Hereditary peerage in the House of Lords is about to be DEAD to me

It's a cosplay cult dear.

If they don’t sit in Parliament, what’s their point?

Hey … wait a minute . . .

I mean its probably time they went. But they're not even the main issue with the Lords these days which is that by membership its by far the largest upper house in any legislature and joining it is mostly used by party leaders as a bribe since there's way too many donors and unremarkable ex politicians hanging around there.

It's a ridiculously outdated undemocratic system. None of the House of Lords members are elected by the public or can be removed through election.

You have 88 remaining hereditary peers - which again, stupid as FUCK that somebody gets a say in the governing laws because their 14th great-grandfather did something nice for a King centuries ago.

Then the remaining are appointed by political parties - again, not elected by the people.

Surprisingly, when I've looked at Brits thoughts on this - I was shocked that many of them are fine with this system and 'we certainly don't want the same voting in as the House of Commons". Blink-blink - WHY????

Every other country votes in their representatives. This system does not make UK a true democracy as the HoL is like the Senate and can down vote legislation by House of Commons.

Unbelievable. Yet a lot of Americans have this fascination with British royalty and aristocracy - but they have no idea what it's like to live under that system. The untold power and head bowing to these families who were born into it and given countless privileges and look down on others.

It's so fucking classist and you feel it in the UK. Why it's still allowed is another scam by the elite and moneyed to convince the lower classes that they're needed and it's good to have this system.

I say repeal all titles and tax them into oblivion. Make them make their own way in the world like everyone else. No starting on the 90 meter line in a 100 meter sprint.

[quote]Surprisingly, when I've looked at Brits thoughts on this - I was shocked that many of them are fine with this system and 'we certainly don't want the same voting in as the House of Commons". Blink-blink - WHY????

The main argument in favour of the HoL I've seen from the Brits is that they occasionally block "bad" legislation. Even though that isn't true because they can only delay it for a couple of years.

I'll never forget the way Andrew Lloyd Webber once rushed on his private jet from New York to the House of Lords in order to vote against some social benefits for the poor proposed by the Commons. Completely nuts.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is exactly the sort of person who would occupy the House of Lords if they kicked out the remaining hereditary peers. This is about symbolism, and that is important, but don’t pretend it will have any practical meaning.

I don’t see why you have to “tax them into oblivion,” particularly if you have abolished their hereditary titles. You’re exhibiting the classism you decry.

R5 - 'bad' legislation for whom though? And fully elected officials could have the same power.

Imagine if the US Senate was filled with wealthy Vanderbilts or Rockefellers who couldn't be voted out of office and could vote down any legislation from the House?

And the other members of the US Senate were filled with political appointees (like the Supreme Court) who also could not be voted out?

It's insane to think about. And it's not like the UK has had a brilliant economic history the past 60 years - let alone the disastrous last 10 years.

R6 - well, considering the aristocracy has been given a free ride for several hundred years (in most cases) - the taxation thing was just to level the playing field. Funny how whenever something is brought up to go against the extreme wealthy, THEN it's time to talk about classism and that it's not fair.

They've been providing privilege and status for literally nothing for way too long. Yes, I know many of their estates were taxed heavily after WW2 and many lost their manors or had to sell them. But it's hard to feel sorry for that when you compare against the average citizen.

Unfortunately, I'd say we're building a similar class structure in the US although replace 'billionaire' with aristocratic titles. But that's another discussion.

Still, the US has less of an in-your-face class system than the Brits, where it seems to permeate their everyday lives and conversations.

r7 If you want examples they watered down the Rwanda bill and stopped the more hardcore Brexit the Tory supermajority was pushing for. You only really have to look at the sheer number of bill defeats in the lords over the last 5 years to show they were a better break on government stupidity than the Labour party was.

I'm wearing ladies' undergarments!

[quote]a bill to strip hereditary aristocrats of the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords after more than 700 years

Shit, some of those fucker are old.

R9 - and yet a democratically-elected House of Lords could do the same.

I don't get why an unelected House is preferable just because it defeated some crazy lower chamber laws. Other countries, including the US, do this all the time.

It's a system of checks and balances - like so many democracies have. It's not special or unique to an unelected/hereditary/appointed class of people.

[quote] R6] - well, considering the aristocracy has been given a free ride for several hundred years (in most cases) - the taxation thing was just to level the playing field.

Do you have any evidence backing this historic “free ride” because it sounds like bullshit to me. The foundation of the feudal system was not the monarch elevating people so they have a free ride. There were responsibilities and burdens that came with nobility.

If you want to eliminate the aristocracy going forward, as an American that seems very sensible. But there is no need to punish the aristos for the real or imagined abuses of their ancestors.

[quote] Among those nominated recently by Holac are Kathy Willis, a professor of biodiversity; the forensic anthropologist Susan Black; David Anderson, a barrister and former reviewer of terrorism laws, and Julia King, a leading engineer.

r12 The Lords does have a lot more independent members who aren't affiliated to major parties than the Commons something like just under a third of its membership are crossbenchers (no party affiliation). I don't think you'd stand a chance of matching that if it becomes elected. It does also allow for some people to get into the legislature with experience in various fields that wouldn't stand a chance getting voted in.

R13 - are you saying that given large land holdings, enjoying the benefit of the people living on the lands and renting their homes and livelihoods from you, isn't a privileged system?

Then let's just talk about the built-in societal class preferences - for marriage, university, business positions, etc.

Let me throw it back at you - how is it NOT a privileged system? I'm grasping at how the heck you think it's an equitable system?

No. Of course it is privilege. But that doesn’t mean the current generation should be “taxed into oblivion.” They should pay the same taxes as everyone else, as they have done for many generations.

R14 -I think you're reaching. The question is what influence those members have. It could just be a smoke-screen - oh look, we do have some actual experts in the field here. And you have a lot of dumb people and people who have no business legislating.

You have people like Andrew Lloyd Weber and this fine legislator, Michelle Mone, appointed in.

"She has set up several businesses, including MJM International Ltd in 1996 and the lingerie company Ultimo along with her then husband Michael Mone. Other ventures include naturopathic 'weight-loss' pills, and a fake tan product via Ultimo Beauty. Mone became a Conservative life peer in 2015."

And the list goes on and on because you have 800+ members in HoL. Boris Johnson's brother -cuz, why not? The son of a former Russian KGB agent turned oligarch.

It's total bullshit.

R16 - you just asked for receipts on the privilege? Because in your previous post you were bowing and scraping at all the duties and responsibilities the aristocracy had - as if nobody else had requirements of them in a society either.

Now you're saying of course it's privilege?

Sounds like you've watched too much Downton Abbey, which has been extremely white-washed in terms of how the downstairs were actually treated.

The taxation comment I made was a throw-away comment because even if you remove the titles, the privileges and inherited wealth given to them mainly due to their titles alone would not go away and would perpetuate the system.

r17 Yes but that's an argument for trimming down the membership and making nomination less dependent on the party politics of the lower house neither of which I disagree with.

R19 - why do you insist of having a branch of government with people appointed for life terms who can dictate the laws of the land?

They cannot be removed by the people with an election. I don't understand how you're so in favor of this.

We have a small group of lifetime appointed people in the Supreme Court - but they aren't passing/blocking laws or legislation. Arguably, we are taking a hard 2nd look at this because of the shitshow it has become.

It's embarrassing some of the figures who've been appointed to House of Lords. A bicameral system should have both houses with elected officials - not to include an appointment of some Prime Minister's brother or a fake supplement/lingerie/fake tan queen from Scotland - who also has had other financial scandals.

And the cross bench list of Lords is just not large enough in a voting politic to have much sway. The House of Lords is a holdover to this day of an aristocratic system that was slightly modified in 1999 so it wasn't so in-your-face corrupt and unequal. But it's still very much unequal and outdated.

Let me also add - 26 Bishops - literally Church of England head priests - are also part of House of Lords. I know that's written into the laws centuries ago - but that's archaic and stupid as well.

I don't know of (although I haven't looked it up) other Western democracies that give automatic voting rights to religious leaders.

r20 Because I think there's reasonable benefits to an appointed upper house with staying power on bills. Do I think it needs reform? Yes but I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It should be reformed to have fewer politicians in it not abolished to be absolutely full of them.

[quote]It's embarrassing some of the figures who've been appointed to House of Lords. A bicameral system should have both houses with elected officials - not to include an appointment of some Prime Minister's brother or a fake supplement/lingerie/fake tan queen from Scotland - who also has had other financial scandals.

Jo Johnson was a reasonable appointment - he was an MP for 9 years and worked a lot on policy. And before her scandals Michele Mone was a reasonable appointment - there were very few women, very few business people and very few working class people. Yes she turned out to be a total wrong'un but there have been plenty of people from other parties doing that too. Remember that Labour under Corbyn tried to put bully John Bercow in the Lords, a man since given a lifetime ban from Parliament. And Baroness Shami Chakrabarti who was given a peerage and shadow cabinet role a couple of months after her independent whitewash report into Labour's Jew problem.

The idea of an elected upper chamber based on proportional representation is a dreadful idea. The prospect of The Farage Party standing on a populist manifesto elected on a low turnout is horrific. And even with the normal parties the lists of candidates will be filled with party loyalists and not independent thinkers who will not scrutinise the laws effectively. And Lindsey Hoyle has said more articulately than I can, the House of Commons is the supreme legislative chamber, members of the House of Lords should not be able to disrupt it.

There needs to be fixed term appointments open to renewal depending on attendance and participation, and easier rules to strip people for misconduct - hi Baroness "Coconut" Warsi!

And there should be public nominations for crossbenchers - people who have achieved things in their lives and campaigned on issues.

[quote]I don't know of (although I haven't looked it up) other Western democracies that give automatic voting rights to religious leaders.

This statement shows the depth of R21’s understanding. Darling, the CoE is given seats in the Lords unlike other Western democracies because GB is the only country to have a state church. It’s not the Anglican Church, it’s not the Episcopal church’s it’s the Church of England.

The CoE does not exist without the state and the Monarch that heads it. While it may seem a poor choice to have representatives of the largest landholder and charity provider in the country other than the government itself in the superior body of the legislature but it doesn’t to me and many others.

What benefits are there to an appointed house of government that an elected body wouldn't also have?

And nobody is saying to do away with the bicameral system - just chuck out how people are put into that system in the first place. Like a democracy?

R24- no need to call me 'darling' and be condescending. We know about the Church of England, stupid. What business they have on voting on legislation in 2024 is the whole point of discussion. The point is that no other modern democracy has this - yet you support because...it's how they've always done it?

Nevermind that clergymen have no training in laws or government or really hold the positions of most of the UK public, who are overwhemingly not attendees of CoE surfaces nevermind being of another denomination or another religion, DARLING.

[quote] And before her scandals Michele Mone was a reasonable appointment - there were very few women, very few business people and very few working class people. Yes she turned out to be a total wrong'un but there have been plenty of people from other parties doing that too.

Yeah, I'm sure there are bad people in the House of Lords, but honestly, do the people posting have any awareness of the numbers of assholes, lunatics, and complete morons in the U.S. Congress? I hope nobody is under the idiotic impression that having elections leads to competency and wisdom in legislatures. That has absolutely not been the experience in the good ole U.S. of A.

[quote]What benefits are there to an appointed house of government that an elected body wouldn't also have?

Security in criticising your own party and freedom from repercussions that ensure disloyalty is punished.

Boris Johnson withdrew the whip from the MPs who voted against him on Brexit and they couldn't stand again as MPs.

Nicola Sturgeon drove through party rule changes to stop her critics of standing again

Keir Starmer withdrew the whip from Labour MPs who voted against the King's Speech.

The House of Lords has never been the same since the death of the beloved Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, the 14th Earl of Gurney.

I liked the movie too, but it’s just plain crazy that you have to like a movie to be a lawmaker!!!

Given the fact that Once Great Britain is a mass tourism theme park why shouldn't they have a Disneyland government?

R28 - but do they actually criticize and go against their party in reality with regularity or are there just a few rare cases?

The problem with lifetime appointments is that people think that the appointed will be morally above the fray of usual politics and act independently. I think we've seen a complete erosion of that, if it were ever really true to begin with.

I believe lifetime appointments actually corrupt a system, particularly in a democracy.

The very concept is ridiculous - we are going to give you power in our government for life without the ability to be removed. Why?

The US has its own issues - we get a lot of democratically-elected idiots. And the lifetime appointments of the federal judiciary has been a disaster and completely turned into corrupt politics.

But I can't imagine how bad it would be if we had lifetime Senators based on who your family is, your position in a Church, your donations to a political party (there are several HoL where that really only seems to be their reason), and doling out lifetime peerage and membership as favors for who knows what.

It's almost designed for corruption.

Then there's this - magically those who give over 3 million pounds to the conservative party get peerage and seats in House of Lords - even those that are not recommended by the committee and the PM overrules it.

Can you imagine if we had Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, the Koch family, and others given life time appointments to the Senate?

"Farmer said it had become “a tradition” for Conservative prime ministers to hand out a peerage to the holder of the party’s top fundraising role."

I prefer an appointed rather than an elected second chamber for the purpose of examining and revising legislation, comprised of people with professionalism and life experience. Another elected chamber isn't necessary and will likely lead to conflict with the Commons. It would be best to abolish it than create another party political arena.

For those comparing with the US. Congress in the US (population 345 million) has 535 members - 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. The UK (population 67 million) has 650 MPs in the House of Commons. We really don't need yet another elected chamber. If the Lords were to be elected then the issue would arise of do we really need 1000 elected representatives. To which the answer would be no. In which case the question would arise of reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons, which would require completely revolutionising our political and electoral system. Which would end up as a complete nightmare process, that would create a far bigger mess than the nonexistent problem that was supposed to be being fixed.

R33, the House of Lords is not the equivalent of the US Senate in any way, shape or form.

R36 - it's the upper house of bi-cameral government. The same 2 house system used in governments around the world.

Sure some of the powers are different, but tell me - instead of a blank statement of how they aren't even remotely alike - how are they not alike at all?

R35 - who is calling for another elected chamber? Just fix the House of Lords. Call it something else and have the members be democratically elected.

What's so hard about that?

R34 "I prefer an appointed rather than an elected second chamber for the purpose of examining and revising legislation, comprised of people with professionalism and life experience. "

First off - democratically elected people also have professional lives and experience. And we see that many people get a lifetime appointments as gifts for donations and political support in other areas, not because they are some experts. You're not selecting a team of academics and economists, although you have a handful in HoL.

It sounds like you hold the HoL to a standard that doesn't really exist because you're terrified of people voting in members like they do in House of Commons. Many other nations have an elected 2 house system and it runs well - although never perfect.

What do you have against democracy?

"I say repeal all titles and tax them into oblivion. Make them make their own way in the world like everyone else."

Same way here in the good ole USA. Make assholes like Uday and Qusay Trump earn a fucking living, rather than being nepo babies. See what hereditary wealth did to their father?

Judging from some of these posts, Brits are the same servile lickspittles in 2024 as they were in 1324. It's in their non-blue blood.

Death In The House Of Lords.

Sounds so Agatha Christie.

R27 Proud we Americans can vote out Trump and impeach Santos. What are you 21st century Brits "proud" of? Stuck with for life accident of birth dolts in silly hats?

[quote]Judging from some of these posts, Brits are the same servile lickspittles in 2024 as they were in 1324. It's in their non-blue blood.

As a British person I feel ashamed that the United States has one of the worst functioning democracies and part of that is down to our former influence.

My requirements for an upper chamber are:

1. No hereditary peers

2. Make every existing peer apply to keep their peerage, remove them for inactivity and/or poor behaviour

3. Fixed term contacts that can be extended based on contributions and behaviour

4. Nominations can be made outside of the party system for independent members

Good move

r43 Don't waste your time its the Meghan troll. Meth has taken her mind so she spends her entire life posting links to her extensive archive of pictures of the royals and complaining about Britain.

It's quite telling that people who think the House of Lords is undemocratic appear wholly unaware that it has little impact on which laws are passed and cannot decide on their content. In comparison, the US Supreme Court has huge power over legislature and rights in the US yet you rarely hear Americans argue for its reform - they only complain about individual justices but never argue that the system whereby those justices are appointed be changed or that their powers be curtailed.

[quote]you rarely hear Americans argue for its reform - they only complain about individual justices but never argue that the system whereby those justices are appointed be changed or that their powers be curtailed

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Who is arguing for serious reform of the Supreme Court in the US, r47?

For one.

Halloween come early for ya R45?

R46 brit shite for brains

R49, term limits is about the only thing that's even a low-level reform on that list. Biden has been president for a whole term and only issued that statement (which he has done nothing about since) just a few months before the election, and basically because events forced him to take a position of some kind. There's nothing in those non-proposals that curtails the range of areas the Court can decide on (it basically legislates). Why on earth is the Supreme Court deciding on things like federal abortion law?

There's also nothing about de-politicising the process. Appointments to the Supreme Court should not be political and should not be made by the president. The whole of the judicial system in the US is politicised in that respect. This is the most fundamental reform that needs to be made.

The other proposals about ethics and a code of conduct are almost embarassing and scraping the barrel for the lowest common denominator. Biden is basically admitting that there currently is constitutional immunity for presidents. There isn't already a code of conduct? Even so, not taking gifts isn't going to curtail the power of the Supreme Court.

Brits do not celebrate Halloween. The closest they come is Guy Fawkes Day which celebrates the hanging ,drawing and quarting of the last Englishman who tried to change their ridiculous medieval form of government. That was in 1604. Tells you all ya need to know about this groveling lot.

R52 thick as a brick dolt

Google: HEREDITARY PEERAGE

bet you won't find the words : SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Plus R46 - we're talking about 2 different things - one is legislature and the other is judicial. And there absolutely is a lot of talk and support for revamping the Supreme Court.

The idea of having an elected HoL has been pushed forth several times in in the UK - it's not a new idea at all. You removed the judicial powers from HoL just a couple of decades ago and there has been several changes to HoL in the past 80 years.

It seems like a holdover that the UK is trying to twist and shape in order to keep it when the idea of House of Lords may just be antiquated and past its time.

For the US - we have some similar stupid things - like the electoral college which is a holdover from slavery times, the stupid state by state process of determining presidential candidates - again, a holdover from rural agricultural times when candidates couldn't get around our big country quickly.

And we would also like to see term limits and term changes. It's ridiculous that our House of Reps have 2 year terms and such a long election cycle - they literally have 9 months before they have to start in campaigning again.

R53 is really quite demented if he thinks the form of government the UK has today is the same as that in the 17th century.

The great irony in all this, of course, is that the US, with its presidency, replicates the system of a powerful monarch that rules far more than the UK does, with its parliamentary system. Even more ironic is that the US retains the death penalty, not the UK.

Thick dolt at r54, since you are so enamoured of Google as a source of information, Google hereditary peers and see what powers they actually have. You'll find it's pretty much zero - unlike the Supreme Court of the United States.

Good Let's get rid of the "wealthy landowning nobles" should run government BS.

And get rid of the monarchy too.

Wealthy landowning nobles don't run the government in the UK, r58.

As for the monarchy, there is very little desire to get rid of it. It's a stable, non-political institution that provides an independent apolitical head of state in a manner that prevents conflict and strife.

R57 Why are you talking two DIFFERENT things frau for brains? Lets compare Dr Jill Biden to Queen Camilla .They're both spouses of heads of state. Only your Queen gave better head. How she got her job.Thick royalass are hilarious.

[quote] Wealthy landowning nobles don't run the government in the UK

Depends on how you define "run"

The very fact that they have their own branch of government and can amplify what they want is enough. GET RID OF IT.

R61 - and they can delay bills for a year and modify them.

To be fair - their powers have been taken away bit by bit over the past 80 years to the point you have to ask yourself why have a separate house?

Again, the bi-cameral parliament structure has been used in democracies all over the world so it's not that it can't work. It's just having one branch with lifetime appointments who aren't voted in and can't be removed is archaic.

When you Brits try to explain the American system of govenment its a hoot because the word HERDITARY is nowhere in our founding documents. Leaves you class systen lickspittles totally baffled. Comedy Gold like your accident of birth rulers😂

That is true r63. We generally settle for the rule of money and the rich, and worshiping money and the rich. Not sure we're all that much better off for it, really.

When Brits try to explain away their archaic monarchy as all the folderol cosplay they can't live without:

Well you see it's tradition. The Royals have no real power. The King dosen't really rule us. The House of Lords has no real power or purpose. We just love grown men playing dress up. You see Drag was invented by Shakespeare what.

Well yes r65, because people don't really want to be honest about this. The truth is every democracy needs some anti-democratic institutions to deal with things when the people are being fucking assholes out of their fucking minds or just being hopelessly moronic about some issue. Every democracy knows that will happen sometimes and it's useful to have some other, undemocratic institution to step in and say, stop your fucking nonsense you morons. In the case of the U.S., the Supreme Court has played that role, but of course it's a dangerous role to give anybody, and there are times especially lately when they are the crazy assholes.

President Harris will appoint me to the Supreme Court.

R66 - I see your point, but I disagree. There are checks and balances among the House, Senate and the Presidency - there doesn't appear to be as much with the UK system NOW with HoL and the PM.

That doesn't mean you need anti-democratic powers - those are subject to abuse and corruption the same, if not more, than democratically elected officials.

,The conservatives in both US and UK have abused the gentleman's agreement about these appointed powers. It can no longer be trusted - no government should have appointed lifetime positions for ANYTHING.

And the Supreme Court is an appeal court - it doesn't create legislation, but its decisions can strike down laws. But it's a long process typically and those issues have to have to gone through several lower courts before they agree (and they can not agree to review a case) to review.

The other problem - against because of politically appointed Federal judicial appointments - is that conservatives are shopping their cases to the districts where these biased Republican appointees will rule on these decisions and will push them up to the Supreme Court.

Objectivity has been killed in our judiciary due to Republicans. Get rid of lifetime appointments - they have no place in a democracy.

The subject of this thread is: Hereditary peerage in the House of Lords

R68 Yet you continue to post and reply to yourself on : The United States Supreme Court

Which means R68 1. You're a utter moron or 2. You're deliberately trying to derail the thread which makes you daft moron Russie.

[quote]Brits do not celebrate Halloween. The closest they come is Guy Fawkes Day which celebrates the hanging ,drawing and quarting of the last Englishman who tried to change their ridiculous medieval form of government. That was in 1604. Tells you all ya need to know about this groveling lot.

LOL at this imbecilic cretin not knowing a fuck about modern Britain.

Halloween is a huge thing in Britain now, sadly. You'll often see (common people's) houses decorated from the start of October. Shops put on Halloween displays in their windows, pumpkins are on sale in supermarkets etc.

I've never heard ANYONE in Britain call it "Guy Fawkes Day" but Bonfire Night (November 5th) used to be a big thing when I was growing up but is now largely forgotten. Often you'd have a local big bonfire and firework display the local community would attend but these are increasingly rare and now it's just (common) people letting off fireworks in their garden or in the street at any point be it in the run up to November 5th or after.