same time to deficit spend all the time, til the end of time, because that spending helps the boys stay elected. especially when these sort of non term based officials are largely used in a regulatory and accountability position.
That's actually really good, I wish we had the same in France. Because they are not submitted to short term populist considerations to get reelected. They are the backbone of the political system as they can think long term without thinking about how popular they are. The issue of representativity is important though, so that the lords even though they might be elected for life should represent to some extent society at large, with notables from different religious and ethnic backgrounds.
You have the same in France, the Senate is just as undemocratic, except for the 92 hereditary peers, which like you saw in the video, not even the benefitted support
@@arthurcaron9453 What are you on about? Members of the French Senate are elected for 6 years. The House of Lords, they are appointed or inherit their seats for life. This is the antithesis of democracy.
In general they do, simply because the overwhelming majority are appointed and generally get appointed by different governments over time, although obviously you have to have done something pretty remarkable in life to get appointed there's a good mix.
I honestly think the Italian Senate is the best idea for an Upper House: people who have accomplished something, who are seen as competent in their field, are appointed by the president with the consent of the Lower house. A house composed of people who have already proven themselves competent and have been endorsed by elected officials seems like a good idea.
I correct you: these are senators appointed for life. The Italian Senate is elected in general elections of the Parliament. The President of the Republic can appoint up to 5 Senators, that aren't part of political parties, for specific merits towards science, politics, society or something else. They are appointed for life and they can resign when they want.
Since the Lords are appointed by the King "under the advice of his government" that basically means that nobody is going to get a new peerage who hasn't already been accepted by the elected leadership of the majority of the elected House.
That is the House of Lord's. Most lords are not hereditary, but life peers (they only keep their peerage for life and cannot be inherited). Parliament would recommend "accomplished" individuals for peerage to sit in the House of Lords.
That's an atrocious idea. Competent people are already overrepresented in all institutions and in all offices that can make decisions, in all parliament, in the judiciary and the media. If anything they should make a special house for incompetent and lazy people.
A really interesting thing that I hadn't thought of before, was when the Earl said that the Lords are not subjects to popular pressure. I mean think about it: How many politicians are there that make poor choices to get elected? They promise people what they want, not necessarily what they need and often don't keep those promises and act shady because for them it's not about the greater good but about election results. Someone who isn't elected doesn't have that kind of pressure and is free to make choices that may not be popular but are for the good of the country. It's an interesting idea. That being said for me - coming from a republic (Germany) - it still seems kinda odd that politicians should inherit their offices. Maybe a middle ground would be interesting. For example the House of Lords could be made of people from specific branches e.g. heads of universities, trade unions, religious groups (like a certain number of seats for muslims, catholics, protestants, bhuddhists, jews etc.), NGOs, science institues and so on. 🤔
I mean, I hate the specific seats for different religions thing and that wont happen as long as there is a state religion, the church of England. I'd rather just see the bishops expelled.
Wrong! Show me where a democracy doesn't work? As a Yankee Schooner and one of the free peoples of America! We didn't fight England three different times so that way we could elect people or appoint them for life. In fact even in our own government they are talking about term limits for individuals who are in Congress. No individual should sit in definitely on the bench. And note America is not a democracy it is a Democratic Republic. And England is a monarch with the veneer of a democracy.
@@robertschooner1812 Whilst not completely disagreeing, I don't think a significant proportion of the people of today have the knowledge, general standard of education, nor cognitive capacity, not to elect governments which would inherently be so volatile to social stigma and change, and have such a lack of consistency as to the ability to comprehend the effects of their decisions. In many ways, it is largely the highly educated who can draw logic/reference from the century-old evolution of law and government, and are taught the importance of this; giving somewhat of a consistency of moral and logical thinking. Surely concern lies there, where a teenager has such a seemingly pessimistic view of their own surrounding generations...
@@robertschooner1812 To say that one form of government works completely is a massive statement. It is suggesting that the there is no abuse of power in democracy, that people are always right if they are elected. I am not suggesting that democracy is wrong, I am just suggesting that it isn't perfect.
The funny thing is that most ppl are blind of the fact that these ppl with the queen/king at the top think they are the masters and rulers of this world and that the whole world belongs to them.....they control Americas government and are the entity that ppl call the deep state or shadow government in America
@@guyincognito7979 newsflash, every "political stance" active in the UK today is "traditional", as they're all over a century old, and even worse, based on politics most of which are over 2000 years old. Whether its democracy, republicanism, tribalism, religion, communism, anarchism, socialism. They all have their roots in tradition, one way or another.
@@guyincognito7979 what, this tradition of minimal influence who can't even pass laws? Thinking practically, I'd assume the house of commons being full of people who act as mouthpieces for billionaires' interests would be a bigger problem as far as traditions go. But going after the aristocracy is just in vogue, isn't it
The purpose of the House of Lords is to act as a counterbalance against the extremes and demagoguery of the Commons. Commons is there to do the actual law making.
@@alexkfridges radical change is never good for a country, whether its reactionary or revolutionary. The Lords ensures that any change that occurs is organic and gradual, which is better for the country
So your entire argument is... to counter a house where a common person could end up having delusions of grandeur we will stack another house full of people who are born with delusions of grandeur... or to put it another way... "to avoid someone like Boris Johnson gaining too much power we are going to stack an entire chamber full of Boris Johnsons." Every other stable democracy on earth that does not have hereditary peerage just has a second chamber of elected office holders to counter-balance the first chamber.
@@thagamerzzz "better for the country". That's laughable, there is absolutely no way to ensure that with a House of Lords who are appointed by the government. Most Lords are Conservative, so I think what you mean is better for the wealthy minority.
The baroness should have just asked him to state how many people were in the car at the time and who they were since he's the one making the accusation
that earl has a point, common politician has 4-5 years time in office and they'll spend half of it just to campaign to get elected next years or for partisan sake so they have more incentive to do things that align with people who might elect him whether it's good or bad rather than doing it for the benefit of the opposition, it's basically the same as feudal system of power struggle where feudal lord would waste their time to get and keeping their position instead of actually working for the masses, sometime politician who doesn't work based on partisanship or lobbyist are those who are about to retired or have nothing to lose
If you're saying that someone who isn't democratically elected will not have to constantly consider the will of the governed populace in their agenda then I cannot disagree. However, the idea that democracy is like feudalism so therefore we need more lords, a literal feature of a feudal society, has quite an Orwellian "Freedom is slavery," vibe.
You drove home the point "not elected not elected not elected." Barely touched on the concept that NOT having to run allows the ability to promote good laws that don't sell well. You could have spent a bit more time on what the House of Lords does.
@@afgor1088 Lord Henley or Earl of Mansfield who lead the fight against slavery and passed the first laws abolishing it even though it was detrimental to the British Economy. The Married Woman's Property Act which allowed married women to keep their wages and investments and not give the husband control of them. There are lots of good laws.
@@afgor1088 Not far back, just the first ones I thought of. Want more good laws? Women's right to vote 1920s ... Equal Rights for races...1960s . Equal rights for gays... oh wait, we didn't pass that one yet... Some laws are bad. Some are good. What is your point ?
It is time to inform British people what these undemocratic Lords and Ladies are contributing to the country. How unique British democracy is. without making any iconoclastic nonsense.
The Lords have no real power, the Commons who are elected can ALWAYS overrule anything the Lords come up with. The Lords is a cultural relic of our past and should be kept. The constant attacks on English and British culture is never ceasing.
In Thailand, appointed Senators can elect the Prime Minister together with MPs(most powerful than your). And sadly, many people who wrote this rule often referred to your Lords when they talk about "Why we need this Senate".
As an American I can say 2 things 1.) It's fascinating how Britain's government works and how very different it is from our House and Senate and 2.) I can also say a House and Senate doesn't solve a damn thing. It's all about parties today which btw our founding fathers despised (hint hint America).
I think it’s good to have an institution that can check new proposed legislation and that will recommend changes if for instance the execution of the legislation would require a disproportionate effort or if the legislation would help to reach the goal it aims for. Such an institution should have the status somewhere between the civil service and the high court and it should be technical and non political. A political second chamber should be elected. I’d suggest one based on proportional representation.
But how technical are they really? I bet the guy running a small restaurant understands more about how business works than the vast, vast majority of those in the House of Lords.
ScottishRoss which laws do you have in mind? The US is a collection of states, not a country lol. Anyone can tell you that. Laws affect states differently, that’s why California is a caliphate... do you not know what the US is?
@@gavinbissell8847 one of the biggest shouting points that brexiteers would moan to get out of the EU was that there are unelected members putting forward suggestions, which we have 800 of ...
The important part, the legislative part of Britain's parliament is the Commons. The Lord's is there as a brake to extreme and badly written law sent to it from the Commons. InOz until reasonably recently the Upper Houses of our Parliaments were elected by land owners only, and exists for the same reason.
If the presenter wanted to rubbish peers he chose the wrong one to interview! I’ve had the privilege of working with John Palmer, 4th Earl of Selborne, who sadly died in 2021. John was utterly brilliant and worked tirelessly on science policy at national level, chairing the Lords Science and Technology Committee and putting in endless unpaid hours. So impressed were the top scientists at the Royal Society that they made him a Fellow (FRS) even though not a scientist - the only other person so honoured being David Attenborough. Oh and he was modest too, he didn’t say anything about his achievements in the interview (and I wonder if the interviewer knew about them?).
As stated in the video, a major problem with democracies is that it is hard to take the long view past the next election. The lords currently work as a mitigating factor to this problem. If it is changed to having elections then personally I think they should still have very long terms, to remove them from the need to placate short term interests.
@Hernando Malinche because these dictators are still controlled by the European elites, mostly French. You have to look at China where long term plans for the country is always paramount. Look, even with the genocide it's done because they believe in making a one culture, one race, one nation will make the country better - like Korea and Japan.
not really, that is what a senate is for. you can have senate full of elected representatives to take the long view that only gets elected every 5-8 years while the peoples house gets elected every 3-4 years.. anyways what was the long sighted view about Brexit? seems entirely short sighted and populist to me. Especially considering they hadn't even thought about what they were going to do about northern Ireland before pulling the pin..
@@IvarDaigon Brexit was decided in a referendum. What are you suggesting.......that the government should have ignored the result of a massive democratic process simply because it didn't like the outcome? Really? Did you think that through?
@@MikeAG333 a properly functioning first and second chamber actually work together to reduce the chances of populist politicians gaining power in the first place because they help keep politicians accountable for what they say and do. Do you think people would have voted for brexit if they actually knew how much it would cost them? Would anyone actually vote to become poorer? would they vote for more red tape? would they vote for supply chain issues causing food and energy shortages? This isn't hindsight.. lots of economists said that it would be a disaster for the economy but they were drowned out by politicians who were only in it for themselves and thought they knew better.. In Australia the senate serves to keep the b's honest. In the UK the house of lords serves only themselves. In the US the senate serves the interests of the two major parties and, while not ideal, it still (in theory) serves the interests of the people via their elected officials.
As far I as I am aware, the UK is the only country where the number of upper house members is larger than that of the lower house. I understand that these peers, lords, or overlords have some 'expertise', but isn't it time to start thinking about the right size and save money?
Yes, but getting everyone to agree on the size and who should be removed would take so much time debating that they wouldn't be able to get around to talking about more pressing issues. eg. we've got a large Tory majority atm, and I'm sure they'd love to dismiss a bunch of labor peers to make their laws pass through easier, but once you've made that a precedent, what's to stop a future labor govt doing the same thing to dismiss a bunch of tory peers? (Note that the opposite currently happens - a new govt tries to ADD more peers predominately on their side, which is why we've got so fuckin many of them)
I think that’s probably the goal. The media ;) conglomerate loves the American system because they’re able to manipulate the public, who the elected politicians are (somewhat) beholden to
@@tybaltmarr2158 the American system is controlled by rich corpos and the british by rich descendants of corpos, I don't get people who support inherited power, it's just plain stupid
@@midlos nah I'm pretty happy, I know where I am in the food chain. UKs not perfect but there isn't anywhere else I'd rather live. Don't be salty just because we set the standard for all future imperialist countries, USA included. you're welcome by the way :D
I think she genuinely doesn't have a sense of elementary school math just like many politicians in the country, who just talk non sence but enough for them to be there.
Maybe when your deciding between cronies and feudal aristocracy to give power to you should maybe just choose neither of them? Britain is so backwards and brain dead sometimes.
Being French, I find this so anti-democratic and dangerous for a proper representation of the common people. Having more than half of the parliament from rich families, non elected, how could this ever be fair or profitable for common English citizens ?
The purpose of the House of Lords, constitutionally, is to be a "repository of expertise." Elected politicians tend not to have a huge amount of real life experience in the fields they are legislating on, the Lords are there to be the experts, largely free from political pressure, to make sure the laws will be relevant, efficient, effective and do what they are intended. Most Lords are appointed from specific fields by a Prime Minister (elected by his/her elected parliamentary party) or a committee (appointed by the elected House of Commons). So they are one or two degrees away from electoral accountability. There is a case to be made for the Bishops, although arguably they are overrepresented and other faiths (and maybe secular organisations) should also have representation to ensure their constituencies (the people they speak on behalf of) are represented in respect of legislation that effects them. As for hereditary peers, they are mainly a compromise-hangover of earlier times, much watered down. Perhaps there is a need for representation of the land-owning class, but 92 members? At some point no doubt a reforming government (if such a thing can ever happen again here) will look at it - is there really a need for the Lords to sit in the expensive Palace of Westminster where space is already at a premium? I'm not in favour of more elections, more career politicians bringing more ignorance to our legislation, there are plenty of occasions where the Lords have fought the government from the brink of doing something stupid. The idea of a review body packed with expertise rather than just another tier of party hacks MUST be preserved, in my opinion. But absolutely there is scope for improvement.
American-Brazilian here. This is actually great. one of the issues we have in the United States is that our governance is disgustingly greedy and when you relieve a particular group of citizens from the need for greed you have a small control group that make legislation or helps impede legislation without the sway of money or power.
It's a good thing. Here in New Zealand we only have one house, and an incompetent PM whose party keeps pushing quite serious legislation through. Which has resulted in a number of badly thought out and ideological driven laws being passed, with many of unintended consequences. If there was a second house laws like this had to get through then it would increase the chances of bad laws being caught before they emerge to do harm.
I at least appreciate her straight forward way of answering challenging questions. Yes, no and why. I wish our politicians (I’m not british) would face scrutiny that way
I am not a British citizen (I live across the slightly less large pond ;-) ) but I know that, even though we don't have such a part of our government, the current state of politics is like a neglected house which doesn't only need new paint but a complete restructure. From what I hear and read of other countries it's much more similar there than you might think by just looking superficially. A lot of the politics is about the latest outrage/hype/'sudden' problem and very little is about the long term future of the country and it's impact on the world as a whole. Since most chosen people in parliament are afraid to not get re-elected there is a disturbing lack of vision and willingness to make the tough calls early enough to prevent the next disaster. So, while I agree having ruling people outside of the democratic system does have it's flaws, it can also be used as a tool for forcing the elected officials to act upon less popular topics and enforcing the elected parliament to govern with more long term goals instead of just the next cheap vote grab and 'public opinion'. Perhaps it's not a matter of 'does the house of lords need to be chosen' but 'what is it's purpose and which tasks do they have'.
The reason why these old productions are so popular is that they show us how British - English - White - Race -.Culture and Civilization permeated England before 1900, or so. England’s political Elites felt guilty about their non - white imperialisms and as a liberal form of psychological compensation invited the former empires non - whites to emirate to England . And now the chickens have come home to roost.
We have the same thing in the Netherlands, it is called the first chamber (eerste Kamer). Their job is basically to check if the propositions of the second chamber (tweede kamer) do not violate existing rules and laws. Members of the second chamber are elected by the people, members of the first chamber are not.
As an outsider, UK should retain the Lords. It has been part of their identity and Traditions for millennia. However, keep them for ceremonial purposes only.1After all, their ancestors served the British Empire one way or another.. Remove the perks, privileges and salary, no one will ever dream of becoming part of that system in the future.
As an insider, the house of Lords has nothing to do with our identity. The public hardly care about them and they're never seen. Most lords ancestors haven't served the British empire as only a small amount are hereditary however I agree they shouldn't have the perks and the salary
We need our House of Lords and hereditary peers, precisely because they are not elected; they actually say what they think and can't be influenced. The Lords can't stop anything, only delay it and ask it should be reconsidered. No wonder Guardian readers want to get rid of it
@@deanjames2476 At least half of the Lords are Independents, sitting on the crossbenches. Very tellingly, there are no crossbenches in the House of Commons, and hardly ever any Independents.
@@skindred1888 Precisely. So people in the House of Lords actually say what they think, because they can't be intimidated bought or influenced by media. That's why Channel4 doesn't like them, and exactly why we need them.
Apart from letting the Bishops take up some MP seats, there are actually some positive aspects to having non elected members. They don’t need to worry about being re-elected and can do things that a regular politician can’t do. In the US, you’d often see a senator or congressman not seeking a re-election doing the right thing when their peers from the same party are opposed to do the same thing.
I really don't like it when people bring in the 'cost factor', the 'taxpayer money' stuff into the conversation; it is a small price to pay for A COUNTRY to operate smoothly.
Despite the fact your video obviously is trying to encourage people to want to get rid of the house of lord, it's actually tilted me towards thinking they should stay. Having government officials that are not beholden to party politics and only worrying about what to do to get elected probably isn't really a bad thing
@@Justice4some the 6000 acres looked like a functioning farm, which would be where his income would be coming from, alongside whatever income he was getting from attending the sessions of the House of Lords.
@@Justice4some Removing the House of Lords will not remove the land he gained by hereditary means. I think you meant to say you want to remove the entire nobility system as a whole, not just their participation in the Parliament.
@@Seawulfnorsemen “nobility system” you mean being able to pass stuff on to your children? 😂 props to whoever this guys ancestors were, they set up generations of their descendants for a better life
Being an African Living in Africa, its an understatement how Europeans who have nearly balanced political and leadership structures underappreciate how good it is not to be an absolute democracy. Most European 'Modernists' and 'Progressivists' are unaware of how well their political systems are balanced and how stable they are. I wish we had such in Africa.
@ADah Bafa there are 35 other countries that have very similar, British styled parliamentary systems. As someone above has already pointed out, a number of these countries also incorporate a monarchy into their government
Africa's biggest source of problems is not the specific structure of its governments but 1) the fact that the average IQ of black Africans is catastrophically low with a large portion of that being unfixably genetic and 2) the fact that African states are nearly all artificial entities, post-colonies whose arbitrary, European-drawn borders completely ignore local demographics, looping together people who'd rather live apart and slicing through people who'd rather live together. The inevitable consequences are endless ethnic tensions undermining democracy and often leading to civil and international war. Europe had this problem too until devastating wars and ethnic population transfers resulted in mostly homogeneous nation-states.
Considering the Baroness is from an incredibly wealthy monied class, often owning vast plots of land, manors, and considerable inheritences, I wouldnt say her claiming she has the right to spend boatloads of taxpayers money on frivolous things like flowers and private transport to entertainment holds water. @@donnguyen3795
The House of Lord's is not designed to be a representative house like the House of Commons so it needs no more to be elected than the Cheif Constable of Police Scotland or the judicary. The purpose of the House of Lord's is to scrutinise the legislation passed by the House of Commons therefore it makes sense that people with expertise in all fields of life such as scientists like Lord Winston or the Bishops, elder statesmen like Harold Macmillan, entrepreneurs like Lord Digby Jones etc. are able to be brought in to that role of scrutinizing legislation.
@@ScottishRoss27 Ever since Lloyd George the Lord's have been very limited in their power, for example they can't veto legislation, they won't oppose anything which was in a manifesto and I think there is limited amount of times they can send legislation back to the House of Commons. The reality is Scottish MP's have more power than Scottish Lord's. As for the SNP I am not surprised they don't sit in the House of Lord's they are too naive and simple to understand the importance of the upper chamber. Power is much better reserved to Westminster than devolved to the pretendy parliament in Edinburgh which has the intellectual level of a primary school.
@@johnbull9195 Jawdropper. John talking-Bull defending this unelected uk burocracy yet slanders Scotlands elected parlie 😂 Couldnt make it up could you! We dont have an 'upper house' everyone in scotland is thee upper house! ,800 unelected burocrats (more than eu par) enjoy your brexit
Well, Chief constable, or anything like that is a full time job. You are payed a salary because a panel of relevant authorities assessed, approved and hired you on your relevant merits. You didn't just get your dads job when he died and everyone just accepted you probably know how to do the job. That would be a horrific way to function. Not really helping your stance to compare that to the house of lords.
I think the lords should be made up of industry leaders - doctors, scientists, business people, farmers, etc - who aren't affiliated to a particular political party. They should have to meet certain criteria like being in their industry for a certain number of years and also be voted in by an independent committee. I think having a term longer than the commons is a good idea, but having a guaranteed position for life could lead to laziness. So, a longer fixed term of say 15 years where they have to reapply at the end of it proving why they are still relevant in their field (additional training, research, etc) could be a good move.
Honestly in someways having a body of people that can have a very long view of a country can be a good thing. Long term issues generally arent well faced by politicians who have to face an election every few years. These Longer term issues and projects are much better faced by people that will have to deal with their consequences 30-50 years later.
Or a bad thing, considering they answer to nobody, and are there for life, they can make bad decisions as well, and the fact there is no way for them to be held accountable for that is a serious flaw.
I'm not a huge fan of the House of Lords on paper, but these questions ... 1. How dare you charge people 230 pounds for 5 people 2. How dare you take a chauffer driven car with a foreign dignitary And she explains the arguments for keeping the house and the interview just cuts all that out. This really isn't fair and unbiased journalism IMO.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I respect that old dude, he's like " yeah it's stupid but you would do it too"
Right? Free power is hard to pass up. Even if you're a good person you're probably thinking that you can contribute positively
Only a liar would say they wouldn’t want it.
@@visigoth3696 a liar or a simple minded person.
No trust me you won't do it. Only old power hungry racist megalomaniac would do it
@@visigoth3696 i wouldnt want it, too much attention, and responsibility
Id rather stay in military
And it's easier to act on things as normal person, if your a monarch you cant just say stuf or do stuff but being someone from common lineage you can volunteer to help others
Ive seen my fair share of stupidity of those in power, so yeah, call me simple minded but id rather be in a place where i can actively help those around me
Ahahaha
As an American I can say that having two houses both elected doesnt solve a damned thing.
Our highest court isn't even elected...lol and that impacts everything perpetually. I would dare imagine that most Lords are conservatives though regardless of not having a political party although many lords are innately eccentric and liberal so its really a luck of the draw in that regard.
The Senate wasn't elected until 1914. Even now, it's a permanently gerrymandered election.
The problem is america is Bipartism
for proof see the life term members of congress
When politicians seriously want to make any law they don't care
I was hoping to hear more a discussion on the House Of Lords role and how it impacts our lives, as opposed to just ‘it can be a hereditary role and some people have spent £200 on a chauffeur’
Also to say "most of the parliament is not elected" is just trying to be inflammatory. Its 750 Lords to 650 MPs. The Lords don't have much power to make or stop laws, they simply exist as a higher house to hold the democratic process to account and to insure a tyrannical majority party in the House of Commons doesn't make laws contrary to the core constitutional rights of the UK. The Lords don't spend their days just coming up with new laws on their own initiative - they safeguard the UK's most vital and core ideals.
Compare a Lords pay to a standard politicians from the commons, and you will care even less how much money they spend.
They get sweet F all in comparison.
A lord will get £66,000 if the attend ever session they only get payed on the days they attend, an back bench MP gets £82,000 even if they don't attend session. (Most hereditory Lords couldn't be bothered to attend) only bothering to attend for the most important Bills, however politically appointed Lords go to every session.
The House of Lords really shouldn't do much other than being a rubber stamp group that can only block a bill twice and give recommendations that can be completely ignored by the house of commons.
If I am remembering correctly, the only bills they can block from the House of Commons is any plans to delay any elections by parties trying to move away from democracy using the democartic system.
When someone is not afraid of being replaced in 5 years, they can have the power to lookout for their country, take decisions that may not benefit soon. I think this is the picture this clip missed.
@@akhilsharma20 In ddition if those elites are sustained by the nation being independent and strong they should always vote in favour of the nation. If however the nation is weak and their positions are threatened they will invariably vote to protect themselves and align themselves with whatever power best does that even if it is foreign.
As an American the House of Lords sounds nuts, but looking at the state of our own politics, Im just gonna sit this one out 😂😂
Right lol.
Both are royally fucked
How very un American of you, I think UK needs some freedom.
Despite its faults, I'd say the US is a 1000 times more democratic than the UK
it does. But so does the US-Senate.
Firstly, the House of Lords really doesn't have the power to stop a law, they mainly act as an advisory board to the House of Commons. They can delay laws, but not the ones in the winning party's manifesto... So really, they don't have that much power as this video made it look like.
However, what the House of Lords does very well is "balancing" against the problems that may occur with democratic systems. One of the biggest problems of every democracy is that the MPs are usually experts in politics, but aren't really experts in much else. They're not economists, lawyers, businessmen, sociologists or urban planners, they are usually just experts in making people vote for them, they're simply salesmen. Yet, they make the most important decisions that need the most advanced level of general knowledge.
So do we really want another house of ignorant salespeople who mainly just think about getting voted? The idea of the House of Lords is to balance the democratic aspect, having its pros and cons, with a council of experts, not of elected salesmen, but people with senior experience in various fields.
Now, I agree that your dad being a Baron doesn't really make you an expert. So rather than making the House of Lords elected, they should include more members appointed for their skills, the top people in each career, like they did with Andrew Lloyd Webber. That would make much more sense.
Historically, being a Baron would have made you an expert, you'd have had a higher quality education, be in charge of land and large amounts of wealth and business. Most likely would have seen military service and have experience commanding a sizable force or a fort. They'd have likely had a role in a colonial administration.
Hereditary Lords were raised form birth for the role.
ha I was with you and then BAM Andrew Lloyd Webber lol
Wow. That geniunely sounds like the best solution* for politicians being closer to celebrities than well-informed, generally educated and respectable people.
There's only 2 problems I see with this. First, the House of Lords (In this scenario) might become an even larger conservative party - in terms of sticking to what they know works, and not really caring about anything that might improve that. Secondly, the House of Commons can still just not care for the House of Lords, as they are a purely advisory institution (maybe giving them some power might help?). Nevertheless, being wholely an advisory body, their input would be really important.
Well done, simply an argument for a totalitarian fascist state.
@@pippipster6767 I don't think you understand the definition of fascism...
The earl of Limerick submitting a limerick is such a power move ... I'm honestly rather impressed
That’s a chap with a sense of humor
Funny yes.As an Irishman,I ask why an English peer could have a seat in the English parliament when Limerick is a city in a foreign country,the Irish republic.There is no earl of Calais even though this French city was under English rule for centuries.
When I first saw it I blinked.
Although it was impressively succinct.
I thought it was a gimmick.
Not from the Earl of Limerick.
And now I quite like it I think.
@@jameskingston3058 In contrast to peers of Scotland, no person holding titles only in the peerage of Ireland has ever been allowed a seat in the UK House of Lords (unless he were specially selected as a representative peer, beginning in 1800, by his fellows in the Irish nobility). However, should a peer of Ireland also hold a title in the peerages of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom (and beginning in 1963, the peerage of Scotland), then that peer was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, until the 1999 reform revoked the automatic right of anyone to be seated as a Lord by virtue of any hereditary title. Hereditary peers remain eligible for the House if duly appointed by correct parliamentary procedure, and hereditary peers holding life peerages are guaranteed to be seated in the House (pending any retirement from that advisory body). As the Earl of Limerick also bears a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, that of Baron Foxford, he is eligible to be appointed to a seat in the House of Lords, hence the application that is briefly discussed in the clip.
Many thanks for your explanation
Failed to mention that the House of Commons which is wholly elected can reject any motion that the House of Lords proposes. The House of Lords is simply advisory and has no power.
So what you're saying is, Britain could perfectly discard it and adopt a unicameral system, like many other countries in the world?
The Lords can veto laws passed by the Commons. Ill say that's real power
@@fil_britbunnyboi872 I don't *think* they can actually veto laws. AFAIK They can reject them and send them back to the House of Commons, but there's a limit to how many times they can do it.
What about the tax payer money? It wouldn’t be an argument for an advisory position. It’s obviously more than that
@@fil_britbunnyboi872
The Lords can’t veto laws, they can make amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject. If neither House can agree, the commons has the final say.
I love that this video is so aggressively against the house of Lords, but all it makes me do is want to root for them.
Why is that exactly?
It’s funny because the charges against the baroness were so silly when she actually broke it down that, while we can all agree the House of Lords is a bad concept, it made the video come off as a cheap political hit job.
I think that's called Stockhome Syndrome
@@williamcarter3933 I'm an American 😅
@@JPKloess ah well that solves that level of thought then
Remarkable job of confusing the viewer about the comparative power, or lack thereof, of the House of Lords.
this video is shite honestly, definitely not made from an objective standpoint
This bozo thinks he is a journalist, but in reality he is an activist, you can tell by the way of his mannerism.
Agreed, incredibly bias.
As I have understood they don´t come up with laws or have the ability to stop something that the commons have voted on. They review the text and propose changes and/or send the bill back to the commons. They can delay something but not stop. Feels like people might watch this and going away with the belief they have more power than they actually have. It should be changed but it's not like it's a democratic disaster atm.
They can introduce legislation, but yes the commons always has the final say. Personally I like having an appointed upper chamber - I don't think the hereditaries or bishops should be in there (or rather, they shouldn't automatically get seats, although I have no problem with people who happen to be hereditary peers or bishops if they earn it, but its nice to have people involved in the parliamentary process who aren't obsessed with PR, many of whom actually have some expertise in fields other than politics.
@@monkeymox2544 pr...or the public...or who cares what the public think of their decisions....being accountable comes with almost every job in the world apart from the lord's.
@@skindred1888 the Lords are accountable, it's just that they tend to behave responsibly so we don't see the censure
@@monkeymox2544 the hereditaries & bishops _don't_ automatically get seats, 92 seats are _available_ for hereditaries & I think 26 _available_ for bishops. The hereditaries are _elected_ from a pool of 810 Peers of the Realm & bishops from however many thousands of the Church of England & if enough aren't elected the seats aren't filled (I don't think it's happened for long but it's theoretically possible). They're all there on merit.
@@alanhat5252 Yes I understand that the hereditaries are elected from a pool, I just don't think they should be. Bloodline shouldn't come into it at all, in the slightest. And to say they're there on merit is a bit of a stretch - they're elected by the other hereditary peers! If we're going to have an unelected chamber it should completely be appointed, with no seats reserved for hereditary peers at all. Again, I've no problem with people who have titles being in the house, as long as they get there by the same method as the other members.
The House Of Lords Act (1999) made it so that only 92 hereditary Peers were allowed to remain in the Lords on a temporary basis until "second stage" proposals were agreed. Therefore out of the 788 sitting members only 92 inherited their place. Other sitting members of The House Of Lords are specialists in their field so that they can give their expert opinion on bills (draft laws) that have been brought forward by The House Of Commons.
That act was a catastrophe and should be abolished. The HoL needs to return to how it was in the 1910s.
@@danielkrcmar5395 what
yeah, BoJos chums are "specialists"... hahaha
Many life peers were just simply chums with the PM of that time. Think there needs to be a reform in the Life Peerages Act 1958 as many of these 'experts' becoming a life peer is just blatant nepotism.
@@danielkrcmar5395 agreed, the Lords should be just that Lords. People who have a an excellent motivation in preserving the system because they benefit greatly from it.
The house of Lords came about by convention because it just works, tacking "democracy" onto it only breaks it. Experts and political appointees are not Lords and are no better than the MPs that put them there.
I am from Venezuela, a country where politics is pretty much a chaos. I wish we had some people reviewing the public policies and laws regardless of their political identity.
the exclusively bourgeoisie?
@@bizarreisthenewblack Its an argument for a second house to review things - the benefits of bicameralism over unicameralism.
I was thinking exactly the same thing ( I am also Venezuela )
@@bizarreisthenewblackhahaha good one
Except they don't review the la s, they simply rubber stamp badly written, written in self-interest by lawyers for the benefit of rich lawyers - their friends/neighbours/colleagues mostly. None of them have a shred of integrity...most are pretty dim in the head imo
I'm not a big fan of the house of lords but this is so clearly bias it's repulsive, and they clearly entrapped that peer absolutely disgusting practice and I would have expected better from channel 4
Good journalism is when you soft ball questions that don't hold people accountable. Make sure you tell the interviewee all the questions in advance so they have a chance to say no or create spin in advance.
I agree this is a one sided video, but to complain about "entrapping" this peer makes it clear you have your own bias about who deserves to be treated with unearned respect.
Agreed
Not sure why you would expect much better after their reputation...
Funnily enough, I thought the peer wondering around his garden actually came across very well despite the bias.
Kinda crazy that the guy interviewed was in parliament for 48 years and say 9 prime ministers, and in 2022 as a 16 year old I’ve seen 7.
I don’t know where this obsession over total democracy comes from. The House of Lords is a great example of how much work can be done when you don’t have to focus on winning elections every four years. Total democracy would require each citizen to know exactly what’s best for themselves and the rest of society, which is simply not possible.
name a worthwhile thing the house of lords has actually done
@@afgor1088 allowed to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days, halted the tax credit fiasco and came up with the dormant cash act to name a few. They are the unsung heroes in a lot of cases
Total democracy has worked in the past. Representative democracy allows citizens to be ignorant by giving away their say to a representative.
@@owenlees1832 total democracy is not always right
@@zeroroninoh it works though, it has worked many times throughout history. One of the main arguments liberals used in the late 18th to early 20th century for implementing representative democracy that democracy endows the average man with an interest in political matters, and thus reduces the tendency for ignorance. However, by having representatives, people give away this endowment and remain relatively ignorant as they are not required to think through complex political and economic questions. Total, or direct, democracy ensures people have to take an interest in politics, and thus reduces ignorance, a pattern seen throughout history. Apply this to the workplace in abolishing capitalism, and suddenly we have a truly democratic society.
The fact that they arnt elected actually makes them more morally sound than regular members of parliament. The house of lords is an important regulantory body for the government that is now almost impossible to replace. In principle it doesn't make sense but in real life I am am glad it still exists.
Amen!
Hear hear
Then North Korea is an extremely morally sound country.
@@MrCmon113 North Korea is a dictatorship.
For a program called “FactCheck”, this used some of the most weighted language and had some of the clearest bias I have seen from any Channel 4 content.
What did you expect from channel 4
Bryce Groen they’re are not very smart or loyal, if people could defund them, they should.
Channel 4 is about as impartial as the Labour Party
@@chiefdoesgaming8269 I expected better, _far_ better. This _'show'_ is populist drivel
gay
I think the lords are fine so long as they're picked based on merit, rather than by donations to political parties. They should be nominated based on a third party non-political body, picking the best economists, scientists, businessmen, environmentalists, etc.
I don't really mind inherited lords.
third party body? you fucking crazy?
there is a third-party body currently, but the PM has the ability to overrule and ignore it - and does. More generally, it's a nice idea but who decides which experts and what balance? Tories would push for more businessmen, Labour for more environmentalists, etc. Once elections are removed as a check on power and these decisions are made behind closed doors, corruption flourishes. I think each party should put forward their best selection of experts - in a party list, and people can vote on which list they like best. There could be a list for the current unaligned peers as well, and we could see how well they'd do, judged on their merits.
@@brunobarton-singer9622 you can't have experts on specific things making decisions about hundreds of diffrent topics. For example an expert on environmental living might vote to pass a law pass a law where every new house must have solar Panels then there is no affordable housing. And if there is a financial expert they may never agree with them. You need people who know bits about everything but have what is best for there constituents in mind, that way they can consult bodys of experts ( which also eliminates the individual biases one expert might have.)
@@inanis9801 so are you saying, abolish the lords entirely? I think that's also a reasonable position. My point is just that if you like the idea of a second house which is a bit more long-term and focused on expertise, the current system isn't that and I was suggesting an alternative. I think there's nothing wrong with experts in particular topics in the commons or the lords, I just think it should ultimately be up to voters
If the Lords were to be elected why should the Commons retain primacy?
Not only that, it would actually make it harder for the Lords to do its job. They're supposed to be scrutinising legislation, which will sometimes entail doing something deeply unpopular. However their job isn't to be electable or even liked. They're job is to make sure legislation that ends up on the Queen's desk is robust and effective.
That's not to say the Lords isn't due some reform. I'd like to see a few more Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, etc. People with decades of experience and are well-respected in their fields. There's far too many former politicians. But they shouldn't be elected.
@@spareumbrella8477 I agree with you
Having an upper house and a lower house is common. Like in the US, they have congress and the senators. They can just copy that system no problem
@@tekashiii US is a federation while UK isn’t so it won’t really work.
@@sivaprasadv77 majority of the countries in the world already uses this system. Unitary or federal, it doesnt matter. It IS easy if they actually wanted to do it
The cut at 8:40 is classical example of media manipulation.
While he is asking the question, they jumpcut to some other footage where she looks "scared" by the said question and jump back to original cut when she starts talking.
Look at the top left of her head and notice the hair.
You are Right, this is insane
It’s called „editing“. All editing is manipulation, since, by definition, it edits parts out.
Calm down.
@@JJ-ze6vb I presume that majority of people understand what the definition of "editing" is.
But clearly you missed the point i was trying to make.
@@Zozi_og I hope you find something that will calm you down
@@JJ-ze6vb you’re avoiding the point, and everyone here is calm lol
This cack-handled piece completely fails to address the fact the Lords have EXTREMELY limited powers. I’m a liberal, I believe in democracy, and I believe we need the House of Lords to act as a mature, conscientious second house. Hereditary peers are a minority- most are appointed for their specialism or excellent track records.
Hear, hear
The only place where you can be corrupt or have a criminal record and still be called honorable and can't be sacked
I agree parliament should have a second house, but not made up by unelected Lords.
@@deanjames2476 ... is the House of Commons
@@alanhat5252 To sack an mp will cost the constituents about £1 million ie recall and by-election
Even the elected officials need an endorsement from the party before they can campaign for a seat.
the whole system is designed to be undemocratic. or rather the creators' concept of democracy intentionally excludes the vast majority of people
And the people still beloeve democracy exists
@@ince55ant Yup, it’s the illusion of democracy. Then again, democracy has always been easily manipulated and corrupted. It’s why many of the founding fathers despised a democracy and went with a constitutional republic.
You can run independent. But the only independents that seem to get elected are former party members that was booted by their local party council but successfully ran as an independent
There is no such thing as "elected officials".
The Lords exists for a very simple reason.
Despite most of Britain (myself included) hating the idea of an unelected house The lords somehow seems to work out as a better representation of public will than the commons.
How?
@@9grand as one of the lords said, they don't have to worry about elections, so they don't worry about pleasing a very select group of people, they are free to think of the big picture
@@shamrock141 Same could be said for dictators !
@@9grand that would be the case, but the difference is the lords do not have the power to create or repeal laws on their own. They have to work through the house of commons
@@shamrock141 But have the right to veto or influence it ?!
The whole issue is accountability. Doesn't matter how someone came into power, if they're unaccountable for anything that they do, then they're dangerous. Everyone knows that power corrupts.
Can you give me an example of how House of Lords behaved in a dangerous manner?
Power don't corrupt, Power simply reveal their true selves.
Oh yes you can clearly tell the Earl of Selby is an evil power hungry aristocrat just waiting to take away your rights.
@@Tattletale97 What are you a poet... People doesn't have true color they have character and it may differ depending on the environment they've grew up.
There's no people walking around with a stable color inside and that's a racist😂😂
@@ForF6cksAke What are you talking about? I didn't mention "colour", I utilise the word "True selves".
Wow what a great balanced argument which definitely doesnt only focus on the negatives 😂
niall mcgirr that’s channel four.
"balanced"?!? when the whole show was about one eighth of the Chamber & spent no more than seconds on what the Chamber actually does? No, this was about ratings not about facts
@@alanhat5252 it was sarcastic
@@EdgeOfLight
Sarcasm is hard on the internet.
Typical channel 4 shite
Only 12% of the members in the house of Lords have inherited their position.
12% too many.
12% Inherited
3.4% Bishop
and the rest bought their way in
@@RoseSiames aren’t most of the life peers retired MPs?
@@Zizzles oh yes
Don’t care 🤷🏾♂️ why they there anyways. Corruption
I kind of like the idea of having a group of non political party affiliation participate in democracy.
they're not apolitical. they represent the interests of the wealthy. that is inherently political
Everything is political
@@afgor1088 well that’s not true is it really
@@harrylundie5542 yes. It is true
well that's not the lords! 507 peers are associated to the three main parties. Many are donors, or ex-MPs being rewarded for party loyalty
I’m English born and bred and haven’t got a problem with this system of my government. I fully support it!
wasnt expecting this to be so biased!
Yeah this isn’t journalism
It’s England, they love the concept of hierarchy
“When you say we aren’t accountable to the public, that is correct”
-public servant
@@manuelolaya3194 yes, by the very definition they are not intended to be public servants - that would be a rePUBLIC. As Gt.Britain is a monarchy, it is obviously under the rule and in the possession of feudal lords.
@@manuelolaya3194 thanks for enlightening me, but I simply do not care :)
@@hansofaxalia Based and democracy-pilled
@@hansofaxalia don't be an idiot then...
that is called Sovereignty. the supreme court claims that the federal government is Sovereign.
£200 is lavish expenses for a politician. Hahahahahahahahaha, that is literally the most insignificant amount a politician has ever spent. Imagine being outed for £200 while you are most likely partly responsible for thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted.
I am not a Christian.I am a buddhist but honestly I love the way Britain continues their traditions ❤
Congratulations from Sri Lanka
The House of Lords cannot veto legislation. It can offer amendments and propose legislation that may be difficult for an elected member of Commons to offer.
seems like an interesting and perhaps effective concept to have a portion of the government not having to worry about elections which can actually enact long term ideas and changes instead of the more short term focused elected officials which every democracy are going to begin to crack under the pressure of, just for the fact that it seems like everyone in the world has decided at the same time to deficit spend all the time, til the end of time, because that spending helps the boys stay elected.
especially when these sort of non term based officials are largely used in a regulatory and accountability position.
Thats why you have an administration. The only reason things get shaken up in a system like that, is if the people elect populists and sharlatans.
The deficit spending is because every country is owned by a Rothschild Central Bank.
That’s why I’ve always wanted longer terms for house of reps here in the USA combined with strict term limits so re-election is never on the table.
Although what’s to say they have to give anycare about the state or government, a lord could very much not do anything and stay home all day
That's actually really good, I wish we had the same in France. Because they are not submitted to short term populist considerations to get reelected. They are the backbone of the political system as they can think long term without thinking about how popular they are.
The issue of representativity is important though, so that the lords even though they might be elected for life should represent to some extent society at large, with notables from different religious and ethnic backgrounds.
You have the same in France, the Senate is just as undemocratic, except for the 92 hereditary peers, which like you saw in the video, not even the benefitted support
@@arthurcaron9453 What are you on about? Members of the French Senate are elected for 6 years. The House of Lords, they are appointed or inherit their seats for life. This is the antithesis of democracy.
In general they do, simply because the overwhelming majority are appointed and generally get appointed by different governments over time, although obviously you have to have done something pretty remarkable in life to get appointed there's a good mix.
I believe the vast majority of Lords are Conservatives. So the representation isn't really there.
@@jordanforbes2557 they are conservatives they conserve traditions of a country
I honestly think the Italian Senate is the best idea for an Upper House: people who have accomplished something, who are seen as competent in their field, are appointed by the president with the consent of the Lower house. A house composed of people who have already proven themselves competent and have been endorsed by elected officials seems like a good idea.
I correct you: these are senators appointed for life. The Italian Senate is elected in general elections of the Parliament. The President of the Republic can appoint up to 5 Senators, that aren't part of political parties, for specific merits towards science, politics, society or something else. They are appointed for life and they can resign when they want.
Since the Lords are appointed by the King "under the advice of his government" that basically means that nobody is going to get a new peerage who hasn't already been accepted by the elected leadership of the majority of the elected House.
That is the House of Lord's. Most lords are not hereditary, but life peers (they only keep their peerage for life and cannot be inherited). Parliament would recommend "accomplished" individuals for peerage to sit in the House of Lords.
That's an atrocious idea. Competent people are already overrepresented in all institutions and in all offices that can make decisions, in all parliament, in the judiciary and the media.
If anything they should make a special house for incompetent and lazy people.
@@MrCmon113 That's what the lower house is for, to represent the masses.
A really interesting thing that I hadn't thought of before, was when the Earl said that the Lords are not subjects to popular pressure. I mean think about it: How many politicians are there that make poor choices to get elected? They promise people what they want, not necessarily what they need and often don't keep those promises and act shady because for them it's not about the greater good but about election results. Someone who isn't elected doesn't have that kind of pressure and is free to make choices that may not be popular but are for the good of the country. It's an interesting idea. That being said for me - coming from a republic (Germany) - it still seems kinda odd that politicians should inherit their offices. Maybe a middle ground would be interesting. For example the House of Lords could be made of people from specific branches e.g. heads of universities, trade unions, religious groups (like a certain number of seats for muslims, catholics, protestants, bhuddhists, jews etc.), NGOs, science institues and so on. 🤔
I mean, I hate the specific seats for different religions thing and that wont happen as long as there is a state religion, the church of England. I'd rather just see the bishops expelled.
Thats a big reason why I want the Kaiser to return here in Austria and in Germany :)
Exactly!
In some ways with people like this man it could be beneficial looking at the people we elect in the US.
Democracy doesn't always work, hereditary government doesn't always work. So maybe a mix of both isn't such a bad thing? I don't know though
Wrong! Show me where a democracy doesn't work? As a Yankee Schooner and one of the free peoples of America! We didn't fight England three different times so that way we could elect people or appoint them for life. In fact even in our own government they are talking about term limits for individuals who are in Congress. No individual should sit in definitely on the bench. And note America is not a democracy it is a Democratic Republic. And England is a monarch with the veneer of a democracy.
@@robertschooner1812 Whilst not completely disagreeing, I don't think a significant proportion of the people of today have the knowledge, general standard of education, nor cognitive capacity, not to elect governments which would inherently be so volatile to social stigma and change, and have such a lack of consistency as to the ability to comprehend the effects of their decisions. In many ways, it is largely the highly educated who can draw logic/reference from the century-old evolution of law and government, and are taught the importance of this; giving somewhat of a consistency of moral and logical thinking. Surely concern lies there, where a teenager has such a seemingly pessimistic view of their own surrounding generations...
@@robertschooner1812 Hitler was elected
@@Faithfulstar_99 yes he was! But then again so was Churchill when he lied to the American people to bring him into the war.
@@robertschooner1812 To say that one form of government works completely is a massive statement. It is suggesting that the there is no abuse of power in democracy, that people are always right if they are elected. I am not suggesting that democracy is wrong, I am just suggesting that it isn't perfect.
And these jokers call themselves champions of democracy !
The funny thing is that most ppl are blind of the fact that these ppl with the queen/king at the top think they are the masters and rulers of this world and that the whole world belongs to them.....they control Americas government and are the entity that ppl call the deep state or shadow government in America
This has a sense of “let’s make fun of tradition”
Tradition in this case is unnecessary and stupid
Well yeah it looks stupid, and it isn’t democratic. Its the remnants of monarchy rule
@@guyincognito7979 newsflash, every "political stance" active in the UK today is "traditional", as they're all over a century old, and even worse, based on politics most of which are over 2000 years old. Whether its democracy, republicanism, tribalism, religion, communism, anarchism, socialism. They all have their roots in tradition, one way or another.
@@YevOnegin i didn't say tradition is always stupid but this particular one is.
@@guyincognito7979 what, this tradition of minimal influence who can't even pass laws? Thinking practically, I'd assume the house of commons being full of people who act as mouthpieces for billionaires' interests would be a bigger problem as far as traditions go. But going after the aristocracy is just in vogue, isn't it
8:20 Pointing the finger at somebody else does not excuse your own behaviour.
The purpose of the House of Lords is to act as a counterbalance against the extremes and demagoguery of the Commons.
Commons is there to do the actual law making.
I.e., make everything way more conservative
@@alexkfridges radical change is never good for a country, whether its reactionary or revolutionary. The Lords ensures that any change that occurs is organic and gradual, which is better for the country
So your entire argument is... to counter a house where a common person could end up having delusions of grandeur we will stack another house full of people who are born with delusions of grandeur... or to put it another way... "to avoid someone like Boris Johnson gaining too much power we are going to stack an entire chamber full of Boris Johnsons."
Every other stable democracy on earth that does not have hereditary peerage just has a second chamber of elected office holders to counter-balance the first chamber.
Or as their counterparts in Canada referred to their Senate (the equivalent to the Lords) as "the chamber of second sober thought."
@@thagamerzzz "better for the country". That's laughable, there is absolutely no way to ensure that with a House of Lords who are appointed by the government. Most Lords are Conservative, so I think what you mean is better for the wealthy minority.
This guy is shocked he lives in constutional monarchy 😱
My word, the condescension in the baroness' tone is rich indeed.
The baroness should have just asked him to state how many people were in the car at the time and who they were since he's the one making the accusation
The personal statements caught me entirely off-guard 😂😂
As an American who just finished watching the last presidential debate, a monarchy doesn't seem like such a bad idea any more.
It's a terrible idea.
Get off your knees
It has no actual influence genius British politics is also a joke
that earl has a point, common politician has 4-5 years time in office and they'll spend half of it just to campaign to get elected next years or for partisan sake so they have more incentive to do things that align with people who might elect him whether it's good or bad rather than doing it for the benefit of the opposition, it's basically the same as feudal system of power struggle where feudal lord would waste their time to get and keeping their position instead of actually working for the masses, sometime politician who doesn't work based on partisanship or lobbyist are those who are about to retired or have nothing to lose
If you're saying that someone who isn't democratically elected will not have to constantly consider the will of the governed populace in their agenda then I cannot disagree. However, the idea that democracy is like feudalism so therefore we need more lords, a literal feature of a feudal society, has quite an Orwellian "Freedom is slavery," vibe.
You drove home the point "not elected not elected not elected." Barely touched on the concept that NOT having to run allows the ability to promote good laws that don't sell well. You could have spent a bit more time on what the House of Lords does.
which good laws? name one
@@afgor1088 Lord Henley or Earl of Mansfield who lead the fight against slavery and passed the first laws abolishing it even though it was detrimental to the British Economy.
The Married Woman's Property Act which allowed married women to keep their wages and investments and not give the husband control of them.
There are lots of good laws.
@@Gerry1of1 😂 jesus you had to go far back. We're getting rid of it whether you like it or not the next generation of voters hate it
@@afgor1088 Not far back, just the first ones I thought of. Want more good laws? Women's right to vote 1920s ... Equal Rights for races...1960s . Equal rights for gays... oh wait, we didn't pass that one yet... Some laws are bad. Some are good.
What is your point ?
@@Gerry1of1 that the house of Lords is pointless and undemocratic.
Goodbye
Always good to see our institutions probed with the insight and predictable edginess of a fifth form Modern Studies project.
It is time to inform British people what these undemocratic Lords and Ladies are contributing to the country. How unique British democracy is. without making any iconoclastic nonsense.
Is this guy training to be a clown? What is he wearing?!!?
The Lords have no real power, the Commons who are elected can ALWAYS overrule anything the Lords come up with. The Lords is a cultural relic of our past and should be kept. The constant attacks on English and British culture is never ceasing.
Yep 100% agree
Fully agree!!!! 👍👍
Costs taxpayers millions per for a useless unelected class of people. The (stupid) "culture" is useless. + Your culture sucks
The British went around destroying other people's cultures. Now you can't handle criticism of the English culture.
@@nomahope3182 Cope and seethe.
In Thailand, appointed Senators can elect the Prime Minister together with MPs(most powerful than your).
And sadly, many people who wrote this rule often referred to your Lords when they talk about "Why we need this Senate".
ถูก มันไม่มีความ สมดุลเลยถ้าเทียบกับสหราชอาณาจักร
Thailand is a glorified autocracy.
As an American I can say 2 things 1.) It's fascinating how Britain's government works and how very different it is from our House and Senate and 2.) I can also say a House and Senate doesn't solve a damn thing. It's all about parties today which btw our founding fathers despised (hint hint America).
I think it’s good to have an institution that can check new proposed legislation and that will recommend changes if for instance the execution of the legislation would require a disproportionate effort or if the legislation would help to reach the goal it aims for.
Such an institution should have the status somewhere between the civil service and the high court and it should be technical and non political.
A political second chamber should be elected. I’d suggest one based on proportional representation.
But how technical are they really? I bet the guy running a small restaurant understands more about how business works than the vast, vast majority of those in the House of Lords.
@@Anon54387 My comment is about a new second chamber, not the current House of Lords
@@Anon54387 Actually most people who run restaurants are complete clowns. Have you seen any of Gordon Ramsey's programmes?
The lord's have no power or ability to make law, it's just a revising chamber that can make suggestions. Like a teacher checking your homework.
Like ammendments which is effectively changing laws. More unelected lords than eupar. Enjoy yer brexit
@@ScottishRoss27 amendments have to be voted on, and what Brexit has to do with this I don't know
ScottishRoss which laws do you have in mind? The US is a collection of states, not a country lol. Anyone can tell you that. Laws affect states differently, that’s why California is a caliphate... do you not know what the US is?
@@Fucccunt-ff2su Aye us is a union like here. same here> I dont get what your butting in about us for
@@gavinbissell8847 one of the biggest shouting points that brexiteers would moan to get out of the EU was that there are unelected members putting forward suggestions, which we have 800 of ...
The important part, the legislative part of Britain's parliament is the Commons. The Lord's is there as a brake to extreme and badly written law sent to it from the Commons. InOz until reasonably recently the Upper Houses of our Parliaments were elected by land owners only, and exists for the same reason.
I read the thumbnail as "Why is Lord of the Rings still a thing" and was about to go all out ham
If the presenter wanted to rubbish peers he chose the wrong one to interview! I’ve had the privilege of working with John Palmer, 4th Earl of Selborne, who sadly died in 2021. John was utterly brilliant and worked tirelessly on science policy at national level, chairing the Lords Science and Technology Committee and putting in endless unpaid hours. So impressed were the top scientists at the Royal Society that they made him a Fellow (FRS) even though not a scientist - the only other person so honoured being David Attenborough. Oh and he was modest too, he didn’t say anything about his achievements in the interview (and I wonder if the interviewer knew about them?).
As stated in the video, a major problem with democracies is that it is hard to take the long view past the next election.
The lords currently work as a mitigating factor to this problem.
If it is changed to having elections then personally I think they should still have very long terms, to remove them from the need to placate short term interests.
@Hernando Malinche because these dictators are still controlled by the European elites, mostly French. You have to look at China where long term plans for the country is always paramount. Look, even with the genocide it's done because they believe in making a one culture, one race, one nation will make the country better - like Korea and Japan.
not really, that is what a senate is for. you can have senate full of elected representatives to take the long view that only gets elected every 5-8 years while the peoples house gets elected every 3-4 years..
anyways what was the long sighted view about Brexit? seems entirely short sighted and populist to me. Especially considering they hadn't even thought about what they were going to do about northern Ireland before pulling the pin..
@@IvarDaigon the house of lords can only delay action, it cannot stop it (which renders it almost useless)
@@IvarDaigon Brexit was decided in a referendum. What are you suggesting.......that the government should have ignored the result of a massive democratic process simply because it didn't like the outcome? Really? Did you think that through?
@@MikeAG333 a properly functioning first and second chamber actually work together to reduce the chances of populist politicians gaining power in the first place because they help keep politicians accountable for what they say and do.
Do you think people would have voted for brexit if they actually knew how much it would cost them?
Would anyone actually vote to become poorer? would they vote for more red tape? would they vote for supply chain issues causing food and energy shortages?
This isn't hindsight.. lots of economists said that it would be a disaster for the economy but they were drowned out by politicians who were only in it for themselves and thought they knew better..
In Australia the senate serves to keep the b's honest.
In the UK the house of lords serves only themselves.
In the US the senate serves the interests of the two major parties and, while not ideal, it still (in theory) serves the interests of the people via their elected officials.
As far I as I am aware, the UK is the only country where the number of upper house members is larger than that of the lower house. I understand that these peers, lords, or overlords have some 'expertise', but isn't it time to start thinking about the right size and save money?
Yes, but getting everyone to agree on the size and who should be removed would take so much time debating that they wouldn't be able to get around to talking about more pressing issues. eg. we've got a large Tory majority atm, and I'm sure they'd love to dismiss a bunch of labor peers to make their laws pass through easier, but once you've made that a precedent, what's to stop a future labor govt doing the same thing to dismiss a bunch of tory peers? (Note that the opposite currently happens - a new govt tries to ADD more peers predominately on their side, which is why we've got so fuckin many of them)
“Here in the UK you see someone get stabbed…. In broad daylight”
If they remove this, the monarchy has very little chance of survival
I think that’s probably the goal. The media ;) conglomerate loves the American system because they’re able to manipulate the public, who the elected politicians are (somewhat) beholden to
@@tybaltmarr2158 American politicians are only beholden to corps if the public were smarter and more informed that wouldn’t be the case.
good
@@tybaltmarr2158 the American system is controlled by rich corpos and the british by rich descendants of corpos, I don't get people who support inherited power, it's just plain stupid
@@midlos nah I'm pretty happy, I know where I am in the food chain. UKs not perfect but there isn't anywhere else I'd rather live. Don't be salty just because we set the standard for all future imperialist countries, USA included. you're welcome by the way :D
70,000 pounds for 5 years is 10 pounds a week, she has more weeks in a year than my year or there were many rooms, so needed many flowers.
Yeah it's about £270 a week at them figures. All corrupt
I think she genuinely doesn't have a sense of elementary school math just like many politicians in the country, who just talk non sence but enough for them to be there.
I'd be more concerned about the fact that you can't get a fixed rate mortgage in the UK than whether or not a baroness is part of parliament....
.... but the reason for that is because of the house of lords making policy that makes a fixed rate mortgage impossible.
@@windwaker0rules Isn't that in the purvue of the House of Commons?
Nobody has ever believed UK is a democracy. We have known about the royal family for ages.
We should have kept the hereditary House of Lords, it was the last truly independent section of parliament. Now it is full of cronies!
Hear hear.
Agree.
hear hear
Maybe when your deciding between cronies and feudal aristocracy to give power to you should maybe just choose neither of them? Britain is so backwards and brain dead sometimes.
@@cameronsteele7289 I can practically hear him tearing at his forelock with one hand while typing with the other.
I want to be in the House of Lords....
I know absolutely nothing about British politics but from what i can gather… if it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Being French, I find this so anti-democratic and dangerous for a proper representation of the common people. Having more than half of the parliament from rich families, non elected, how could this ever be fair or profitable for common English citizens ?
The purpose of the House of Lords, constitutionally, is to be a "repository of expertise." Elected politicians tend not to have a huge amount of real life experience in the fields they are legislating on, the Lords are there to be the experts, largely free from political pressure, to make sure the laws will be relevant, efficient, effective and do what they are intended. Most Lords are appointed from specific fields by a Prime Minister (elected by his/her elected parliamentary party) or a committee (appointed by the elected House of Commons). So they are one or two degrees away from electoral accountability. There is a case to be made for the Bishops, although arguably they are overrepresented and other faiths (and maybe secular organisations) should also have representation to ensure their constituencies (the people they speak on behalf of) are represented in respect of legislation that effects them. As for hereditary peers, they are mainly a compromise-hangover of earlier times, much watered down. Perhaps there is a need for representation of the land-owning class, but 92 members? At some point no doubt a reforming government (if such a thing can ever happen again here) will look at it - is there really a need for the Lords to sit in the expensive Palace of Westminster where space is already at a premium? I'm not in favour of more elections, more career politicians bringing more ignorance to our legislation, there are plenty of occasions where the Lords have fought the government from the brink of doing something stupid. The idea of a review body packed with expertise rather than just another tier of party hacks MUST be preserved, in my opinion. But absolutely there is scope for improvement.
American-Brazilian here. This is actually great. one of the issues we have in the United States is that our governance is disgustingly greedy and when you relieve a particular group of citizens from the need for greed you have a small control group that make legislation or helps impede legislation without the sway of money or power.
If you give your stuff to the thief, he can't steal it.
Brilliant plan.
It's a good thing. Here in New Zealand we only have one house, and an incompetent PM whose party keeps pushing quite serious legislation through. Which has resulted in a number of badly thought out and ideological driven laws being passed, with many of unintended consequences. If there was a second house laws like this had to get through then it would increase the chances of bad laws being caught before they emerge to do harm.
They have the god given right.
It's simply a way for the British establishment to retain their influence over the country's political structures.
Ann, the House of Lords has almost no power. And only 92 out of 800 are heritable.
Wrong, it holds significant power, just because you cannot see the influence peddling does not mean its not there.@@juanmanuelg.delamelaydeiba8683
I at least appreciate her straight forward way of answering challenging questions. Yes, no and why. I wish our politicians (I’m not british) would face scrutiny that way
They don't have to worry about being reelected every 5 minutes, so they can be truthful and honest without fear of being put out of power
@@bandav_lohengrin well elected authorities should try that. I would vote for that
I am not a British citizen (I live across the slightly less large pond ;-) ) but I know that, even though we don't have such a part of our government, the current state of politics is like a neglected house which doesn't only need new paint but a complete restructure. From what I hear and read of other countries it's much more similar there than you might think by just looking superficially.
A lot of the politics is about the latest outrage/hype/'sudden' problem and very little is about the long term future of the country and it's impact on the world as a whole. Since most chosen people in parliament are afraid to not get re-elected there is a disturbing lack of vision and willingness to make the tough calls early enough to prevent the next disaster.
So, while I agree having ruling people outside of the democratic system does have it's flaws, it can also be used as a tool for forcing the elected officials to act upon less popular topics and enforcing the elected parliament to govern with more long term goals instead of just the next cheap vote grab and 'public opinion'.
Perhaps it's not a matter of 'does the house of lords need to be chosen' but 'what is it's purpose and which tasks do they have'.
The reason why these old productions are so popular is that they show us how British - English - White - Race -.Culture and Civilization permeated England before 1900, or so. England’s political Elites felt guilty about their non - white imperialisms and as a liberal form of psychological compensation invited the former empires non - whites to emirate to England . And now the chickens have come home to roost.
And yet they try to preach about democracy 🙄
We have the same thing in the Netherlands, it is called the first chamber (eerste Kamer).
Their job is basically to check if the propositions of the second chamber (tweede kamer) do not violate existing rules and laws.
Members of the second chamber are elected by the people, members of the first chamber are not.
As an outsider, UK should retain the Lords. It has been part of their identity and Traditions for millennia. However, keep them for ceremonial purposes only.1After all, their ancestors served the British Empire one way or another.. Remove the perks, privileges and salary, no one will ever dream of becoming part of that system in the future.
As an insider, the house of Lords has nothing to do with our identity. The public hardly care about them and they're never seen. Most lords ancestors haven't served the British empire as only a small amount are hereditary however I agree they shouldn't have the perks and the salary
@@llewelyn7966 Unfortunately, the house of lords arranged for the end of slavery, so you can't force them to work for free :p
The priority is to get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system. The House of Lords needs sweeping reform though.
True.
You don't have to look past the house of commons to spot the unjust nature of the British political system
Ranking vote solves that.
Here in France we are glad to see this video in english class
De fou
We need our House of Lords and hereditary peers, precisely because they are not elected; they actually say what they think and can't be influenced. The Lords can't stop anything, only delay it and ask it should be reconsidered. No wonder Guardian readers want to get rid of it
They still have whips in the Lords so are still expected to toe the line
But they're not accountable to the public...
To be honest, the Lords is now so packed with chums of Tony Blair et al, it’s hard to comprehend why Guardian readers are so against it.
@@deanjames2476 At least half of the Lords are Independents, sitting on the crossbenches.
Very tellingly, there are no crossbenches in the House of Commons, and hardly ever any Independents.
@@skindred1888 Precisely. So people in the House of Lords actually say what they think, because they can't be intimidated bought or influenced by media. That's why Channel4 doesn't like them, and exactly why we need them.
Apart from letting the Bishops take up some MP seats, there are actually some positive aspects to having non elected members. They don’t need to worry about being re-elected and can do things that a regular politician can’t do. In the US, you’d often see a senator or congressman not seeking a re-election doing the right thing when their peers from the same party are opposed to do the same thing.
Keep things the way they are. Don't try to fix what is not broken. The system has been there for centuries and it works.
It IS broken.
I really don't like it when people bring in the 'cost factor', the 'taxpayer money' stuff into the conversation; it is a small price to pay for A COUNTRY to operate smoothly.
Despite the fact your video obviously is trying to encourage people to want to get rid of the house of lord, it's actually tilted me towards thinking they should stay. Having government officials that are not beholden to party politics and only worrying about what to do to get elected probably isn't really a bad thing
Who pays them????? 6000 acres for fucking what? Just to have it? (America) I thought we needed work but this is crazy!!!
@@Justice4some the 6000 acres looked like a functioning farm, which would be where his income would be coming from, alongside whatever income he was getting from attending the sessions of the House of Lords.
@@Justice4some Removing the House of Lords will not remove the land he gained by hereditary means. I think you meant to say you want to remove the entire nobility system as a whole, not just their participation in the Parliament.
@@Seawulfnorsemen thank you rigo!!
@@Seawulfnorsemen “nobility system” you mean being able to pass stuff on to your children? 😂 props to whoever this guys ancestors were, they set up generations of their descendants for a better life
Being an African Living in Africa, its an understatement how Europeans who have nearly balanced political and leadership structures underappreciate how good it is not to be an absolute democracy. Most European 'Modernists' and 'Progressivists' are unaware of how well their political systems are balanced and how stable they are. I wish we had such in Africa.
@ADah Bafa Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Norway are all kingdoms
@ADah Bafa there are 35 other countries that have very similar, British styled parliamentary systems. As someone above has already pointed out, a number of these countries also incorporate a monarchy into their government
@ADah Bafa Canada also has a bicameral legislature, complete with an unelected senate.
Africa's biggest source of problems is not the specific structure of its governments but
1) the fact that the average IQ of black Africans is catastrophically low with a large portion of that being unfixably genetic and
2) the fact that African states are nearly all artificial entities, post-colonies whose arbitrary, European-drawn borders completely ignore local demographics, looping together people who'd rather live apart and slicing through people who'd rather live together. The inevitable consequences are endless ethnic tensions undermining democracy and often leading to civil and international war. Europe had this problem too until devastating wars and ethnic population transfers resulted in mostly homogeneous nation-states.
When I hear those letters, I can’t help but laugh and actually be fine with it. It feels like maybe in this case, it’s hate the Game, not the Player.
In fact, it is more democracy in Russia than in UK!
With one party in power, one autocrat ruling unopposed, and hundreds of thousands of Russian men and boys being sent to die?
Yeah dont think so Ivan.
The Baroness defended her position well.
Not really, she is out of touch completely. I'd like to see her say the same thing to a struggling family with a straight face, she would get slapped.
@@Ryan-ce1oc can't make a good counter argument -> straight up to violence
nice
@@donnguyen3795 Some people deserve violence because they are pieces of s***.
@@Ryan-ce1oc Like you for instance
Considering the Baroness is from an incredibly wealthy monied class, often owning vast plots of land, manors, and considerable inheritences, I wouldnt say her claiming she has the right to spend boatloads of taxpayers money on frivolous things like flowers and private transport to entertainment holds water.
@@donnguyen3795
The House of Lord's is not designed to be a representative house like the House of Commons so it needs no more to be elected than the Cheif Constable of Police Scotland or the judicary. The purpose of the House of Lord's is to scrutinise the legislation passed by the House of Commons therefore it makes sense that people with expertise in all fields of life such as scientists like Lord Winston or the Bishops, elder statesmen like Harold Macmillan, entrepreneurs like Lord Digby Jones etc. are able to be brought in to that role of scrutinizing legislation.
How do they have power to effectively overrule scottish mps ? snp has a policy of not sitting in the unelected lords the gutter.
Powers reserved to wastemonster too.
@@ScottishRoss27 Ever since Lloyd George the Lord's have been very limited in their power, for example they can't veto legislation, they won't oppose anything which was in a manifesto and I think there is limited amount of times they can send legislation back to the House of Commons. The reality is Scottish MP's have more power than Scottish Lord's. As for the SNP I am not surprised they don't sit in the House of Lord's they are too naive and simple to understand the importance of the upper chamber. Power is much better reserved to Westminster than devolved to the pretendy parliament in Edinburgh which has the intellectual level of a primary school.
@@johnbull9195 Jawdropper. John talking-Bull defending this unelected uk burocracy yet slanders Scotlands elected parlie 😂 Couldnt make it up could you! We dont have an 'upper house' everyone in scotland is thee upper house! ,800 unelected burocrats (more than eu par) enjoy your brexit
Well, Chief constable, or anything like that is a full time job. You are payed a salary because a panel of relevant authorities assessed, approved and hired you on your relevant merits. You didn't just get your dads job when he died and everyone just accepted you probably know how to do the job. That would be a horrific way to function. Not really helping your stance to compare that to the house of lords.
Just found out. House of lords is actually higher in power than house of commons.
Nobody in the world is interested in British politics.
I am
I think the lords should be made up of industry leaders - doctors, scientists, business people, farmers, etc - who aren't affiliated to a particular political party. They should have to meet certain criteria like being in their industry for a certain number of years and also be voted in by an independent committee.
I think having a term longer than the commons is a good idea, but having a guaranteed position for life could lead to laziness. So, a longer fixed term of say 15 years where they have to reapply at the end of it proving why they are still relevant in their field (additional training, research, etc) could be a good move.
Honestly in someways having a body of people that can have a very long view of a country can be a good thing. Long term issues generally arent well faced by politicians who have to face an election every few years. These Longer term issues and projects are much better faced by people that will have to deal with their consequences 30-50 years later.
Or a bad thing, considering they answer to nobody, and are there for life, they can make bad decisions as well, and the fact there is no way for them to be held accountable for that is a serious flaw.
The uk is a constitutionel monarchy.
As are some European nations with higher Houses of Parliament that are not mostly hereditary as the UK is.
@@darwincity then you should feel special.
@@markkuiper7380 ?
I'm not a huge fan of the House of Lords on paper, but these questions ...
1. How dare you charge people 230 pounds for 5 people
2. How dare you take a chauffer driven car with a foreign dignitary
And she explains the arguments for keeping the house and the interview just cuts all that out. This really isn't fair and unbiased journalism IMO.